Page 71 of 82 FirstFirst ... 2146616263646566676869707172737475767778798081 ... LastLast
Results 1,401 to 1,420 of 1622

Thread: Free Speech in the UK

  1. #1401
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    The only evidence worth a damn is the original material posted by me and the media item posted by (if I recall ) Aexodous. Pages of conspiracies about sinister 'social justice activists' doesn't cut it, in my view.
    Yet I was the user who posted the specific guidance and the full report into gender stereotyping published by the advertising regulator, among other relevant evidence. Your recollection is faulty and you should apologize.

    You know where the thread is, what are you afraid of?
    There is no specific reason for me to visit that thread: the example has already adequately exposed the irrationality of your logic. Not that it matters, since I could point to instances within this very conversation of you assuming the existence of latent motives when it suited you.

    Opposing something so minor when you or your fellow man cannot possibly suffer detriment is the very epitome of snowflakery.
    This isn't about personal injury to me. It's about opposing the idea (which as repeatedly explained extends well beyond the realms of advertising) that care-giving is somehow an inferior or unadventurous occupation and that depictions of women in these roles should be considered as potentially harmful. As shown, this notion wasn't invented by the British advertising regulator nor is its impact limited to that sector.

    If it doesn't meet criteria, it's not fit for broadcast.It would be the same if the mother swore or astronaut got his cock out. It is so simplez it hurtz.
    Refer again to the position made above: No one has claimed that it didn't meet the criteria, but that it was a ridiculous interpretation of it.

    So you don't have an interest in UK advertising media. What makes Mongrel think that your posts might not pass the 'good faith' test?
    It isn't your place to police the interests of other users on this board or to pass comments on their citizenship status. You are free to leave the conversation if you think I'm arguing in bad faith.

    The odd comment fair enough, but pages of reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee on imaginary 'social justice activists' interfering with an ad you would never see is just plain obsessive.
    Projection. For every comment I have made, you have responded (despite your litany of contradictory claims about not arguing or responding to me).

  2. #1402

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Yet I was the user who posted the specific guidance and the full report into gender stereotyping published by the advertising regulator, among other relevant evidence. Your recollection is faulty and you should apologize.
    Those are derived from my own material, all you did was follow the leads I provided. This is pathetic. I laugh in your general direction.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    There is no specific reason for me to visit that thread: the example has already adequately exposed the irrationality of your logic. Not that it matters, since I could point to instances within this very conversation of you assuming the existence of latent motives when it suited you.
    So basically you introduced an off topic issue with no appetite to discuss further in the proper forum. I knew it just an extra point to continue the flamefest. You know where the thread is , if you can't face the inevitable beating, like Basil, I suppose I can't blame you.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This isn't about personal injury to me. It's about opposing the idea (which as repeatedly explained extends well beyond the realms of advertising) that care-giving is somehow an inferior or unadventurous occupation and that depictions of women in these roles should be considered as potentially harmful. As shown, this notion wasn't invented by the British advertising regulator nor is its impact limited to that sector.
    That is not a criterion. I mentioned earlier that care-giving features in many adverts, I mean how the hell does one sell baby products? This is all in your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Refer again to the position made above: No one has claimed that it didn't meet the criteria, but that it was a ridiculous interpretation of it.
    It meetz da criterya. That is the end of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It isn't your place to police the interests of other users on this board or to pass comments on their citizenship status. You are free to leave the conversation if you think I'm arguing in bad faith.
    It is not your citizen status that is the issue, it's distance. You could be in England and be perfectly able to be 'offended' by UK adverts. But you are not. Long ago we had a complete attention-seeking snowflake, Mary Whitehouse, who use to complain about and take legal action against broadcasts and plays she had never seen. She looked ridiculous too.

