View Poll Results: Are you going to watch?

Voters
73. This poll is closed
  • Yes

    49 67.12%
  • No

    24 32.88%
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 81
General Chat Thread, Poll: BNP on Question Time in General; Originally Posted by Martin You are using exactly the same argument that (some) people use to justify torture! "If Mr ...
  1. #31

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,524
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,398 Times in 1,859 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin View Post
    You are using exactly the same argument that (some) people use to justify torture!

    "If Mr X was the only person who knows the code to stop a bomb going off on a plane, surely that justifies torturing him to get an answer."

    ...except that at the time you do not know for sure the he really planted the bomb or knows the code (or cannot be sure in the eyes of the law that you stabbed someone) until after the event (or trial).

    I expect that you also support 90 days detention without trail as well

    mb
    Nice jump there... We know for a fact their membership rules don't comply with the law! The agency in charge of ensuring they do has said so, the BNP has admitted they are, just read the law and you can see they don't comply!

    That is not the same as justifying torture. I don't support 90 day holding without trial - there is no justification for that.

    You also ignored the rest of my arguments, which is not good form.

    So, ad-hominem attacks? Missing out a large block of argument and picking a single bit, and trying to twist it into something it was not? Well done.

  2. #32

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,524
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,398 Times in 1,859 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    I think you maybe confusing what the freedom of speech is. And yes I currently believe I have an unrestricted freedom of speech in this country. Any restrictions imposed by law would by definition take away the freedom of speech.

    The freedom of speech is not about being able to say 'BOMB' in a theatre - or worse still on an aeroplane. It is about being able to voice an opinion on any subject with fear of reprisal from the state. If I want to stand on the street corner and say "I believe all gays should be hanged" I have the right to do that. (BTW - I don't believe all gays should be hanged, just following the examples previously raised).

    I can't stand on the street corner and say "lets hang the gay guy, comon whose with me" as that's incitment to riot. And if I shout "BOMB" pretty much anywhere I can expect some intense questioning from the police and my be prosecuted for wasting police time, again nothing to do with freedom of speech.

    If I genuinly believed I do not have true freedom of speech in this country then I'd be looking at emmigrating to a country where I feel safe I have that freedom.

    The problem with any freedom's is they apply universally to all. If I have the freedom of speech, then so does Nick Griffin. The beuty is I also have the freedom of choice and I choose not to listen to his retoric.
    So, you're redefining 'freedom of speech' to your narrow concept of 'stating an opinion'? Where are you getting that from? Freedom of speech actually comes under the term 'freedom of expression', which also covers other forms of expression (making films, art, etc...). I am not confused about the term, considering the definition I follow is one that was used during a trial I was a part of where it was used as a defence.

    Your definition is simply accepting that society can restrict speech in order to have a safe society.

    So, you actually haven't argued anything new - just restated something I stated.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,962
    Thank Post
    159
    Thanked 152 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Midget View Post
    They do allow coloureds (is that even PC anymore?)
    No its not, in fact it borders on offensive. I know you dont mean it with any malice but it is a pretty outdated term.
    Last edited by sidewinder; 22nd October 2009 at 02:37 PM.

  4. #34

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,524
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,398 Times in 1,859 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin View Post
    That'll be the Labour party then - entering illegal wars, MPs (WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN ON QUESTION TIME) evading the inland revenue, being implicated in rendition and torture! etc etc.

    Sauce for the goose

    mb
    It could be said that many of the actions the labour party have engaged in are illegal, however, they are the democratically elected government, and they have the power to do whatever they like within the restraints of EU and international law...

    The acts of individuals within the party don't necessarily reflect the entire party - but sometimes they do. Any individual who breaks the law, without a reasonable and lawful defence, should be prosecuted for it.

  5. #35
    dalsoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    547
    Thank Post
    190
    Thanked 108 Times in 80 Posts
    Rep Power
    46
    If labour did their job then the BNP would not have a fraction of its membership. People are worried about the way this country is headed and i am too. Not a BNP supporter but will be interested to see what happens. Jack Straw was correct in my opinion when he expressed concerns about the use of the veil for muslim women in public. Many many of the public agreed with this. It really is quite simple though. Anyone who comes to this country should abide by the laws of this country and not try to impose their own upon it. Such as Sharia law. Whoever wants this sort of thing should go and enjoy it in parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Disgusted at the banners that were being displayed when that dutch MP came to visit. Anyone see them? Such things as Islam is superior, to hell with your freedom, Sharia law for Holland, to hell with your freedom etc.. If we want to talk about racism, we have it there.

    Why are illegal immigrants sitting in a european country (france) battling day after day after month after year to get in to the UK? because we are a soft touch as usual.

