Free Speech in the UK

[mongrel]

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

AS many a note or infraction has mentioned, temperate language is not one of my traits. If snowflakes can't take my description of the New Statesman's board that is their problem.

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. .

Scrotom's a professional racist, no requirement to create a scenario to establish that, curious why you are considering the miniscule detriment suffered by this odious specimen of a being. He'll be dead soon anyhow. If he's buried somewhere, I'll add it to the list of places to walk the dog.

T
You presented this previously. .

link working now presumably.

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

At what point did those pussies prevent Scrotom from publishing his works in such racist publications as American Renaissance.

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

Pussies.

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

If the message was that Scrotom is a massive racist , they were not far wrong, were they? Shouldn't use British tabloid tactics though, as I mentioned.


Here is the real effect of PC gone mad stories or 'free speeech in the UK ' as you may call it. The England shirt ban that wasn't.


https://metro.co.uk/2010/05/24/polic...a-myth-329992/

In 2010, Tthe police in Croydon suggests dress codes including 'no football shirts' so if landlords take this advice no-one can wear football shirts regardless of who they support.

The Sun says Bid to ban England tops in World Cup pubs


A mother opens a thread 'We allow people of other cultures to wear and do pretty much as they please...yet we wish to wear the shirt of the country WE LIVE IN and we are being told we aren't allowed to......'

https://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/...nd-shirts.html

Mongrel is unable to repeat what is said in other less genteel sites but it involves violence against minorities.

[Cope]

AS many a note or infraction has mentioned, temperate language is not one of my traits. If snowflakes can't take my description of the New Statesman's board that is their problem.

Which is why its laughably hypocritical for you to constantly cheerlead for language policing - particularly on the basis of "good manners".

Scrotom's a professional racist, no requirement to create a scenario to establish that, curious why you are considering the miniscule detriment suffered by this odious specimen of a being. He'll be dead soon anyhow. If he's buried somewhere, I'll add it to the list of places to walk the dog.

I'd say being fired and smeared on the basis of fallacious reporting wasn't a "minuscule detriment". And I see you've once again reverted to your embarrassing parading over another person's mortality because you read an article about him on a Corbynite website which presented him in an unfavourable light.

At what point did those pussies prevent Scrotom from publishing his works in such racist publications as American Renaissance.

What part of conspiring to get someone sacked on the basis of false information are finding hard to oppose?

If the message was that Scrotom is a massive racist , they were not far wrong, were they?

If he was a "massive racist" they wouldn't have needed to fabricate evidence against him would they?

Here is the real effect of PC gone mad stories or 'free speeech in the UK ' as you may call it. The England shirt ban that wasn't.

So the police issued silly advice and everyone ignored it. This has nothing to do with political correctness.

[mongrel]

Which is why its laughably hypocritical for to constantly cheerlead for language policing - particularly on the basis of "good manners".

You do realise that it is a common perception that racists, sexists and other -ists are complete arses.

I'd say being fired and smeared on the basis of fallacious reporting wasn't a "minuscule detriment". And I see you've once again reverted to your embarrassing parading over another person's mortality because you read an article about him on a Corbynite website which presented him in an unfavourable light.

A racist is fired from a non-paying non-job, not earned through application, but handed out to the boys like some bauble. I can't imagine a detriment more tiny. He has posted material in the racist white nationalist American Renaissance magazine,that is sufficient evidence to suggest he's a racist. How you cannot see that as 'unfavorable' Lord knows. Is your argument that we should show sympathy to racists now, because I can't find a violin small enough. Piss be upon him.

What part of conspiring to get someone sacked on the basis of false information are finding hard to oppose?

Employer sacked him, not the magazine.They were lawfully entitled to do so. I'm sure that he received notice pay ( nothing).

If he was a "massive racist" they wouldn't have needed to fabricate evidence against him would they?

Oddly enough I've already said that.

So the police issued silly advice and everyone ignored it. This has nothing to do with political correctness.

The Sun changed the message and many gammon trolls believed the Sun's version, that England shirts were banned, leading to some threatening minorities with violence.

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]

You do realise that it is a common perception that racists, sexists and other -ists are complete arses.

I'm not sure what that has to do with you whining about "good manners" whilst displaying non.

A racist is fired from a non-paying non-job, not earned through application, but handed out to the boys like some bauble. I can't imagine a detriment more tiny.