    A tip, rather than be cut up about this non-issue, why not place a quarter in each ear and pretend you are listening to 50 cent.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Projection.
    Says the person with the SJW stories.
    Last edited by mongrel; September 08, 2019 at 11:30 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  3. #1403
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Those are derived from my own material, all you did was follow the leads I provided. This is pathetic. I laugh in your general direction.
    Prior to my citations, you had introduced a solitary link to generic information about the CAP which didn't even mention the case in question. The ASA's website (which you claim to be your "own material") had already been indirectly sourced via the BBC articles provided by Aexodus. It's high time that you stopped this embarrassing strutting: your five second Google search (which sourced a website which had already been linked by Aexodus) doesn't give you a monopoly over the evidence nor does it justify your claim that the only "evidence worth a damn" was posted by you - a statement which is laughably contradicted by your repeated citations of a document which I had sourced.

    So basically you introduced an off topic issue with no appetite to discuss further. I knew it was done in bad faith. You know where the thread is , if you can't face the inevitable beating, as Basil did, I suppose I can't blame you.
    I used the topic as analogy to expose the knavery of your logic. At first you sought to engage with it, but after you realized that you weren't going to be able to disprove the rationale against you, you simply resorted to whining about "off-topic" issues. Now you're making bizarre and irrelevant references to a former user in an attempt to derail the conversation.

    That is not a criterion. I mentioned earlier that care-giving features in many adverts, I mean how the hell does one sell baby products? This is all in your head.
    "We are talking about the Volkswagen advertisement. Simply pointing at instances where the regulation wasn't applied in an idiotic fashion doesn't somehow overcome those instances in which it was. Your argument is as stupid as claiming, for example, that the appropriate issuing of parking tickets disproves the notion that parking tickets can ever be issued inappropriately issued or that (and I raise this example only because you appear to have an interest in it) because not all Windrush migrants were negatively affected by May's policies that must mean that the hostile environment is "all in your head". It's a ridiculous line of argument."

    It meetz da criterya. that is the end of it.
    Refer again to the position made above: No one has claimed that it didn't meet the criteria, but that it was a ridiculous interpretation of it.

    It is not your citizen status that is the issue, it's distance. You could be in England and be perfectly able to be 'offended' by UK adverts. But you are not.
    My citizenship status and location (about which you know two-thirds of all) are personal references which are off-topic.

    Long ago we had a complete attention-seeking snowflake, Mary Whitehouse, who use to complain about and take legal action against broadcasts and plays she had never seen. She looked ridiculous too.
    Since I oppose overzealous regulatory interpretations, that places me in opposition to the irrelevant and poorly justified fussing of the likes of Whitehouse and, in this instance, the ASA. That means you can cease your endless wailing about "snowflakery" which far better represents the ASA's ruling that it does my condemnation of it.

    Says the person with the SJW stories.
    This is simply a recitation of the projection as noted above.

  4. #1404

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    But the sources!
    Ooh that struck a nerve, it's like 'I wantz to source my reeeeez!'. I mean you called the ASA English, even though it's a UK body. That was the extent of your knowledge at the time. I continue to laugh in your direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I used the topic as analogy to expose the knavery of your logic.
    A cheap trick to use the misery of black britons for a quick flame thrill. Insensitive and arguably racist. You still know where the thread is.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    We are talking about the Volkswagen advertisement.......................................No one has claimed that it didn't meet the criteria,.
    Are VW adverts subject to different criteria? No is the answer. I pray that your inevitable response will, for once, be a sensible one.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    My citizenship status and location (about which you know two-thirds of all) are personal references which are off-topic. .
    Pedantic much? It is arguably on-topic as far as determining who is affected by the VW ad, after you insist on championing what you cannot see. However, for the sake of progressivity and social justice, lets make it hypothetical. Is it reasonable for someone of any nationality to be riled up about something which by means of physical or geographical barriers, cannot possibly cause them harm, mental anguish or any kind of detriment whatsoever. The answer has to be no.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    overzealous regulatory interpretations
    Where is the ruling stating that the decision was overzealous?


