On 11 Mar 2014 at 9:44am Boris wrote:
What do you think of the No Popery banner that hangs across Clifffe High St on November 5th?
On 11 Mar 2014 at 10:41am Winterbourne Wanderer wrote:
Blast, I clicked on this thinking Boris had asked SQ to marry him, but it's some dull thing about the banner.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 10:54am gooseberry wrote:
Also disappointed. What with Spring in the air and everything. If Boris wants to have a private chat with SQ then this isn't the place for it. If he/she is interested in all our views, then I think the "No Popery" sign should go into a Museum, because it is unhelpful in 2014 and I think religion should be put in there too.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 11:14am Deelite 2 wrote:
It's great fun.... why does it matter?
On 11 Mar 2014 at 1:29pm 8 miles from home wrote:
Replace it with a "No DFL" banner.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 1:37pm Old Cynic wrote:
Well 8 miles - if all the DFLs went home Lewes would be empty or perhaps DF anywhere else are okay? How about 'No more miserable Lewesians' banner
On 11 Mar 2014 at 1:42pm Kettle wrote:
Why are you asking sq in particular?
She's not a real queen you know.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 2:53pm Ed Can Do wrote:
The No Popery banner is a fantastic, annual opportunity for people unable or unwilling to understand the concept of a historical figure vs a role ("A" pope vs "the" pope) to make themselves look really stupid banging on about anti-catholic sentiment in Lewes and leaping to the defence of all the poor, oppressed catholics in Lewes, many of whom are actually members of bonfire societies and find the whole thing completely laughable.
It's akin to turning up at a performance of Richard III and wanting it banned for being anti-monarchy. Or complaining to the BBC about the favourable coverage of Henry VIII in their series about him, given how unpleasant he was to quite a few catholics.
I suspect the No Popery banner only goes up at all any more because of the misguided angst it generates amongst certain commentators, it really is an excellent bit of trolling in that respect.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 3:51pm Southover Queen wrote:
Kettle! How very dare you!!!!
Boris: what Ed said. And this: my problem is people who in the here and now think it's okay to discriminate against someone because of their membership of some random group. That's bigotry. Your question has no relevance whatsoever to the earlier debate, and actually suggests that you don't really have much grasp of the issue either.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 4:14pm post wrote:
somewhere there is a town village of street where DFL means down from Lewes.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 4:34pm Anon wrote:
Ed, some years ago there was a man I had the misfortune of knowing that was in one of the bonfire societies and he was very anti-Catholic- he was in the society for all the wrong reasons. I am pleased to say that this man no longer lives in Lewes - he was very disturbing.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 4:39pm Ed Can Do wrote:
Sadly Anon, there will always be one or two people in any large group who are there for the wrong reasons but people like that in Bonfire are a tiny, tiny minority. I have honestly never met anyone with anti-catholic feeling in my years of Bonfire.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 5:53pm True to each other wrote:
A most unsatisfactory answer to Boris 's question SQ, " I agree with Ed". I would also have to say that the question is entirely relevant to the previous debate, your in ability to see that brings your grasp of the debate into question.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 6:09pm Southover Queen wrote:
Well then, I'm clearly being spectacularly thick. Please do fill me in on what I am missing - I thought Boris was trying to illustrate hypocrisy because I don't believe the No Popery sign in the Cliffe is evidence of bigotry. I did, of course, address the bigotry point specifically. If that wasn't the point of the question, then please enlighten me and I'll reply at extensive and hideously boring length.
(It's not often I'm accused of brevity; I guess there's always a first time.)
On 11 Mar 2014 at 7:15pm Peasant wrote:
You have to travel only three miles to discover where DFL means Down from Lewes.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 7:33pm Pope Frank I wrote:
The banner? I like it. Leave it up all the time. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Peace be unto you.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 7:39pm Boris wrote:
Many thanks for your answer.
I'm a bonfire boy and that banner symbolises a lot more than the dislike of Pope Paul V. That banner symbolises the freedom of the bonfire boys to celebrate the discovery of the plot in what ever way they feel. For one night, political correctness, health and safety are pushed to one side in order for our old friend free speech to reign. People come in their droves because they love the fact that we get away with doing all this under the nose of the state that you so love.
When else and where else would you get away with banners like this,burning crosses, popes being carried through the town to cheers of BURN HIM by the watching thousands.
Judging by your comments in the previous thread, if you lived in any other part of the country you would be outraged by what goes on in Lewes on November 5th. But ,with the help of your friend Ed you gloss over it because like all champagne socialists you adopt the Polly Toynbee approach of do as I say not as I do.
Let me pose you another question.
What did you think of the fact that 12 hard working, highly respected members of Firle Bonfire Society were arrested and charged for inciting religious and racial hatred?
On 11 Mar 2014 at 7:50pm ZULU DAWN wrote:
Great post Boris.
More and more of these DFL types are coming into bonfire these days, most of them to Southover.
The important thing is that we don't let them get into a position where they can pull strings.
Death Or Glory!
On 11 Mar 2014 at 8:24pm No Pot Pourri wrote:
Anyone care to comment on the regular annual appearance in Lewes on the 5th (from Glasgow) of a small group of Rangers fans?
On 11 Mar 2014 at 8:41pm cliffite wrote:
All ways good to see them, they are a right laugh.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 10:22pm DFLer wrote:
ZULU DAWN wrote: More and more of these DFL types are coming into bonfire these days, most of them to Southover. The important thing is that we don't let them get into a position where they can pull strings.
How many people in your society have three thumbs? Quite a few by the sound of it.
On 11 Mar 2014 at 10:37pm Safe T officer wrote:
I take exception to Boris saying lack of elf and safe key , the 5 th is not without its hazards but they are well managed ,
On 12 Mar 2014 at 8:17am Mrs Malling wrote:
you are all children
On 12 Mar 2014 at 8:41am Ed Can Do wrote:
I thought the Firle committee getting arrested (But not charged) with inciting racial hatred was a perfect example of people (A person) wanting to feel bad on behalf of other people who didn't care in the slightest. It was more about a lawyer trying to make a name for herself having moved to the area from London some six months earlier than it was about racism.
That a judge stated there was no case to answer says it all really.
On 12 Mar 2014 at 8:43am Intrigued. wrote:
Boris. You seem to think that free speech has no limits, and that limits are just political correctness gone mad . So do you think paedophiles should be allowed to campaign to lower the age of consent?
On 12 Mar 2014 at 7:53pm Boris wrote:
Ed, sorry I don't understand what you mean by your post.
I can correct you though on the fact that the person you refer to was a social worker not lawyer and she had lived in the village for 3 years not 6 months.
Intrigued, I think you will find that paedophiles could campaign to lower the age of consent if they wanted to. For obvious reasons they never would but if they wanted to they could.
Still waiting on SQ to answer the question on the Firle 12.
On 12 Mar 2014 at 8:13pm Intrigued wrote:
Boris, what obvious reasons?
On 12 Mar 2014 at 8:20pm Boris wrote:
In order to be part of such a campaign would mean them going public, whilst that would be in our interest it obviously wouldn't be in their's.
How are you relating paedophilia to free speech?
On 13 Mar 2014 at 11:05am Southover Queen wrote:
The PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) was indeed campaigning to lower the age of consent, as it happens. I agree it couldn't happen now though.
Firle: I understand why they did it but I think the way it was done was ill-advised because it was bound to attract very negative publicity. Sometimes you have to find ways of expressing disapproval or disgust without opening yourselves (and a whole tradition) up to censure, in particular by a media with scant understanding of the reasons underlying it. No-one was charged either, which suggests rather strongly that the checks and balances of tradition and law worked effectively.
I still don't see how this ties in with the debate on libertarianism, unless it's to demonstrate how the idea of "common values" is hard to maintain even in very small communities. We need laws, particularly in a country where we do not have a constitution as the universal benchmark.
I can't help noticing that while Boris is happy to demand answers to his questions he's rarely inclined to attempt an answer himself. So let's have another go: should a state impose legal limitations on hate speech and discrimination?
On 13 Mar 2014 at 12:05pm Intrigued wrote:
Boris. I asked the question, not because I personally want anyone to be advocating lowering the age of consent, but you seem to want free speech for some without fear of legal or physical threat (i.e., yourself) but not others. So how are you going to ensure that pedophiles have the same blanket freedom of expression that you want?
On 13 Mar 2014 at 1:41pm Libertarian wrote:
Just out of interest: 'In 1875 the age of consent in Victorian Britain was raised from 12 to 13, but it was only after the public outrage that followed an investigative exposÚ into prostitution a decade later that it was raised to the current age of 16.' And they say kids mature earlier now than then. Is that an argument for reducing the age to 12? It's 13 in Spain and 14 in Germany.
On 13 Mar 2014 at 1:47pm bojo wrote:
Would the sign have better or worse if it had said "No Fenians" or "No Micks" or "No Tadhgs" or "No Tinkers" instead?
On 13 Mar 2014 at 4:30pm Sarah wrote:
I am Catholic, from Lewes, and on the committee of a Bonfire Society.
On 13 Mar 2014 at 8:23pm Boris wrote:
SQ you should be a politician with the way that you answer questions.
You didn't really answer my question ' Do you think they should have been arrested for inciting religious and racial hatred' a straight forward yes or no will do.
This is one of the laws that you clearly love and want. What happened in Firle that night is a great example of why this kind of state controlled law doesn't work. There are to many grey areas, once the complaint had been made there was no lee way for the police they had to arrest them. After the arrest the police went on record as saying these people should not be given a custodial sentence even though if found guilty they would have been looking down the barrel anything up to 7 years. In the end the state realised the controversy this would have caused so they swept it under the carpet for a couple of years to let the smoke die down then dropped the case.
Judging by what you have written through out this whole Donna Edmunds thread you would have to be disgusted by the words NO POPERY and you would have to approve the arrest of the Firle 12 because you so believe in these censoring laws. I'm guessing your in bonfire and this has left you feeling uneasy about your November hobby.
I have spent the evening reading through the entire Donna Edmunds threads and it has reminded me so much of the witch scene in the Monty Pythons Holy Grail. The longer it goes on the worse Donna is portrayed. I read the article in the Argos attached to the very first post and find myself yet again agreeing with Cllr Edmunds and not only am I unashamed to say that but I don't think that I would know anyone who would disagree with her comments and believe it or not I know many people from many different walks of life.
To conclude I don't believe in the total Libertarian state described by you earlier but I do believe in free thought and free speech and if that means that we are subjected to bigotry and discrimination along the way then that would be a small price to pay.
On 13 Mar 2014 at 8:51pm Ed Can Do wrote:
To twist people's answers and derive such odd meanings from what people are saying to you Boris, you're either a really clever troll or wilfully stupid.
The point you're either missing or choosing to miss is that the laws regarding the way people act and speak to each other in this country have evolved over the years in response to changing public opinion. We have degrees of "Freedom of speech" but you seem insistent on it being an all or nothing choice, either people are heavily censored or they can do what they want which just isn't how the world works, no matter how much you say it does.
Take Firle Bonfire as you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about that for some reason. There had been a spate of thefts and robberies in the village which had coincided with the arrival nearby of a number of travellers. Rightly or wrongly, opinion amongst many people in the village was that the new arrivals were to blame.
When it came to building the annual tableaux for the village bonfire, the three or four people who decide such things figured that the travellers were fair game so they built a caravan, stuck the numberplate P1KEY on it and at the last minute, chucked a couple of shop mannequins in there. Then it got blown up.
Now was this racial hatred? That's a subjective question. If you are part of the travelling community then you might well find the term on the numberplate an offensive one. If you were one of the travellers who lived near Firle and hadn't committed any crime then you might be offended that you were being accused of that and burnt in effigy for it.
As it happened, the actual travellers who had been in the area had long moved on, wouldn't have heard about it and possibly wouldn't have cared either way. One suspects their choice of whether to go to the police or not would have depended on how much stolen property they had in their vans...
The case was dropped though because you can't incite racial hatred if nobody is offended and nobody is incited. There was no sinister cover up, no shady deals done, the law of the land determined that they had done nothing wrong and that's how the law works. A judge, well versed in the law of the land that has built up over thousands of years and directed by the current government, voted for by the people of Britain so representing the will of the majority of the people as currently stands, said that the law had not been broken.
I don't really see what point you're trying to make. Yes it was inconvenient for the Firle committee getting arrested and Firle as a bonfire society now have a lot of places they can't go to as a result but the process of law won out and nobody suffered more than an inconvenience in the long run.
In fact, the Firle case is a perfect example of how laws evolve based on public opinion. It's not been tested in a court yet but depending on how you interpret case law, that a judge laughed the Firle case out of court suggests that "Pikey" is not a racist term and is in fact a job description. It's not a word I'd personally use as I'm not into clearly derogatory words like that but if you are the kind of person who likes words most people find a bit iffy then you're unlikely to go to jail for it in the immediate future at any rate.
On 13 Mar 2014 at 9:37pm Southover Queen wrote:
That wasn't your question though, was it? You asked what I thought of the fact that they were arrested (and charged) for inciting racial hatred, and I told you. For a start they weren't charged, and that's the crucial step legally. Nothing actually happened because it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute. It's a great example of why these laws do work, in fact.
I do cleave to rules prohibiting racial and other forms of discrimination, yes. That's because the history of mankind tells us we need them. The history of civil rights movements all over the world, South African emancipation, the defeat of the Nazis, wheelchair users having access to public transport, allowing women to get a mortgage (and the vote): all of those things are possible because ordinary people wanted to be treated fairly. Without legislation those things wouldn't have become the norm and wouldn't have survived the pressures from those who opposed them.
So I disagree: it's not a small price to pay. It's huge: far too great, in fact, for any sensible society.
On 13 Mar 2014 at 10:11pm Intrigued wrote:
The fact that Boris didn't answer my question says it all though doesn't it? Boris doesn't want discrimination .....but does.