The relevance of the Scruton case has nothing to do with your subjective interpretation of who is or isn't a racist (and thank God since you bandy the term about like there's no tomorrow).

He has posted material in the racist white nationalist American Renaissance magazine,that is sufficient evidence to suggest he's a racist.

Not that it matters, but where is your evidence for this claim?

How you cannot see that as 'unfavorable' Lord knows. Is your argument that we should show sympathy to racists now, because I can't find a violin small enough. Piss be upon him.

Stop trying to set up tedious straw man arguments.

Employer sacked him, not the magazine.They were lawfully entitled to do so. I'm sure that he received notice pay ( nothing).

The argument has nothing to do with whether it was "lawful" for him to be sacked. It has to do with whether it's acceptable for journalists to fabricate stories about people espouse views which they disagree with with the intention of damaging their reputations.

Oddly enough I've already said that.

No, what you said was that he was "massive racist", posted one article in defense of this claim and then used it as a justification for the misrepresentation of his views.

The Sun changed the message and many gammon trolls believed the Sun's version, that England shirts were banned, leading to some threatening minorities with violence.

Which minorities were threatened with violence on the basis of that story?

[mongrel]

There is no subjective view about Scrotom being a racist. He is a racist, an objective observation, by virtue of some of his works including a contribution to American Renaissance, a magazine long dedicated to promoting white supremacist ideology. One cannot be an anti-racist, a non-racist or even a bit prejudiced and write for that publication.

With that in mind the question of whether he is fit for public office is a reasonable one. But again, your defence of this excuse of a crony seems to suggest to me that your idea of 'freedom of speech' is to allow repugnant people like this spout their views with out challenge or consequences.You might think your rants appear reasonable but others may see a square black stain on the window.



If an overt racist is called out as a racist, it should hardly dent his reputation such as it is. The difference between Scrotom and say Paul Golding (Britain First) is that the former has establishment connections and a number of publications, some respectible , some not, to use as a platform promote racist, misogynistic and homophobic views, whereas the latter, starved of such opportunities, resorted to violence to promote his views and had to serve time for it , with no chums in high places to cover his arse.


Strange how you would disbelieve that racist trolls would take advantage of the Sun's lies. I can't direct link due to TOS, I've mentioned that already. Use google if you must.

Here are some I have come across. with added wub:

London is in wub: England u muppet, if they don't like england shirts or people then they shud go home not try n change the law-in ENGLAND. english and proud m8 if the police wanna arrest me for wearing a england shirt they got another thing comin. if there country woz in the world cup they can off n not wear their shirts either.

If the non english in London or anywhere else dont like it tell them to do one! As usual though it is the state NOT the foreign nationals that are making a thing about this. Bring back the bulldog!!!

ME AND ALL MY PALS THINKS ITS A wub: JOKE!!!

THIS IS ENGLAND AND THEY SAY WE CANT REPRESENT OUR COUNTRY AND WEAR OUR COLOURS [censored] THEM ALL!! I DONT CARE IF I UPSET ANY1 NOT THAT I AM RACIST BUT THIS IS OUR COUNTRY IF THEY DONT LIKE IT THEN LEAVE!! IF WE TAKE OUR SHIRTS OFF THEY TAKE OFF THE TURBANS AND BURKHA'S WHATEVER THEY ARE CALLED THEM DRESS THINGS!

is that right we cant wear our country with pride but they can let out 2 terrorists who tried to bomb my home town to roam free and live of the state,.... bnp get on the case now!!!!


Im Irish i dont live in england but i agree with the OP it is your own country you should be able to wear your own shirts to support your own country if the foreigners dont like it they can wub: off.

Furthermore this story cropped up again in 2016 and 2018. Like Winteral, its a device to wind up racists and gammon to attack non-English people.

https://www.thatsnonsense.com/police...football-tops/

[Heathen Hammer]

There is no subjective view about Scrotom being a racist. He is a racist, an objective observation, by virtue of some of his works including a contribution to American Renaissance, a magazine long dedicated to promoting white supremacist ideology. One cannot be an anti-racist, a non-racist or even a bit prejudiced and write for that publication.

Sounds like you don't know what word "racism" actually means. You should probably look up things on subject matter before talking about it.

[Cope]

There is no subjective view about Scrotom being a racist. He is a racist, an objective observation, by virtue of some of his works including a contribution to American Renaissance, a magazine long dedicated to promoting white supremacist ideology. One cannot be an anti-racist, a non-racist or even a bit prejudiced and write for that publication.