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    projection .
    Of which the saddest part was you bringing yo momma into the discussion.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  5. #1405
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Ooh that struck a nerve, it's like 'I wantz to source my reeeeez!'. I mean you called the ASA English, even though it's a UK body. That was the extent of your knowledge at the time. I continue to laugh in your direction.
    What a dreadful attempt to deflect. In future if you didn't make such incendiary accusations you wouldn't be so embarrassed when they're exposed as fallacious.

    A cheap trick to use the misery of black britons for a quick flame thrill. Insensitive and arguably racist. You still know where the thread is.
    Another utterly ridiculous claim which is divorced from reasonable debate. Your introduction of a fabricated allegation of potential racism is nothing more than an attempt to deflect away from the irrationality of your previous claims. At this point you're just openly vandalizing the discourse out of desperation and embarrassment.

    Are VW adverts subject to different criteria? No is the answer. I pray that your inevitable response will, for once, be a sensible one.
    This particular VW advert was subject to a ridiculous standard.

    Pedantic much? It is arguably on-topic as far as determining who is affected by the VW ad, after you insist on championing what you cannot see. However, for the sake of progressivity and social justice, lets make it hypothetical. Is it reasonable for someone of any nationality to be riled up about something which by means of physical or geographical barriers, cannot possibly cause them harm, mental anguish or any kind of detriment whatsoever. The answer has to be no.
    The citizenship status and location of users on this board are personal references and off-topic. It isn't your place to police which users can comment on which issues.

    Where is the ruling stating that the decision was overzealous?
    I see we're going back to this ludicrous drivel that the only valid views which exist in the world have to have be confirmed by a "ruling".

    Of which the saddest part was you bringing yo momma into the discussion.
    Another off-topic personal reference which doesn't even bear relevance to the comment which it purports to be a response.

  6. #1406
    Miles
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Wales... New South Wales.
    Posts
    368

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    References to another user's nationality and current location are not only irrelevant, they're also in violation of the ToS. This is at least the fifth or sixth time that you've made such references (really starting to show how desperate your arguments are becoming). Next time it happens, I'll be reporting your posts as inappropriate.
    I dunno, I find this stuff very rellevant (in regards to credibility). For the longest time I've been questioning Mongrel's place of origins, but then he said the word "Bollocks" which answered all questions, and now I reluctantly feel obligated to read every word he says in this thread.
    This kind of thing means stuff which is why you don't see me posting in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongrel View Post
    It's not your. country So your extended comments are just so much guff .It is not rational for you to be wound up about adverts you will never see.


    I suppose you'll never be remarking upon events which occur outside of the United Kingdom then...like say the terror attacks in Christchurch or El Paso. Oh wait, I'm sorry, this is one of those moronic standards which you only selectively apply to other people when its convenient isn't it?
    You know I always found it weird how-much the internet was talking about Christchurch. Like, since when did the world care about what happens in New Zealand? New Zealand is Australia's Canada. Nobody cares what happens in Canada (and it's only geographically close to one country), and Australia is already the Canada of the western pacific. So you've got going down in the Canada of a Canada.

    El Paso's the kerfuffle between the hard and soft taco's right?

  7. #1407

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    What a dreadful attempt to deflect. In future if you didn't make such incendiary accusations you wouldn't be so embarrassed when they're exposed as fallacious.
    It's hardly incendiary to suggest that you had no clue who the ASA were prior to my intervention.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Another utterly ridiculous claim which is divorced from reasonable debate.
    I don't consider the mocking of genuine concerns about the suffering of black Britons, in order to score cheap points, as 'reasonable debate.'. It's racist

