Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,978
Thanks for taking the reins. Good luck!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
- Thread starter SuperstarNeilC
- Start date
Thanks for taking the reins. Good luck!
Take a break, eat and drink and come back refreshed in a few hours ;-)
This is the problem with free speech though. Using it to cause unrest, anger and potential violence shouldn’t be given a pass under the banner of ‘free speech’Blokes a knob, but that doesn't curtail his right to free speech, even if you personally don't agree.
It says more of you than it does of him !
If this is what people are happy with then something has gone wrong somewhere.
Just gives the worst cunts in the world a voice to show how cunty they are and how cunty those who lap it up are. Normally anti vax, anti immigration conspiracy nuts if this place is a barometer of the general public.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,332
But this is a man who has a history of causing trouble going to a protest where he was explicitly told her wasn't welcome. I'd feel the same way if Abu Hamza showed up. He's not being moved on because someone doesn't like him, he's being moved on because he's allegedly causing a safety issue at a big public event. He was ordered not to come to the area in advance in writing and continues to enjoy his right to free speech in the entire rest of the country. Let's be honest, this is not just someone with controversial opinions, it's someone with a criminal record as long as your arm specifically surrounding things like this. Banning him from the area is about as controversial as banning a known football hooligan from being near a stadium on match day.Robinson wasn't an opposing group, it wasn't a counter protest and it was in a public space. What I am arguing for here is for what I expect for everyone. You shouldn't be moved on just because someone doesn't like you, that's absurd.
If you believe in democracy then you believe it for everyone not just for who you support.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
But this is a man who has a history of causing trouble going to a protest where he was explicitly told her wasn't welcome. I'd feel the same way if Abu Hamza showed up. He's not being moved on because someone doesn't like him, he's being moved on because he's allegedly causing a safety issue at a big public event. He was ordered not to come to the area in advance in writing and continues to enjoy his right to free speech in the entire rest of the country. Let's be honest, this is not just someone with controversial opinions, it's someone with a criminal record as long as your arm specifically surrounding things like this. Banning him from the area is about as controversial as banning a known football hooligan from being near a stadium on match day.
He's a dick, I get it.
We should as a society marginalise extremists but imho they should be subject to the same laws as we are otherwise we are no better than they are.
Let me reiterate, he's a grifting ****.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,332
He is subject to the same laws as everyone else. But he's done things that result in extra scrutiny. If you or I had done the things he'd done, we'd also likely get orders from the police that restrict our ability to go certain places at certain times too. Arguing that he's having his freedoms infringed on for this is like arguing that a paedo is having their freedoms infringed on when they're told they're not allowed to go near a playground.He's a dick, I get it.
We should as a society marginalise extremists but imho they should be subject to the same laws as we are otherwise we are no better than they are.
Let me reiterate, he's a grifting ****.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
He is subject to the same laws as everyone else. But he's done things that result in extra scrutiny. If you or I had done the things he'd done, we'd also likely get orders from the police that restrict our ability to go certain places at certain times too. Arguing that he's having his freedoms infringed on for this is like arguing that a paedo is having their freedoms infringed on when they're told they're not allowed to go near a playground.
He's a political activist that we don't agree with, he isn't a paedophile mate. He should be arrested AFTER he has committed an offence not before.
Is he fuck a political activist. He might hide behind that moniker but he’s just a far right football hooligan who’s learnt how to grift others of his ilk.He's a political activist that we don't agree with, he isn't a paedophile mate. He should be arrested AFTER he has committed an offence not before.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
Is he fuck a political activist. He might hide behind that moniker but he’s just a far right football hooligan who’s learnt how to grift others of his ilk.
I am not disagreeing with you, what I am disagreeing with you about is who decides who we should agree or disagree with?
It's a bad bad world when we force bad views underground so they can't be confronted.
I should decide. The world would be an abundance of fucking sunshine rainbows and unicorns.. :-)I am not disagreeing with you, what I am disagreeing with you about is who decides who we should agree or disagree with?
It's a bad bad world when we force bad views underground so they can't be confronted.