What is going on in the uk

[fallen-archie]

Following the resignation of shadow minister Sarah Champion for her innappropriate comments about grooming gangs am I missing something or are we becoming a less tolerant society rather than the opppsite. All she did was point a finger towards those responsible and out came the thought police demanding her head for having the audacity to say it as it is! Surely if an element of our society is misbehaving it is in the interests of the many to expose this and shout from the roof tops that such behaviour is unacceptable? Instead we are labelled racists and bigots which of course is fine!!!

[j_uk643]

Indeed they do. 

Sarah Champion can  jump in situations without due care or thought. She did so on a an issue of children's clothing and got rebuked by some of the very people she expected support from

In general I would make the observation that if the only concern shown relates to the ethnic origins of any alleged offenders, over a long period of time, the real concern is not with any claimed victim, but with certain ethnic views some are keen to promote

Anyone who claims there are no problems within the white community over exploitation, grooming, and assaults is either stunningly ignorant, or indulging in ethnic propaganda, or possibly both.

Starting three recent threads dealing with essentially the same issue gives some indication of actual motivations, even without long historical context

[j_uk643]

The Attorney General in the US said events in Charlottesville fit the conditions for describing it as a domestic terror attack.

Not only has Trump lost several cabinet groups  consisting of large numbers of CEO's from large corporations over the issue, the joint chiefs of staff have made the unprecedented move of also coming out individually to condemn the KKK, White supremacists, and neo Nazis who were in Charlottesville. Even James Murdoch who runs Fox, part of which is like Trump state TV also said the same in a memo, adding 'I can't believe I need to say this' 

Apart from surrounding a local synagogue and Church chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans, the group gave interviews and described the event as a 'success' no one died unnecessarily one said, with almost universal praise for Trump as 'one of us', the only reservation added was concern Trump gave his daughter to Kushner ( who is Jewish, and so now is Ivanka)

Another said 'sure they were there for violence, i've been training for it' he added with some bravado, and then proceeded to show the weapons he had with him, including a 9mm pistol in a pocket, another pistol he had in the rear of his trousers, yet a third in an ankle holster as well as not one but two assault rifles, a hunting knife and a bullet proof vest.

His bravado seemed to fade quickly when he became aware the police were seeking him and he began crying like someone in a Preston night club, blubbing he was only there for peaceful purposes

[bankhaunter]

Professor Jordan Peterson pointed out some months ago, that there were small groups of neo nazis lurking in the shadows and that the activities of the extreme left, such as their quashing of free speech, would encourage them to come out into the open and recieve support from those who would have previously condemned them.

That is exactly what we are seeing happen.

[j_uk643]

There isn't unconditional free speech, and never has been, and perhaps rightly so.

You only need to look at certain social media to observe what happens when we approximate to that.

You could make an equally if not more convincing argument for saying if certain types of expressed views are not opposed, it's more likely those promoting those views will become more embolden as a result.

That seems to be true currently in the US.

David Duke said to Trump that he should look in the mirror and remember who put him there, which he appears to have done. As usual Trump claims not to have met or known of Dukes last year in the primaries, which is odd because he's on record previously indicating he was fully aware of Duke and others

Bannon, Trump's chief Strategist previously ran Breitbart, an ultra right wing organ. Bannon's wife in sworn statement, testifies to his anti-Semitic views, among others.
From numerous sources Bannon is a prime leaker within the White House partly against Kushner who is jewish.

Here the likes of Farage says he's opposed to such racial views, claiming when he was leader of ukip he refused membership to anyone associated with such views
Which is odd because he's also reported to have expressed the same views in public and private, and so did numerous other members of ukip at the time.

He also claimed he would not  sit with certain (what he termed) 'far right groups' in the EU, which from my understanding it is more correct to say others didn't want to sit with him
He did in the previous Parliament sit with the Northern League, some of those MEP's expressed the view that Anders Breivik had some fine ideas
The joint chair of that group with Farage went further and said Breviks view's were in defence of Western Civilisation
The EU gives such groups about 2.5 million funding which Farage has used in part for personal bodyguards for himself, and other personal items There is/was no requirement for him to align with any group except if he didn't he would lose the 2.5 million, which he clearly wanted

Many people for what were probably good reasons at the time, kept silent in Nazi Germany, it didn't stop what happened
A diarist in the US Civil War wrote when Sherman was marching through Georgia that she was afraid of what the North would do if they found the prisoners at Andersonville. Silence didn't help there and you would be hard pressed to distinguish those prisoners visually from those at Bergen Belson or Auschwitz.