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This particular VW advert was subject to a ridiculous standard.
    A standard that applies to all UK adverts. If there is a different one, post it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The citizenship status and location of users on this board are personal references and off-topic. It isn't your place to police which users can comment on which issues. .
    I have addressed this by using a hypothetical, going beyond TWC users . Unless you can prove that the entire population of Earth ( and the International Space Station ) are all TWC users, I will mock your daft assertion. My point stands. No person, no dog, no cat , no chicken can be adversly affected by anything the ASA does if they cannot view UK broadcasts.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I see we're going back to this ludicrous drivel that the only valid views which exist in the world have to have be confirmed by a "ruling". .
    Yes, we have a functioning regulatory and legal system.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Momma ooo ooo ooo oooh
    I didn't mean to make you cry. If I'm not back again this time tomorrow, carry on, carry on as if nothing really matters.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swiss Army Cheese View Post
    "Bollocks"
    Marvellous. I used to say feck a lot too, but I promised a moderator to be more sparing with that word.
    Last edited by mongrel; September 08, 2019 at 05:33 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  8. #1408
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    It's hardly incendiary to suggest that you had no clue who the ASA were prior to my intervention.
    Utter rubbish. Not only are you lying about your own suggestion (which was that "the only evidence worth a damn" had been sourced by you) but you're abjectly ignoring that the ASA were repeatedly mentioned in the material supplied at the start of the discussion which included a BBC radio interview with a representative from the regulator. Your fallacious allegations about the source material have been thoroughly debunked. Stop digging.

    I don't consider the mocking of genuine concerns about the suffering of black Britons, in order to score cheap points, as 'reasonable debate.'. It's racist
    Laughable projection. The only person trying to use racism victims to "score cheap points" and deflect away from their own embarrassingly poor arguments is you. It's time for you to stop fabricating outrage and admit the inadequacy of your logic.

    A standard that applies to all UK adverts. If there is a different one, post it.
    "We are talking about the Volkswagen advertisement. Simply pointing at instances where the regulation wasn't applied in an idiotic fashion doesn't somehow overcome those instances in which it was. Your argument is as stupid as claiming, for example, that the appropriate issuing of parking tickets disproves the notion that parking tickets can ever be issued inappropriately issued or that (and I raise this example only because you appear to have an interest in it) because not all Windrush migrants were negatively affected by May's policies that must mean that the hostile environment is "all in your head". It's a ridiculous line of argument."

    I have addressed this by using a hypothetical, going beyond TWC users . Unless you can prove that the entire population of Earth ( and the International Space Station ) are TWC users, I will mock your daft assertion. My point stands. No person, no dog no cat , no chicken can be adversly affected by anything the ASA does if they cannot view UK broadcasts.
    What a laughably self-defeating point. No one can view the advertisement in question because the ASA banned it; its irrelevant whether they can "view UK broadcasts" or not. More importantly, the basic premise that people shouldn't be entitled to comment on issues which don't affect their particular jurisdictions is not only ridiculous in and of itself, its also poisonously hypocritical coming from a user who routinely passes comment on issues occuring in a variety of global locations . As I said, your standard is moronic.

    Yes, we have a functioning regulatory and legal system.
    Functioning doesn't mean without fault or beyond criticism.

    I didn't mean to make you cry. If I'm not back again this time tomorrow, carry on, carry on as if nothing really matters.
    Irrelevant drivel.
    Last edited by Cope; September 08, 2019 at 05:40 PM.

  9. #1409

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    This is an unfeasably quick response, Mongrel barely had time after listening to Queen's 'Somebody to Love'. Creepy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Blah.
    You initially mentioned an English social justice activist club, whom the Tories were supposed to reign in, Mongrel described an independent UK body comprised of industry professionals. Who was right?