I asked for evidence of this claim. Where is it?

With that in mind the question of whether he is fit for public office is a reasonable one. But again, your defence of this excuse of a crony seems to suggest to me that your idea of 'freedom of speech' is to allow repugnant people like this spout their views with out challenge or consequences.You might think your rants appear reasonable but others may see a square black stain on the window. If an overt racist is called out as a racist, it should hardly dent his reputation such as it is. The difference between Scrotom and say Paul Golding (Britain First) is that the former has establishment connections and a number of publications, some respectible , some not, to use as a platform promote racist, misogynistic and homophobic views, whereas the latter, starved of such opportunities, resorted to violence to promote his views and had to serve time for it , with no chums in high places to cover his arse.

Printing willful misrepresentations with the intent of damaging another person's reputation isn't included within the scope of legitimate criticism.

[mongrel]

I asked for evidence of this claim. Where is it?



Printing willful misrepresentations with the intent of damaging another person's reputation isn't included within the scope of legitimate criticism.

He has contributed to American Renaissance magazine, a magazine edited/written by racists for racists. Therefore he's a racist. That is all the evidence required. He has no reputation to damage in that regard. I guess that is why Scortom got his rich/tax dodging friends to reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee for him rather than sue, because he'd certainly end up like David Irving if he did.

Sounds like you don't know what word "racism" actually means. You should probably look up things on subject matter before talking about it.

You do love excusing white supramacists, even when they kill people down like in Charlottesvile

[Cope]

He has contributed to American Renaissance magazine, a magazine edited/written by racists for racists. Therefore he's a racist. That is all the evidence required. He has no reputation to damage in that regard. I guess that is why Scortom got his rich/tax dodging friends to reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee for him rather than sue, because he'd certainly end up like David Irving if he did.

For the third time, where is your evidence that Scruton has "contributed to American Renaissance magazine"?

[Heathen Hammer]

You do love excusing white supramacists, even when they kill people down like in Charlottesvile

Huh? I'm just pointing out that your posts demonstrate that you aren't aware of what the word "racism" means conventionally and simply apply to it to things you don't like. Also I do recall you justified violence that was started by antifa comrades in Charlottsville.

[mongrel]

Huh? I'm just pointing out that your posts demonstrate that you aren't aware of what the word "racism" means conventionally and simply apply to it to things you don't like. Also I do recall you justified violence that was started by antifa comrades in Charlottsville.

Empty words.
I don't recall antifa killing anyone at Charlottesvlle, but I do recall your rejoicing when that woman was murdered. Contributing to a white supremacist magazine is a racist act , by definition obviously.

For the third time, where is your evidence that Scruton has "contributed to American Renaissance magazine"?

For the last time, I've posted a link, go use it and read the full article instead of flaming on this racist's behalf.If you are not competent to to so, go google, it is readily available.

[Cope]

For the last time, I've posted a link, go use it and read the full article instead of flaming on this racist's behalf.If you are not competent to to so, go google, it is readily available.

So you have no evidence that Scruton "contributed" to the American Renaissance magazine other than that they pasted one of his articles onto their website from The New Criterion?

[mongrel]

So you have no evidence that Scruton "contributed" to the American Renaissance magazine other than that they pasted one of his articles onto their website from The New Criterion?

Evidence fully provided.

I've provided an article with a direct link, so you have , as suspected proven not comptent to fully read my posts, nor indeed to google if struggling.

[Cope]

Evidence fully provided.

I've provided an article with a direct link, so you have , as suspected proven not comptent to fully read my posts, nor indeed to google if struggling.

All you've "proven" is that the AR magazine pasted one of his articles onto their site, not that the two collaborated. What I'm looking for is proof of his collaboration.

[mongrel]

All you've "proven" is that the AR magazine pasted one of his articles onto their site, not that the two collaborated. What I'm looking for is proof of his collaboration.

One can presume that it was published with his express permission, or don't they have copyright laws in the US? And you said 'contributed', so I reckon that providing written material fits the definition. You may of course provide evidence that the article was stolen or published without permission, if you have it. Of course, should you disagree, the article itself is racist, which is why AR published it, it furthers their aims. Your chum Scrotum is a racist.