We fought a war against Nazism so I see no equivalence in that act 

[*devils.advocate*]

And just what all that has to do with archie’s OP?

Just falls squarely into cee-dee’s thread “Discussions on the RT”. A prime example of any chance of reasonable and reasoned argument or discussion thrown out through a closed window.

That diatribe isn't any form of reasonable or reasoned argument or discussion. 

Is it any wonder the boards are dying?

[j_uk643]

Lol, 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhLlXvkm65Y

[bankhaunter]

There isn't unconditional free speech, and never has been, and perhaps rightly so.

We have reached the stage where mere disagreement with the prevailing ideology, is considered hate speech regardless of the form it takes.  Quoting from the Bible for example

Two Christian street preachers have been convicted of religiously aggravated harassment after quoting from the King James Bible when asked questions about Islam and homosexuality by hecklers. The prosecution claimed that in the context of modern society this "must be considered to be abusive and is a criminal matter"

https://barnabasfund.org/news/In-2017-the-UK-capitulated-to-a-new-blasphemy-law-Christian-street-pre...

Offence cannot be given, only taken.

If you want to know who controls you, look to whom you are not allowed to criticise.

[0125arwen]

---

@fallen-archie wrote:
Following the resignation of shadow minister Sarah Champion for her innappropriate comments about grooming gangs am I missing something or are we becoming a less tolerant society rather than the opppsite. All she did was point a finger towards those responsible and out came the thought police demanding her head for having the audacity to say it as it is! Surely if an element of our society is misbehaving it is in the interests of the many to expose this and shout from the roof tops that such behaviour is unacceptable? Instead we are labelled racists and bigots which of course is fine!!!

---

The silence of the lambs.

[stevefinn-2007]

Well, actually...this case centred not on what was said, but where it was said and the context in which it was said. It was more about the behaviour of the two men than the verses from the KJB which they quoted. Of course. they had chosen the venue carefully; a very multi-cultural city, away from the more affluent areas and on the edge of a large multi-cultural district. They have the right to evangelise and tell people how they see the word of God and how it does or does not fit into modern life; their audience had the right to object...and this it what happened. The police stepped in when it looked as if a breach of the peace was inevitable and they were prosecuted when they ceased to desist.

It's not the criticisms that we level against each other that matter, it's the manner in which we deliver them.

..and these two chaps has already toured some of the less affluent cities/towns of the UK and run into the same problems...so they knew what to expect.

[bankhaunter]

So the police arrested the two who were answering a question by quoting from the Bible and not the hecklers who were harassing them.  It's on record.

First, because the transcript of what the preachers said – which was filmed by them – shows that although they were subjected to considerable verbal and crude abuse by hecklers, they responded politely. Yet the police choose to arrest them instead of the hecklers.

Should there be a situation where a person is doing nothing illegal but can be arrested because of the behaviour of others towards them?

[valjo2472]

---

@*devils.advocate* wrote:

And just what all that has to do with archie’s OP?

Just falls squarely into cee-dee’s thread “Discussions on the RT”. A prime example of any chance of reasonable and reasoned argument or discussion thrown out through a closed window.

That diatribe isn't any form of reasonable or reasoned argument or discussion. 

Is it any wonder the boards are dying?

---

Hello Fallen-Archie ! Nice try !

[stevefinn-2007]

The law is quite clear: if your behaviour leads to or is likely to cause a breach of the peace - then you are at fault and could be prosecuted.

You shall not lie with a male as a female, it's an abomination" - was one of the verses quoted by these men and I'm guessing that one or two people in the crowd that gathered around them as they preached took exception. They were not arrested because of their views...they were not arrested because they expressed their views....they were arrested because of how/where they choose to express their views. ...and yes, one can be arrested if their behaviour provokes violent or disorderly behaviour in others,

But of course..these fellows had some history of doing exactly the same thing before they arrived on the streets of Bristol and they had experienced much of the same reaction in other cities - they knew what to expect. To have the right to express a view is not the same as to be right in doing it; In this instance the law agreed with this sentiment.