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Laughable projection. The only person trying to use racism victims to "score cheap points" and deflect away from their own embarrassingly poor arguments is you. It's time for you to stop fabricating outrage and admit the inadequacy of your logic. .
    Didn't raise the issue and invited you to refer to the proper thread. Your actions, you own them.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    "We are talking about the Volkswagen advertisement. .
    A standard that applies to all UK adverts. If there is a different one, post it. Not a difficult line to follow, I would have thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    What a laughably self-defeating point. No one can view the advertisement in question because the ASA banned it; its irrelevant whether they can "view UK broadcasts" or not. More importantly, the basic premise that people shouldn't be entitled to comment on issues which don't affect their particular jurisdictions is not only ridiculous in and of itself, its also poisonously hypocritical coming from a user who routinely passes comment on issues occuring in a variety of global locations . As I said, your standard is moronic.
    Mongrel mentioned the judicial review process. You can write and insist on one. If successful, you and most of the planet still can't see it.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Functioning doesn't mean without fault or beyond criticism.
    Mongrel takes that as recognition that the process was followed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Irrelevant drivel.
    Not liking Queen? No person can say that in good faith , surely?
    Last edited by mongrel; September 08, 2019 at 06:03 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  10. #1410
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    This is an unfeasably quick response, Mongrel barely had time after listening to Queen's 'Somebody to Love'. Creepy.
    You're hardly presenting anything intellectually challenging. It doesn't take more than a few moments to rebuff your silly posts.

    You initially mentioned an English social justice activist club, whom the Tories were supposed to reign in, Mongrel described an independent UK body comprised of industry professionals. Who was right?
    This is an obvious case in point. Don't waste my time with this drivel.

    Didn't raise the issue and invited you to refer to the proper thread. Your actions, you own them.
    There is no specific reason for me to visit that thread: the example has already adequately exposed the irrationality of your logic. Not that it matters, since I could point to instances within this very conversation of you assuming the existence of latent motives when it suited you.

    A standard that applies to all UK adverts. If there is a different one, post it. Not a difficult line to follow, I would have thought.
    "We are talking about the Volkswagen advertisement. Simply pointing at instances where the regulation wasn't applied in an idiotic fashion doesn't somehow overcome those instances in which it was. Your argument is as stupid as claiming, for example, that the appropriate issuing of parking tickets disproves the notion that parking tickets can ever be issued inappropriately issued or that (and I raise this example only because you appear to have an interest in it) because not all Windrush migrants were negatively affected by May's policies that must mean that the hostile environment is "all in your head". It's a ridiculous line of argument."

    Mongrel mentioned the judicial review process. You can write and insist on one. If successful, you and most of the planet still can't see it.
    You don't know what I can or cannot see; my location is a personal reference and therefore off topic.

    I also like how you ignored the more important aspect of the criticism - namely that people are entitled to comment on events which occur outside of their own jurisdictions and that this is an entitlement which you take full use of regularly. So once again, don't waste my time with this hypocritical nonsense.

    Mongrel takes that as recognition that the process was followed.
    No one has claimed procedural impropriety: the claim related to the ridiculousness of the ruling.

    Not liking Queen? No person can say that in good faith , surely?
    It's your irrelevant posts which I dislike, not Queen.
    Last edited by Cope; September 08, 2019 at 07:15 PM.

  11. #1411

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Reeeeeeee
    Although Mongrel notes your refusal to seek remedy from the ASA despite bleating on about the need to challenge the decision , he's going to put this self-serving bollocks of yours to one side because.............



    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    No one has claimed procedural impropriety:
    Gotcha.

    Having agreed there is nothing wrong with the process, he'll take it that you concede that the procedure was indeed proper, Mongrel must ask what is up with the inflated quantum of offence.
    Last edited by mongrel; September 08, 2019 at 08:57 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  12. #1412
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Although Mongrel notes your refusal to seek remedy from the ASA despite bleating on about the need to challenge the decision , he's going to put this self-serving bollocks to one side because.............

    Gotcha.

    Having agreed there is nothing wrong with the process, he'll take it that you concede that the procedure was indeed proper, Mongrel must ask what is up with the inflated quantum of offence.
    A procedure can have been followed properly whilst still rendering an undesirable outcome. Once again, regulatory and legal procedures are not infallible or above criticism no matter how desperately you wish they were. The only thing you've "got", I'm sorry to say, is a lack of a coherent argument.
    Last edited by Cope; September 08, 2019 at 09:25 PM.

