OT: Old Mrs. May's fudge shoppe

[magpie_mania]

No Elite, I don't really know what to make of Boris if I'm honest. He has his bad points for sure but he's not a villain. Easy to target for obvious reasons but not the buffoon some like to paint him as. I'm not prepared to write him off just yet but my jury is still definitely out on him and I'll see what happens.

Of course he's a buffoon! 'A ridiculous but amusing person'

I'm not saying he's not clever, nor that he's not capable of being PM.

Just that it would be an incredibly high-risk thing to have him as PM.

He could easily have written a powerful piece, making the same points, without the ridiculous jibes.

A statesman he most definitely is not!

[navypie]

Makes sense now,all those job applications. I just thought they had changed the colour.

[jackal2]

JACKAL 2 SAYS:
I believe the law should come into play when, and only when, someone crosses the line from expressing their view in the form of words to enforcing their view with force or violence, which is unacceptable. I don't even draw the line at one person telling another person to commit violence. To me, the crime is always by the perpetrator of the violence, not by the person who advises it, however unedifying that may be.

I suggest you take in Article 10 of the UN charter for human rights, Mr Jackal. By your definition it would be OK for someone to say 'Mrs May is a ???? and I dearly wish someone would assassinate the ????' AS LONG AS THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO IT

You are correct about my definition. You happen to use Mrs May as an example in your quote, but you could use anyone, including me if you like.

If someone wants to say they would dearly love to assassinate me, I would still prefer they said it. At least I would know where the threat is, and who knows I might be able to use my own freedom of speech to convince them otherwise!

[SolSigns]

If someone wants to say they would dearly love to assassinate me, I would still prefer they said it. At least I would know where the threat is, and who knows I might be able to use my own freedom of speech to convince them otherwise!

Sorry, but that's a little naive. What if the someone was a popular and persuasive loudmouth who also uses 'free speech' to publish your address, the people they're advocating assassinating was your wife and children, and their audience was known to be fanatical extremist?


Does their right to 'free speech' trump you and your family's "right to life, liberty and security of person"? How so?

[i961pie]

I didn't dispute that, I asked why he decided to say it. I'll repeat it just for you - did he say it because he's a principled man of the people who refuses to be silenced, or is he a cynical, conniving opportunist who is only concerned with his own career prospects?

How does Joe, you or me or anyone else know the answer to that? Only their political persuasion or like or dislike for the man will decide their opinion.

[drillerpie]

How does Joe, you or me or anyone else know the answer to that? Only their political persuasion or like or dislike for the man will decide their opinion.

I'll give you a clue. He was pro EU until he saw an opportunity to be PM and then all of a sudden he wasn't.

He also used to be a classic liberal who presumably didn't think the government should tell people how to dress but guess what, he's seen another opportunity to be leader so he's jumped on the identity politics bandwagon.

I actually don't disagree with what he said, but I disagree with the timing (nobody is talking about burqas, he's just brought it up as a ploy), and the way he said it (immature and un-statesmanlike)

[drillerpie]

All Carney pouts is speculation like the rest, the problem is he's in a prominent position to effect the value of our currency so it's doing no one any favours.

As for blaming him, instead of your usual one line rubbish, go back and check what the Pound has done after every one of his speeches, whose fault is it if not his, I didn't write his speeches or make his speculation, which again is just that, speculation, he knows no more than anyone else.

But what did he actually say that has annoyed you?

Have you thought about setting up a counter revolutionary death squad to round up and shoot all the people who don't show sufficient optimism about the sunlit uplands?

[jackal2]

Sorry, but that's a little naive. What if the someone was a popular and persuasive loudmouth who also uses 'free speech' to publish your address, the people they're advocating assassinating was your wife and children, and their audience was known to be fanatical extremist?


Does their right to 'free speech' trump you and your family's "right to life, liberty and security of person"? How so?

I wouldn't say one trumps the other. I'd say both are of equal importance. It is naïve to believe you can eliminate risk, wherever you draw the line.

As I indicated in my original post, my view is that the point where freedom of expression turns into a crime is if/when the speaker or their followers attempt to convert their opinions into violent action. To use your analogy, many of those with 'extreme' or 'controversial' views are indeed "loudmouths" who probably won't convert their words into action (social media is full of them), but it is very naïve to believe that those who would convert extreme views into action are going to be made any less extreme or unlikely to do so because they can't express themselves out loud. In fact, suppressing the ideology of such warped individuals often makes them even more dangerous and difficult to intercept. They don't go away because you silence them, and we shouldn't sacrifice free speech for all (which is either absolute or it's nothing) because a tiny percentage would misuse it.

[drillerpie]

I wouldn't say one trumps the other. I'd say both are of equal importance. It is naïve to believe you can eliminate risk, wherever you draw the line.

As I indicated in my original post, my view is that the point where freedom of expression turns into a crime is if/when the speaker or their followers attempt to convert their opinions into violent action. To use your analogy, many of those with 'extreme' or 'controversial' views are indeed "loudmouths" who probably won't convert their words into action (social media is full of them), but it is very naïve to believe that those who would convert extreme views into action are going to be made any less extreme or unlikely to do so because they can't express themselves out loud. In fact, suppressing the ideology of such warped individuals often makes them even more dangerous and difficult to intercept. They don't go away because you silence them, and we shouldn't sacrifice free speech for all (which is either absolute or it's nothing) because a tiny percentage would misuse it.

If anyone is interested in the topic of free speech I'd recommend looking up Jordan Peterson's debate at Oxford University on YouTube. He makes some good points and the audience make some good counter points.

[BigFatPie]

I wouldn't say one trumps the other. I'd say both are of equal importance. It is naïve to believe you can eliminate risk, wherever you draw the line.

As I indicated in my original post, my view is that the point where freedom of expression turns into a crime is if/when the speaker or their followers attempt to convert their opinions into violent action. To use your analogy, many of those with 'extreme' or 'controversial' views are indeed "loudmouths" who probably won't convert their words into action (social media is full of them), but it is very naïve to believe that those who would convert extreme views into action are going to be made any less extreme or unlikely to do so because they can't express themselves out loud. In fact, suppressing the ideology of such warped individuals often makes them even more dangerous and difficult to intercept. They don't go away because you silence them, and we shouldn't sacrifice free speech for all (which is either absolute or it's nothing) because a tiny percentage would misuse it.

Using the free speech argument to defend a highly paid, high profile, expensively educated, privileged politician who has used his highly paid, widely read column in a national newspaper to attack a minority group who are already more at risk of abuse and attack in the street than most is about as disingenuous as you can get.

What do you think to what he actually wrote, is it a good use of a national newspaper column, do you think it breaches the Tory party’s own rules for those who represent them, and do you think Johnson should be kicked out if it did?