[al**bear]

A serious question

If it was OK to plaster the now 'Iconic' picture of the little Boy in His Red Tee-shirt, lying face down in the waves of a Greek beach, all over our papers and have film of Him on every News channel and website site, Within an hour of those Pictures and film been taken.

Why hasn't our media shown a very similar picture,  of a little Boy maybe a year older (No blood etc), lying dead face down on a Barcelona street, you can see it all over social media.

Why the Double standard -

Any argument you can put up about the second Picture, must count for the first Picture

Unless the first one was released by MEDIA outlets for Propaganda purposes to shame Europeans into taking action

and the Second one was censored by the self same Media outlets, becuase it didn't fit in with their agenda

[al**bear]

Self same Media outlets showed film of Spanish Police,

repeatedly  shooting a Terrorist last night - no qualms about that

[*devils.advocate*]

Wrong.

[*devils.advocate*]

Is that it? Sad.

[fallen-archie]

Personally I am not keen on pictures of young children being displayed in the manner you described Al, who can forget that horrific picture of the young Vietnamese girl running along a road in flames. It was horrid but it did remind us all of the hideous nature of war. Nowadays regardless of what is happening and of any personal threat there is always someone ready to capture the moment on a mobile phone then boom it appears on social media within minutes. No thought for the victim or the consequences, just an urge to get ones five minutes of fame, I know such footage can be useful when it comes to police needing evidence but where is the respect for the dignity of others? Having said all that I do believe that we need a level playing field and that incidents covered by the press should not be cherry picked to suit an agenda. Whether that requires graphic images to be shown is a matter for debate, but how do you stop such photographs circulating on social media unless you impose the type of draconian moderation we all detest?
BTW if anyone is slightly interested I have not created a new account in order to support myself😩 Some people cannot believe that because they do it all the time everyone else does!

[bankhaunter]

The law is quite clear: if your behaviour leads to or is likely to cause a breach of the peace - then you are at fault and could be prosecuted.

I think you are missing the point. Those hecklers stirring up trouble were the ones likely to cause a breach of the peace, the street preachers themselves could just have been ignored.

If you take your way of looking at it to it's logical conclusion you could have a situation where if one person living in a street was the subject of hatred by all the other neighbours and every time they left the house, a crowd gathered and there was a rumpus, the person could be arrested for leaving their house.

What we have is a tacit admission that it's okay to silence an opposing point of view by using violence and not by reasoned argument.

We can see what that leads to, who is committing the breach of the peace here, Milo for accepting an invitation to speak or his opponents?

[j_uk643]

Offence cannot be given, only taken.

I somehow seriously doubt that, in fact, I have seen that comment frequently on other social media, and usually by those who suggested such on that same media who were actually the most thin-skinned I can recall

It was essentially a fairly inane comment used as one way defence by those wishing to abuse without taking  responsibility, and often to promote themselves 'commercially'. and little to do with 'principles'

The Bible, least the OT has numerous passages some of which if taken literally and acted upon might lead to a potential prosecution. 

Those holding such views are free to hold them, but not necessarily entirely free to promote them in all circumstances in the manner in which they choose. Same with laws on racial hatred and aggravated offences.

Milo like Hopkins is there to promote themselves on any available platform currently likely to elevate him

Same it seems with Breitbart former chief Bannon, the website was home to what he called the alt right including KKK, White Supremacist and neo-Nazis among others,yet Bannon  in conversation said  earlier this week said such groups  should be 'stamped on' hard, and that they were 'losers' and 'clowns'

In other words they were used by him as a means to an end, nothing more

In his defence, his assessment on NK was probably far more sane than that of his boss

[j_uk643]

One of the differences between real life and the Internet, is in real life you lose socks, but on the internet you gain those of others. Dahlinks lol

I would remind them of one free Wednesday morning, some years ago, before they got put on the scrap heap, and the events thereafter

Many tears blubbing and toys out the pram

Some might care to read their own threads and note several comments by themselves and others on the US, unless of course they too suffer from 'selective cataracts' and can't even read their own words,  - not that I blame them acshually.