  13. #1413

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    A procedure can have been followed properly whilst still rendering an undesirable outcome. Once again, regulatory and legal procedures are not infallible or above criticism no matter how desperately you wish they were. The only thing you've "got", I'm sorry to say, is a lack of a coherent argument.
    Now that it is established that nothing is wrong with the process, there are no grounds for complaint. Imagine putting that case to the judge, saying that you don't like the outcome, but you concede that the panel acted properly. It would be game over. Sometimes we don't always get what we want. That is what happens in life, accept it and move on.

    Your argument is done. We've established that all this noise just for show.I won't bother pressing you as for motive, it is satisfaction enough to have proven that this obscure body did no wrong.
    Last edited by mongrel; September 09, 2019 at 01:47 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  14. #1414
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Now that it is established that nothing is wrong with the process, there are no grounds for complaint. Imagine putting that case to the judge, saying that you don't like the outcome, but you concede that the panel acted properly. It would be game over. Sometimes we don't always get what we want. That is what happens in life, accept it and move on.

    Your argument is done. We've established that all this noise just for show.I won't bother pressing you as for motive, it is satisfaction enough to have proven that this obscure body did no wrong.
    A procedure can have been followed properly whilst still rendering an undesirable outcome. Once again, regulatory and legal procedures are not infallible or above criticism no matter how desperately you wish they were. The fact that the procedure allows for such ridiculous interpretations is a fault with the procedure itself, not evidence that the procedure was followed improperly. Try again.

  15. #1415

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    A procedure can have been followed properly whilst still rendering an undesirable outcome. Once again, regulatory and legal procedures are not infallible or above criticism no matter how desperately you wish they were. The fact that the procedure allows for such ridiculous interpretations is a fault with the procedure itself, not evidence that the procedure was followed improperly. Try again.

    As you know , it is no longer disputed that:

    The ABA followed the proper process when making the decision.

    The decision is lawful.

    It is agreed that no person has suffered any detriment apart from the VW advertising team.

    Fair remedy is available for perverse decisions, through judicial review. There doesn't seem to be any challenge to the outcome.

    Mongrel adds that the VW were treated no differently from any other company whose adverts fail published criteria.
    Last edited by Tango12345; September 10, 2019 at 01:42 AM. Reason: flamebait
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  16. #1416
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    As you know , it is no longer disputed that:

    The ABA followed the proper process when making the decision.

    The decision is lawful.

    It is agreed that no person has suffered any detriment apart from the VW advertising team.

    Fair remedy is available for perverse decisions, through judicial review. There doesn't seem to be any challenge to the outcome.

    Mongrel adds that the VW were treated no differently from any other company whose adverts fail published criteria.
    Ridiculous sophistry. Nothing listed here (with the exception of the third point which has been repeatedly rebuffed) has ever been disputed, nor does it disprove the absurdity of the ASA's ruling. Simply highlighting uncontested (again with the exception of the third) and irrelevant points does not an argument make, let alone a victory parade.
    Last edited by Tango12345; September 10, 2019 at 01:43 AM. Reason: continuity

  17. #1417
    Tango12345's Avatar Never mind the manoeuvres...
    Moderation Overseer Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    20,178

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Please read the academy rules again.

    Replacing quotes with the word 'reeeeeeeee' (change number of e's to suit) or constantly describing someone's argument as such here does not make for a good faith debate. R
    eplacement of the quoted text with any substitution must be avoided. The same goes for repeating nearly identical posts. Both of these must stop now.

    I would prefer not to have to infract anyone.

    Last edited by Tango12345; September 10, 2019 at 02:08 AM.

  18. #1418

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Back this confected issue that the 'UK government (who weren't involved) made a decision which should outrage us because we are told that it promotes an SJW agenda (from a government which was content to impose austerity for the best part of a decade, food banks, bedroom tax, Windrush scandal and so on). Clearly the government wasn't involved in the ASA decision and the ASA process is transparent enough for reasonable people to rule out an SJW conspiracy.

    It reminds me of Winterval , where a perfectly sensible Christmas period marketing idea by a local council was subject to distorted commentary by numerous people, religious, non-religious and islamophobes to puff up their own agendas, including the tabloid lie that in order not to offend Muslims, politically correct councils throughout England were renaming Christmas Winterval or banning it altogether. The Daily Mail regularly maintained the lie for 13 years before confessing it was all made up.

    Apart from making one wonder what the point of unfettered 'free speech' is , if it ends up being a licence to brainwash racist proles, one would have to ask who was to gain from promoting the myth for so long.

    Brainwashed prole “Christmas is what it his, leave it alone England has to may PC mad people if you don’t like it you can always leave!! move to another country end of the debate!!”
    – A member of the Facebook group ‘WE’RE NOT GOING TO CALL CHRISTMAS ‘WINTERVAL’.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...myth-christmas

    https://pcgonemadgonemad.wordpress.c...ces-christmas/
    Last edited by mongrel; September 11, 2019 at 02:04 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  19. #1419
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Back this confected issue that the 'UK government (who weren't involved) made a decision which should outrage us because we are told that it promotes an SJW agenda (from a government which was content to impose austerity for the best part of a decade, food banks, bedroom tax, Windrush scandal and so on). Clearly the government wasn't involved in the ASA decision and the ASA process is transparent enough for reasonable people to rule out an SJW conspiracy.
    Another deliberate and flagrant misrepresentation of the arguments being made. No one has claimed that the government or an alleged "SJW conspiracy" had anything to do with the ASA's ruling. Both of these suggestions are straw men of your own making. They have both been repeatedly rebuffed.

    It reminds me of Winterval , where a perfectly sensible Christmas period marketing idea by a local council was subject to distorted commentary by numerous people, religious, non-religious and islamophobes to puff up their own agendas, including the tabloid lie that in order not to offend Muslims, politically correct councils throughout England were renaming Christmas Winterval or banning it altogether. The Daily Mail regularly maintained the lie for 13 years before confessing it was all made up.

    Apart from making one wonder what the point of unfettered 'free speech' is , if it ends up being a licence to brainwash racist proles, one would have to ask who was to gain from promoting the myth for so long.
    An 8 year old story about myths peddled by the Mail has nothing to do with the ridiculousness of the ASA's ruling. Though there is a sense of irony in you raising the misrepresentations of the tabloid press in an attempt to sell us your own fabrications.
    Last edited by Cope; September 11, 2019 at 08:42 AM.

  20. #1420

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    One trick pony.I'll step over the well -flogged dead horse and move on. And if you dare say that 'I never said I had flogged a dead horse' it will raise the question whether you are human or robot.

    I'm expanding the discussion, being in the UK, I would like to express some free speech within it.

    Why is there a transatlantic understanding that is it reasonable to say , write or broadcast any old drivel including outright lies to build up a myth that UK government institutions, whoever their political masters are are beholden to political correctness? Melanie Philips is paid a lot to make up racist and islamophobic drivel. Boris Johnson was paid a six figure sum for writing myths about the EU. The Sun had it in for EU migrants, blaming them for eating 'our swans' and 'our carp'. Fox News broadcast lies about Muslim only areas in the UK which if published by a Islamist extremist would have landed a short jail term. It's all bollocks , but I doubt it is just about the wonga received by highly paid 'journalists'. who write this pap.


    So who benefits from this dialogue? Racists/misogynists and other -ists benefit in so far that , if organised, they can collect followers and if not , can persuade themselves to harass and assualt their pet hates. By posting these myths, less educated working people will fix their grievances on migrants,the EU, Muslims, Jews, PC, women not knowing their place instead of exploitative employers, rogue landlords, greedy corporations, tax dodgers , austerity. It works too, Cameron, arguably Britain's worst PM since Lord North got re-elected. Mrs May, whose only achievement was a tax on plastic bags, was also re-elected . Now we have Boris. This 'free speech' seems to have come at an enormous price.
    Last edited by mongrel; September 11, 2019 at 02:54 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

Posting Permissions

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