    We are scared to show our flag, ashamed of our history and bullied by the PC morons into hiring people not suitable for positions because they need a quota filled to tick boxes.

    This country needs to wake up. I hope the Torys keep some of their promises but i doubt it. I will be voting tory but i hope we can open a larger debate on why we harm our own country with stupidity.

    Looking forward to the show and as much as i do not really like NG, i bet it will be boos and childish bickering rather than intelligent answers to questions on immigration and such.

    Just my thoughts, take em or leave em

  6. Thanks to dalsoth from:

    bossman (23rd October 2009)

  7. #36

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,575
    Thank Post
    834
    Thanked 873 Times in 726 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    So, you actually haven't argued anything new - just restated something I stated.
    Possibly, possibly not - I confuse myself so easily.

    You were asking...

    Also, when their views are blatantly racist, or bigoted, should they simply be allowed to go spouting them?
    I was answering... YES - I believe in the freedom of speech. They have the right to say what they like, even If I personally don't agree with thier views. Who am I to tell you what you should or shouldn't believe in?

    You asked...
    Do you think people have an unrestricted right to freedom of speech then? ie. they can say whatever they want whenever they want?
    I answered... YES. I do believe we have unrestricted freedom of speech. But I also pointed that if I choose to say somethings, especially with bad timing, I may attract the authorites attention for other reasons. You shout 'BOMB' in a cinema they police are going to look for one, if it's not their they're not going to be very happy. That's nothing to do with freedom of speech, as was my point.

    And no I am not attempting redifine the freedom of speech, just asserting my believe that Nick Griffin and his like have as much right to it as you or I.

    The freedom of speech - the right to say anything without fear of state reprisal. Simple.

  8. #37

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,524
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,398 Times in 1,859 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    I answered... YES. I do believe we have unrestricted freedom of speech. But I also pointed that if I choose to say somethings, especially with bad timing, I may attract the authorites attention for other reasons. You shout 'BOMB' in a cinema they police are going to look for one, if it's not their they're not going to be very happy. That's nothing to do with freedom of speech, as was my point.

    And no I am not attempting redifine the freedom of speech, just asserting my believe that Nick Griffin and his like have as much right to it as you or I.

    The freedom of speech - the right to say anything without fear of state reprisal. Simple.
    Ok, so you think racism is an ok view to hold. That's not a widely held view I have to say...

    And also, you contradict yourself in the above quoted text. You say you believe we have unrestricted freedom of speech, then say that if someone says bomb in a cinema then they will get attention from the police (ie. making said action wrong in the eyes of the law), then you state that the right is to say anything without fear of state reprisal.

    Freedom of expression is not an unqualified right, we do not have it as such either. It is a right protected via the human rights act, and has caveats - both in that act, and in the European Convention on Human Rights '"in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"'.

  9. #38

    mattx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    9,236
    Thank Post
    1,057
    Thanked 1,067 Times in 624 Posts
    Rep Power
    740

  10. #39

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,575
    Thank Post
    834
    Thanked 873 Times in 726 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Ok, so you think racism is an ok view to hold. That's not a widely held view I have to say...
    Now your putting words into my mouth

    No I don't think racism is an 'ok' view to hold - personal opinion.
    Do you have the right to hold racist views? - In my opinion, yes. If you do then I believe you are wrong, but you can hold and express whatever views you like, as can I.

    And also, you contradict yourself in the above quoted text. You say you believe we have unrestricted freedom of speech, then say that if someone says bomb in a cinema then they will get attention from the police (ie. making said action wrong in the eyes of the law), then you state that the right is to say anything without fear of state reprisal.
    Am I? I am free to say bomb in the cinema. sure, but If I do so I should expect a certain chain of events and a certain outcome. With freedoms comes responsibility. If I use my freedom of speech to claim to have seen a bomb when I haven't - I am then repsonsible for my action, wasting police time. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

  11. #40

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,524
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,398 Times in 1,859 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Am I? I am free to say bomb in the cinema. sure, but If I do so I should expect a certain chain of events and a certain outcome. With freedoms comes responsibility. If I use my freedom of speech to claim to have seen a bomb when I haven't - I am then repsonsible for my action, wasting police time. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
    You're just using semantics there - the outcome is the same, whichever way you look at it. If you say something which the government has defined as bad, you face the consequences. Sure, you might get charged with wasting police time, or inciting a riot or whatever, but the government is still punishing you for your speech.

  12. #41

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,524
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,398 Times in 1,859 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Now your putting words into my mouth

    No I don't think racism is an 'ok' view to hold - personal opinion.
    Do you have the right to hold racist views? - In my opinion, yes. If you do then I believe you are wrong, but you can hold and express whatever views you like, as can I.
    By accepting that it is acceptable for someone to hold racist views, you are by extension validating that those views are acceptable. The only way to get rid of racism is to make it wrong to hold those views, this is why we have laws preventing such speech - ie. hate speech. You can't print a book with racism in it, you can't speak on tv with racist views - it is against the law.

