General / Off-Topic Free Speech in UK - discuss

[X-Terminator]

As an observation guys, on this forum we abide by it's own rules as there is no single global law. How exactly then does Social Media get governed by any law when any Nationals "publish" by personal opinion yet there is no land nor space which this data resides to?

 

[who?]

The end of free speech here in the states will end in gunfire.
If I have to listen to the other side, they get to listen to me.
When that narrative stops, bullets will fly.
Isnt it cool how the second amendment stands up for the first.
Gun control has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with control
We will never be subjects

As long as guns are used for defence and not assault/proactive violence/suppression of speech, then this is 100% correct. But who would ever use a gun for nefarious purposes...

 

[X-Terminator]

I'd like to expand on this guns issue but not in any debate for/against...Instead, in UK (sorry everywhere has their own laws/methods) by comparison if you are considered a threat to others by being known to a group which has a history of previous trouble then you will be moved away from that location and forced never to return again if you're British Caucasian. Even though you were NOT with such a group at that time and had even changed your ways and were in fact out with your children and no longer part of such a group. So how does this compare with the possibility of everyone carrying a gun? Is this considered safer under todays guns tech rate of firepower which amendments have not been updated for? They need amended! We British consider they are a threat for our safety which is why we have a Police Force. Isn't it weird how countries decide what makes a threat.

 

[Kemo]

I'd like to expand on this guns issue but not in any debate for/against...Instead, in UK (sorry everywhere has their own laws/methods) by comparison if you are considered a threat to others by being known to a group which has a history of previous trouble then you will be moved away from that location and forced never to return again if you're British Caucasian. Even though you were NOT with such a group at that time and had even changed your ways and were in fact out with your children and no longer part of such a group. So how does this compare with the possibility of everyone carrying a gun? Is this considered safer under todays guns tech rate of firepower which amendments have not been updated for? They need amended! We British consider they are a threat for our safety which is why we have a Police Force. Isn't it weird how countries decide what makes a threat.

the thought that the local tools in my local area could carry a gun just doesn't bare thinking about... i'm amazed they're allowed a provisional driving licence.

 

[who?]

It's worth remembering too, in the not too distant past in the UK, TV and radio news services were banned from broadcasting any speech by representatives of several political organisations (Gerry Adams being the most notable).

I'm no fan of his or Sinn Féin's, but it's notable how stark the contrast is between then and now. If there were a ban on any political group being broadcast now, there would be a near unanimous outcry.

 

[Lianachan]

It's worth remembering too, in the not too distant past in the UK, TV and radio news services were banned from broadcasting any speech by representatives of several political organisations (Gerry Adams being the most notable).

I'm no fan of his or Sinn Féin's, but it's notable how stark the contrast is between then and now. If there were a ban on any political group being broadcast now, there would be a near unanimous outcry.

You don't need a ban, you just have to misreport, misquote, smear and lie. That's how it's done these days, and the BBC are great at it.

 

[X-Terminator]

Yes only a Political Group of people are allowed to cause intimidation, threats and breach the peace! Although they are limited in numbers again if there has been history of trouble. Obviously the trouble is actually never stemming from the Protesters but mobs of hooligans attacking them instead. Yet those in such marches whom abide by such laws are moved away and forced never to return ever again!

 

[Pyrotiger]

It's worth remembering too, in the not too distant past in the UK, TV and radio news services were banned from broadcasting any speech by representatives of several political organisations (Gerry Adams being the most notable).

I'm no fan of his or Sinn Féin's, but it's notable how stark the contrast is between then and now. If there were a ban on any political group being broadcast now, there would be a near unanimous outcry.

Actors' voices were superimposed over TV footage.

The actors' voices actually sounded better than the real thing. When I actually heard their real voices, I felt they sounded quite pathetic and wimpy in comparison

 

[X-Terminator]

I'm so glad Stephen Fry "got off". I mean, he is after all a bleeding COMEDIAN!
I sincerely hope he now counter-sues them for an immoral abuse of requesting money! (Euro25,000)
I don't blame the program makers nor the interviewer but it is obviously the riot act for TV Licensing which must listen to public complaints (pish takers).
So in rhetoric if he was to answer the question correctly by Irish Law then this would have seriously been an interrogation and brain-washing! "You WILL believe in GOD! OR else!"

[video=youtube;b2O5iVBltbI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2O5iVBltbI[/video]

 

[X-Terminator]

Why can humanity NOT discern obvious abuse of using words? Just as 1 example (do this!)...
Search on YouTube "allahu arkbar said quietly".

You will get my point!

 

[Arry]

Yes only a Political Group of people are allowed to cause intimidation, threats and breach the peace! Although they are limited in numbers again if there has been history of trouble. Obviously the trouble is actually never stemming from the Protesters but mobs of hooligans attacking them instead. Yet those in such marches whom abide by such laws are moved away and forced never to return ever again!

In the UK today, it is illegal to protest in large numbers, (there is no set figure, it is up to the authorities at the time) without police permission. They can then refuse on safety grounds, as they do not have the budget and staff to police said protest. If you then go ahead anyway, you will be arrested and find yourself in court. If you go out in the street and call people to protest against anything to do with the government, you will be arrested, charged with incitement to riot; which can carry a life sentence. Care of Mrs Thatcher during the miners strike in the 80s.

 

[ArchEmperor]

In the UK today, it is illegal to protest in large numbers, (there is no set figure, it is up to the authorities at the time) without police permission. They can then refuse on safety grounds, as they do not have the budget and staff to police said protest. If you then go ahead anyway, you will be arrested and find yourself in court. If you go out in the street and call people to protest against anything to do with the government, you will be arrested, charged with incitement to riot; which can carry a life sentence. Care of Mrs Thatcher during the miners strike in the 80s.

They take your money and when you wish to complain about it you ask: "Permission to speak!"
- "Denied!"
End of story.

Now this reminds me of something.... it is called... hmmm ... something. Robbery? Stealing? racketeering!

 

[X-Terminator]

Yup, you can see the history and surrealism yet the realistic irony in both our quotes put together Arry.

 

[who?]

Actors' voices were superimposed over TV footage.

The actors' voices actually sounded better than the real thing. When I actually heard their real voices, I felt they sounded quite pathetic and wimpy in comparison

Ditto! Initially the reporter simply read their statements (or paraphrased versions thereof), then resorted to getting an actor to voice them.

I have no doubt that 'the man so dangerous you can't be allowed to hear him' image helped his publicity enormously in the U.S., and outside N.I. / UK generally. Gag orders really don't work.

 

[Arry]

Ditto! Initially the reporter simply read their statements (or paraphrased versions thereof), then resorted to getting an actor to voice them.

I have no doubt that 'the man so dangerous you can't be allowed to hear him' image helped his publicity enormously in the U.S., and outside N.I. / UK generally. Gag orders really don't work.

In those days with just the 3 UK TV channels is was possible for the government to hammer ban the output as they wished; but today it would not be possible. At the same time; just plain and simple twisting of the facts or out right lies; seems to be the way the government handles things these days.

 

[X-Terminator]

The style of protecting the public and keeping the peace is to basically remove the people who are the victims as they are causing trouble by standing up to such mobs in defiance by simply being there. The snowball effect (it gets bigger as it is aloud to carry on) ultimately means less control of upholding law on those mobs. They are creating a Mafia of their own device!

 

[Minonian]

Shaddap!

 

[Fyrd Judge]

In the UK today, it is illegal to protest in large numbers, (there is no set figure, it is up to the authorities at the time) without police permission.
.

So we are just like the majority in Europe then and the rest of the world come to think of it. The BIG difference though, the British police allow more protest here than any other country in Europe and it is very rare they even deny a protest.

After all the EDL held protests this year and Muslim fanatics handed Leaflets out in a protest last year telling Muslims to kill all who insult the prophet , Proving if these two idiot groups can protest any one can.

Proving freedom of speech is alive and protest is healthy, even for these low life, and this goes on because of the EU and their laws. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression and information, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas. The EU even allow EU countries to celebrate the N*ZIs, which sickens the UK and Russia.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/02/eastern_europes_hitler_nostalgia/

Thank God we are leaving the corrupt EU mafia state, we will ban this lot once the shackles of EU oppresion have been cut.

List of European countries and their laws on holding a protest, majority demand you get permission :
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/foreign.php/

 

[X-Terminator]

EDL are a Political Group much like Britain First which aim to raise awareness of such ethnicities abusing the law whilst they hide under a religious name. EDL focus on London and Birmingham whilst Britain First focus on the North. The media has got these groups a bad name but was also marred by actions from Police plus trouble makers that either joined them without their control or troll on their social media sites. Both are neither racist by colour nor religion but do have personal first hand experience of living with such groups. If you study their rallies you will see what they stand against: abuse of girls; and mutilation of women; lack of respect for this countries law and monarch and other religions. 1400 attacks alone were buried by the Rotherham Court just to not create further prejudice. Countless cases are hidden by courts and media from gang attacks on woman. The Leaders of these Political groups now visit them at their houses to speak on camera to name and shame after they have already been to court and the case was hidden. If you study both sides of why/how/what these parties stand for then you will be educated and also be more aware of how it has become so bad from our laws not stopping such atrocities.

 

[X-Terminator]

This clip says it all. Please watch and see a known terrorist protected by Police on camera!

[video=youtube;gBUsc68l9X0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBUsc68l9X0[/video]