[Cope]

One can presume that it was published with his express permission, or don't they have copyright laws in the US? And you said 'contributed', so I reckon that providing written material fits the definition. You may of course provide evidence that the article was stolen or published without permission, if you have it. Of course, should you disagree, the article itself is racist, which is why AR published it, it furthers their aims. Your chum Scrotum is a racist.

So you have no proof, thanks for clearing that up.

[mongrel]

So you have no proof, thanks for clearing that up.

I would suggest that the burden of proof lies with you. Do you have evidence that Scrotom did not wish this racist rag publish this (racist) article ? In any event the article itself is racist, ergo Scrotum had no reputation to damage when he whinged about his treatment.

[Cope]

I would suggest that the burden of proof lies with you. Do you have evidence that Scrotom did not wish this racist rag publish this (racist) article ? In any event the article itself is racist, ergo Scrotum had no reputation to damage when he whinged about his treatment.

As previously mentioned, your citation of a few lines of text written fifteen years ago (which is what your blood-baying allegations are contingent upon) does not prove your accusation of racism nor does it justify the falsification of evidence against Scruton. Then again it is a theme with you to simply accuse anyone who either disagrees with you (or in someway other way contradicts you) of racism. You even managed to accuse every British Prime Minister in living memory - from May to Attlee - of racial impropriety. So at this point I think we can start discarding your claims and the ludicrous justifications which accompany them.

[mongrel]

As previously mentioned, your citation of a few lines of text written fifteen years ago (which is what your blood-baying allegations are contingent upon) does not prove your accusation of racism nor does it justify the falsification of evidence against Scruton. Then again it is a theme with you to simply accuse anyone who either disagrees with you (or in someway other way contradicts you) of racism. You even managed to accuse every British Prime Minister in living memory - from May to Attlee - of racial impropriety. So at this point I think we can start discarding your claims and the ludicrous justifications which accompany them.

That the Home Office policy was built on responding to racist attitudes, firstly to Jews and the black Commonwealth citizens, is a matter of record, I have posted extensve Government resources covering the latter for all to see. I would say that anyone who disagrees after reading the papers and understanding the effect on those affected, isn't so much a racist but a liar. If you want to suggest that I had forged these papers etc. and placed them in Kew archives or Hansard, be my guest.

And why the pointless personal jibes? Do I accuse people who want a no deal Brexit of being racists? Or those who challenge rent controls, or who disagrees that Blair was some war criminal. But why is that relevant to whether Scruton is a racist? Can I draw inference from your habit of defending this scrote and these clearly off topic reeeeeees about my ending the nonsense flying around the Mudpit around UK migration policy.

The article mentioned certainly is racist. The interview in question sees him use questionable language. I recall him saying that the violent neo-fascist National Front was an “egalitarian” movement. I again suggest the burden of proof agains remains with you. Is there any evidence that he has repudiated his racist views? I doubt that there is. Go convince the forum that he is not a massive racist, who is despite your whinging has been free to spout his bile, just as people are free to criticise im.

[Cope]

That the Home Office policy was built on responding to racist attitudes, firstly to Jews and the black Commonwealth citizens, is a matter of record, I have posted extensve Government resources covering the latter for all to see. I would say that anyone who disagrees after reading the papers and understanding the effect on those affected, isn't so much a racist but a liar. If you want to suggest that I had forged these papers etc. and placed them in Kew archives or Hansard, be my guest.

And why the pointless personal jibes? Do I accuse people who want a no deal Brexit of being racists? Or those who challenge rent controls, or who disagrees that Blair was some war criminal. But why is that relevant to whether Scruton is a racist? Can I draw inference from your habit of defending this scrote and these clearly off topic reeeeeees about my ending the nonsense flying around the Mudpit around UK migration policy.

The article mentioned certainly is racist. The interview in question sees him use questionable language. I recall him saying that the violent neo-fascist National Front was an “egalitarian” movement. I again suggest the burden of proof agains remains with you. Is there any evidence that he has repudiated his racist views? I doubt that there is. Go convince the forum that he is not a massive racist, who is despite your whinging has been free to spout his bile, just as people are free to criticise im.

Aside from the fact that you haven't presented anywhere near enough evidence to solidify the claim of racism against Scruton, the article you did cite has absolutely nothing to do with an incident of falsification which occurred 13 years later. Simply pointing at an unrelated occurrence and using it as a moral justification for the New Statesman's bad behaviour is intellectually degenerate.