  13. #42
    Midget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a Server Room cutting through a forest of Cat5e
    Posts
    1,298
    Thank Post
    5
    Thanked 59 Times in 49 Posts
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by sidewinder View Post
    No its not, in fact it borders on offensive. I know you dont mean it with any malice but it is a pretty outdated term.
    I thought it was, I was always a bit dubious about using it but our anti-racism warrior localzuk used it first so wasn't sure.

    the bnp have gone above the likes of the EDL and C18 and are a supported political group, so you have to fight them in the same way you'd fight the LibDems. Show that their policies can't stand up to water, that they have no idea how to run things and that they are just a waste of time.

    By banning them you are giving them more credibility.

    Should we also ban the ganja party because you don't like weed (you very well may but lets not get started on that) or the MRLParty because you dislike big hats?

  14. #43

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,524
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,398 Times in 1,859 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Midget View Post
    I thought it was, I was always a bit dubious about using it but our anti-racism warrior localzuk used it first so wasn't sure.
    Yes, I misused a term. I should have said 'people of colour'. However, using a term to simply describe a grouping is not the same as racism... For example, I would say people with ginger hair are redheads. That isn't offensive, it is simply descriptive.

    the bnp have gone above the likes of the EDL and C18 and are a supported political group, so you have to fight them in the same way you'd fight the LibDems. Show that their policies can't stand up to water, that they have no idea how to run things and that they are just a waste of time.

    By banning them you are giving them more credibility.

    Should we also ban the ganja party because you don't like weed (you very well may but lets not get started on that) or the MRLParty because you dislike big hats?
    By banning them we don't give them credibility - we remove their credibility. By treating them with equal respect, we are giving them credibility. The way to attack such racism is a) to tackle the issues that drive people to those parties, and to not give those parties a platform where they can express their racist views. As a license fee payer, I don't like the idea of my money going towards giving airtime to an organisation which has a history of racist views, racist policies and other such things.

    And I have to say, I do find it offensive that you equate racism with people smoking weed or big hats...

  15. #44
    Midget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a Server Room cutting through a forest of Cat5e
    Posts
    1,298
    Thank Post
    5
    Thanked 59 Times in 49 Posts
    Rep Power
    39
    why? it's the same ball park, since weed is illegal and many people find it offensive to smoke it in front of them

  16. #45

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,154
    Thank Post
    114
    Thanked 527 Times in 450 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by dalsoth View Post
    Jack Straw was correct in my opinion when he expressed concerns about the use of the veil for muslim women in public.
    Except he didn't - he said he didn't like niqab (the full face covering). The veil (hijab) is not that much different from the headscarf many women wear.

    Quote Originally Posted by dalsoth View Post
    Anyone who comes to this country should abide by the laws of this country and not try to impose their own upon it. Such as Sharia law.
    Absolutely, they should abide by the law but we already have different bits of law for different groups of people - think of the rules the Church of England has for its members. Most Muslims do not want Sharia law to replace the laws of England but to enhance it (eg Muslims have far stricter rules about money lending and if we actually used their rules to govern banks we might be in a better state today!)

    Quote Originally Posted by dalsoth View Post
    Why are illegal immigrants sitting in a european country (france) battling day after day after month after year to get in to the UK? because we are a soft touch as usual.
    Could be because they want to get jobs and they've got this stupid idea that the UK is a place where people can work for money?? Could also be because they speak some English but don't speak French or Spanish or the languages of any other country they moved through??

    Quote Originally Posted by dalsoth View Post
    We are scared to show our flag, ashamed of our history and bullied by the PC morons into hiring people not suitable for positions because they need a quota filled to tick boxes.
    I don't think anyone is "scared" to show the flag. I've no wish to show a flag either for my country or anything else and I think many people just don't want to fly flags or have any other jingoistic symbols.

    I think we should be ashamed of great tracts of our history; we've done some pretty astonishingly bad things in the past but that doesn't mean that we can't show that we learned from our mistakes and we're not going to repeat them.

    No-one should be hiring people who aren't suitable for the position just to fill quotas - this is just the sort of lie that's peddled by people like the BNP.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Poll School Site Poll
    By gibbo_ap in forum Web Development
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 3rd September 2009, 02:51 PM
  2. Straw Poll: How close is the BECTA Technical Competencies framework Poll
    By russdev in forum General EduGeek News/Announcements
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 29th July 2009, 10:39 PM
  3. Really Dumb Question Time
    By richard in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 4th August 2006, 12:47 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •