Free Speech in the UK

[Cope]

I see that you have replaced 'I didn't say that' to 'I have never '.

So long as you continue to fabricate my arguments, I shall continue to rebuff your fallacious claims.

Not convincing me with more content-free raging.

The usual flamebait which was addressed above.

Like James O'Brien I'm curious why or how people allow the Murdoch media ( or the equivalent) to wire their brains so that any opinion different to one's own or any sign of social progress Murdoch disagrees with as 'political correctness'. People assign their own failures to PC rather than own up to their incompetence.

Meanwhile, under the guise of promoting "good manners", radicals use language policing to try and enforce group think by swiftly punishing people who voice opinions which contradict their ideological fanaticism. No wonder they openly oppose a free press.

Others simply lack manners and complain that their 'freedom of speeeeech' is impared when decent people object.

And there it is: the lie that its all just an innocent and unobjectionable attempt to promote "good manners".

Gender phone boy isn't a victim, as I said, in my day naughty children would get a good spanking.

Although corporal punishment is out of date, even that would have been a more proportional response than banning a child from his education. Nevertheless, no one - least of all a child - should be punished for saying what they believe is true simply because it contradicts an enforced orthodoxy.

If the media has to persistently lie to maintain the impression that PC exists, then it must not exist. Alternatively, if it does exist, it would be at a level where sensible people don't give a toss.

You have been sourced legitimate examples which you dismissed out of hand, as above shown.

[mongrel]

So long as you continue to fabricate my arguments, I shall continue to rebuff your fallacious claims.



The usual flamebait which was addressed above.



Meanwhile, under the guise of promoting "good manners", radicals use language policing to try and enforce group think by swiftly punishing people who voice opinions which contradict their ideological fanaticism. No wonder they openly oppose a free press.



And there it is: the lie that its all just an innocent and unobjectionable attempt to promote "good manners".



Although corporal punishment is out of date, even that would have been a more proportional response than banning a child from his education. Nevertheless, no one - least of all a child - should be punished for saying what they believe is true simply because it contradicts an enforced orthodoxy.



You have been sourced legitimate examples which you dismissed out of hand, as above shown.

Nothing here but flaming with nothing new to add to the table. Best all round for the forum if I ignore your posts, whilst providing fresh material mocking this so-called culture war and the jihad against good manners.


In the meantime here is some useful advice for those too sensitive to cope with alternative opinions or lifestyles.


https://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-...YdnAsZI6n0rj6k

[Cope]

Nothing here but flaming with nothing new to add to the table. Best all round for the forum if I ignore your posts, whilst providing fresh material mocking this so-called culture war and the jihad against good manners.

In the meantime here is some useful advice for those too sensitive to cope with alternative opinions or lifestyles.

https://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-...YdnAsZI6n0rj6k

I think you'll find that it's the language policing zealots who are incapable of coping with certain forms of expression; they do, after all, condone the harassment, sacking and in some cases, imprisonment, of people who violate their authoritarian standards.

To add to the list of tin pot totalitarianism, we have the case of Sir Roger Scruton, a man who was fired from his government position after the New Statesman deliberately and maliciously misrepresented his comments in order to fabricate charges of bigotry against him (I wonder where we've seen that before). George Eaton, the man who conducted the interview from which the controversy arose publicly gloated with a bottle of champagne after hearing of Scruton's dismissal. After the full interview transcript had been leaked, the New Statesman was forced to apologize and Sir Roger Scruton was restored to his position. This is yet another instance of progressive activists who are incapable of tolerating the views of other people contriving allegations of racism for the purposes of defaming and smearing.

[mongrel]

What was that noise?

Anyway an example of how a spoof article satirising fake tabloid Islamophobic articles drew the attention of the EDL

https://southendnewsnetwork.net/news...fensive-cross/


https://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content...t-16.07.39.png

In the UK we call hot cross buns without a cross on them simply buns.

[Cope]

What was that noise?

The sound of your premise being conclusively debunked.

Here is the former president of the Equality and Human Rights Commission openly arguing that language and expression policing in the United Kingdom is starting to negatively affect communities across the country:

Phillips’s increasing frustration with the conviction that if we can only control the expression of ideas, we will all be able to live together in peace and harmony. October 2000 saw the publication of a report commissioned by Phillips, then chair of the Runnymede Trust, called The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. It marked perhaps the high-water mark of multicultural thinking, and suggested that Britain should become a “community of communities” in which each community would respect the other by avoiding causing offence.

“Well I think it would be fair to say that I made a big mistake,” he says now. “It was a clear statement that some groups can play by their own rules. That to me runs counter to my own political beliefs. Why I am still a supporter of the Labour party is because I believe fundamentally in solidarity and reciprocity, and I think most on the left have forgotten both of those things.”

"I don’t care about offending people,” he says. “And I don’t really care about being offended. There are quite a lot of people I actually want to offend. And I want to offend them all the time. But if somebody stands on the other side of the street and shouts * at me – I’m not going to be thrilled, but I’m not going to argue for him to get locked up.”

[mongrel]

More noises, in defence of some racist commentary apparently . That's what the fake culture war is about, making racism respectable.

Moving on. The words “politically correct” are the near-exclusive preserve of reactionary snowflakes.So oppressed was Donald Trump that he barely managed to become president of the United States.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/p...icer-1.3182555

[Cope]

More noises, in defence of some racist commentary apparently . That's what the fake culture war is about, making racism respectable.

Moving on. The words “politically correct” are the near-exclusive preserve of reactionary snowflakes.So oppressed was Donald Trump that he barely managed to become president of the United States.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/p...icer-1.3182555

If Scruton were a racist then it wouldn't have been necessary for the New Statesman to fabricate accusations of racism against him. It is of course amusing watching you flagrantly ignore the Statesman's manipulative behavior after your bitter complaints about misrepresentations in the Murdoch press. This of course merely exposes your rank hypocrisy. As usual there's no interest in maintaining any sort of coherent or consistent moral or political position. All you care about is projecting your political biases (no matter how detached from reality they are) at all costs.

The irony of it all, as Philips highlights, is that language policing (and the desperate attempts to deny its existence) are actually contributing to the rise of right wing "populism". The more you rant and rave, the more you ignore reality and the more zealous you become, the more you facilitate the very people you despise.

[mongrel]

If Scruton were a racist then it wouldn't have been necessary for the New Statesman to fabricate accusations of racism against him. It is of course amusing watching you flagrantly ignore the Statesman's manipulative behavior after your bitter complaints about misrepresentations in the Murdoch press. This of course merely exposes your rank hypocrisy. As usual there's no interest in maintaining any sort of coherent or consistent moral or political position. All you care about is projecting your political biases (no matter how detached from reality they are) at all costs.

The irony of it all, as Philips highlights, is that language policing (and the desperate attempts to deny its existence) are actually contributing to the rise of right wing "populism". The more you rant and rave, the more you ignore reality and the more zealous you become, the more you facilitate the very people you despise.

I've no sympathy for the old Scrute. He's a big man, he knew what he was doing, and he should have known the rules when signing up for public service, the effing snowflake.

He'll be gone soon anyway.


Political correctness remains a term almost exclusively used by gammon.

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/10/has-plitical-correctness-gone-too-far

[Cope]

I've no sympathy for the old Scrute. He's a big man, he knew what he was doing, and he should have known the rules when signing up for public service, the effing snowflake.

The "rules" of public service don't involve capitulating to media hit pieces. It's laughable that you're so entrenched in your hypocrisy that you won't concede that the New Statesman behaved improperly even though they openly apologized for having spread fake news. Instead - and despite the fact that you've spent the best part of the last three pages complaining about fallacious news stories - you attempt to justify Scruton's treatment on the basis that in a completely unrelated publication almost fifteen years ago he said something you didn't like.

He'll be gone soon anyway.

You seem to say that with a sense of smug satisfaction. Then again, you only care about decency when you can manipulate it into a political tool to bully people who disagree with you, don't you?

Political correctness remains a term almost exclusively used by gammon.

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/10/has-plitical-correctness-gone-too-far

Yet I've never seen it used so ceaselessly as by you.

[mongrel]

The "rules" of public service don't involve capitulating to media hit pieces. It's laughable that you're so entrenched in your hypocrisy that you won't concede that the New Statesman behaved improperly even though they openly apologized for having spread fake news. Instead - and despite the fact that you've spent the best part of the last three pages complaining about fallacious news stories - you attempt to justify Scruton's treatment on the basis that in a completely unrelated publication almost fifteen years ago he said something you didn't like.



You seem to say that with a sense of smug satisfaction. Then again, you only care about decency when you can manipulate it into a political tool to bully people who disagree with you, don't you?



Yet I've never seen it used so ceaselessly as by you.

Employers can do whatever they like as long as they comply with the law, including the sacking of people who embarrass their employer. It was an unpaid job ffs. Roger Scrotum is hardly a martyr, his establishment bros have his back. And yes he will indeed be gone soon, that nature. He'll join Muggeridge, Whitehouse, Keith Joseph, who had made their country a worse place to dwell in. Jamal Khashoggi -now there is someone who suffered for free speech, but gammon aren't interested in challenging rich Arabs, just modest Pakistanis.

Stewart Lee comedian --'You know, you can't do anything in this country anymore, mate. It's political correctness gone mad. You can't even write racial abuse in excrement on someone's car. '

[Cope]

Employers can do whatever they like as long as they comply with the law, including the sacking of people who embarrass their employer. It was an unpaid job ffs. Roger Scrotum is hardly a martyr, his establishment bros have his back.

Do you have any idea just how ludicrous you sound when you try and justify the negative consequences people suffer when they've been the victims of false reporting? No, I suppose you really don't. You only treat it as a matter of concern if the Murdoch press is the perpetrator.

And yes he will indeed be gone soon, that nature. He'll join Muggeridge, Whitehouse, Keith Joseph, who had made their country a worse place to dwell in.

As I say, decency and "good manners" only seem to interest you when you think you can twist them into an ideological club to beat people who disagree with you. Otherwise, and by your own admission, you couldn't care less about them.

Jamal Khashoggi -now there is someone who suffered for free speech, but gammon aren't interested in challenging rich Arabs, just modest Pakistanis.

This is whatabouterry of the most ridiculous variety. Khashoggi's murder (which has nothing to do with "political correctness" in the United Kingdom) doesn't somehow justify other instances of authoritarian language policing. Moreover, considering that western countries have carried out military operations against the Hussein, Assad and Gaddafi regimes in recent memory, I think we can dismiss your bizarre claims about "rich Arabs" not being "challenged". That said, your raising of the Khashoggi murder does remind me of the the insipid reaction reaction of many westerners to the writings of Salman Rushdie.

[mongrel]

Oh the massive loss of being dumped from a non-paying, non- job in a nation that endures austerity. Must get the tiniest violin I can find.. Scrotum should grow some. And I wasn't aware that gammon had armies at their command. Rushdie has the benefit of police protection, paid for at taxpayer expense.


Another attempt by gammon to undermine community relations by pretending that minorities have banned sales of poppies.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/poppy-sale-ban/

[Cope]

Oh the massive loss of being dumped from a non-paying, non- job in a nation that endures austerity. Must get the tiniest violin I can find.. Scrotum should grow some.

I like it when you've got no actual defense so you just resort to angrily claiming "you should get over it!" Here let me try:

Another attempt by gammon to undermine community relations by pretending that minorities have banned sales of poppies.

Oh the massive loss of a single post Facebook post claiming that poppy sales had been banned. Must get the tiniest violin I can find.. Snopes should grow some

[mongrel]

Your try failed.This because you seem to believe that we must wear hair shirts and proclaim our lamentations loudly whenever some rich priveleged elite type is called up for the most basic errors in manners, common sense or judgment. I don't believe in unfettered free speech, but I would say that criticising what people say in interviews, articles or any other publication is what free speech is about.


Now for another example of PC gone mad hypocrisy.

The Daily Mail having a hissy fit because the Royal National Lifeboat Institution has a couple of projects overseas. In their opinion people should be only concerned with British people drowning, the couple of pence preventing non-Brits from drowning is apparently a disgrace.

The owners of the Daily Mail avoid paying their fair share of tax by pretending not to be British , for tax purposes,

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/mail-s...rticle/1596791

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/09/16...ash-responses/

[Cope]

Your try failed.This because you seem to believe that we must wear hair shirts and proclaim our lamentations loudly whenever some rich priveleged elite

reeee eeeelteeeeeee!11

Am I doing it right?

type is called up for the most basic errors in manners, common sense or judgment.

As is self-evident, you couldn't care less about manners. That being the case, one has to wonder why you appear so anxious about other people's alleged lack of manners.

I don't believe in unfettered free speech

I think its fair to say that you have no coherent speech standards whatsoever.

but I would say that criticising what people say in interviews, articles or any other publication is what free speech is about.

Still in full denial mode I see. Even after the magazine itself apologized for misrepresenting the truth, you're still desperately trying to defend it.

Now for another example of PC gone mad hypocrisy.

The Daily Mail having a hissy fit because the Royal National Lifeboat Institution has a couple of projects overseas. In their opinion people should be only concerned with British people drowning, the couple of pence preventing non-Brits from drowning is apparently a disgrace.

The owners of the Daily Mail avoid paying their fair share of tax by pretending not to be British , for tax purposes,

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/mail-s...rticle/1596791

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/09/16...ash-responses/

This has nothing to do with so-called "political-correctness".

[mongrel]

The board of the New Statesman were pussies.Didn't need an article to suggest that Scrotum was in the habit of posting racist screeds.The evidence is contained in Scrotum's own works, the racist . I note that he was a contributer to American Renaissance magazine,a white supremacist publication.


https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-a...ing-respectabi



This is the kind of person whose interests you are promoting for some reason.

Funny how you dismiss the bog-standard political correctness gone mad story that the Daily Mail specialises in. It's not about you though, it's about the gammon who must be trolled into hating foreigners.

[Cope]

The board of the New Statesman were pussies.

Inappropriate gendered language.

Didn't need an article to suggest that Scrotum was in the habit of posting racist screeds.The evidence is contained in Scrotum's own works, the racist . I note that he was a contributer to American Renaissance magazine,a white supremacist publication.

Quite right, they didn't need to fabricate an article about him. Why, after admitting this point, do you continue to defend them?

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-a...llectual-cultu

Dead link.

This is the kind of person whose interests you are promoting for some reason.

I don't care about his "interests"; what I care about is contradicting tin pot authoritarians who try to inhibit the expressions of others.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

Inappropriate gendered language.

I get that you think all cats are girls and all dogs are boys (the ones that are good boys anyways), but you do realise that the word "Pussy" as an insult is entirely unrelated to genetalia (though it is an assault on one's masculinity) as it is derrived from the species "the scaredy cat".
That's why "Pussy" and *ehem*"Countess" mean two completely different things when used as insults, as a "Pussy" is a coward and a "Countess" is closer to an ass-hole.

edit: Anyways, as a dog Mongrel gets a pass on beating up cats (verbally), just as the Englishmen get a pass for thier feud with the Scotts and the French, and the Australians with the Kiwis.

[mongrel]

Inappropriate gendered language.

Very PC of you. I was quite literally excercising free speech in the UK. You'll be asking me to check my privilege next. I may reconsider this if any TWC happens to be on the board of the New Statesman. Until then , in my considered view, they are puisíní.

Quite right, they didn't need to fabricate an article about him. Why, after admitting this point, do you continue to defend them?

Didn't defend them, I called them 'pussies'.

Dead link.

Try this

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...kceYtOJBBz39lT.

I don't care about his "interests"; what I care about is contradicting tin pot authoritarians who try to inhibit the expressions of others.

It's a publication, not an authority and it was too feeble to maintain a fair argument that Scrotom is indeed one massive racist despite his body of work. Do I take it that you would like it if massive racists are free to spout nonsense free from criticism?

[Cope]

Very PC of you. I was quite literally excercising free speech in the UK. You'll be asking me to check my privilege next. I may reconsider this if any TWC happens to be on the board of the New Statesman. Until then , in my considered view, they are puisíní.

I see the point of my comment - which was to highlight your laughable hypocrisy - went over your head.

Didn't defend them, I called them 'pussies'.

That would indicate that you don't actually think that their actions were in any way objectionable - despite the fact that they apologized for them.

Try this

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...kceYtOJBBz39lT.

You presented this previously.

It's a publication, not an authority

You don't have to be part of an "authority" in order to project authoritarian attitudes.

...and it was too feeble to maintain a fair argument that Scrotom is indeed one massive racist despite his body of work.

What the Statesman apologized for was deliberately manipulating the words of an interviewee.

Do I take it that you would like it if massive racists are free to spout nonsense free from criticism?

Deliberately misrepresenting someone's words isn't a form of legitimate criticism.