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!!!

[astrologica]

Another nonsense post. Isn't it odd that those who come here to be disruptive always hide behind false IDs? 

[j_uk643]

I haven't met anyone who was actually called astro, other than a van. Is it a Welsh name ?

[astrologica]

Yes, they are actually. But I can still see right through you! 😄

[bankhaunter]

If someone is thin skinned and takes offence because they are thin skinned then that is their problem, no one is making them take offence.

If the people that were upset at the street preachers simply ignored them, any power they had to offend, is simply lost.  Therefore it is the listeners that are taking offence, they can't be forced to be offended.

Also there are many who virtue signal by being offended on behalf of others without actually checking first to see whether or not those others think something is actually offensive to them.

Milo might well be out to promote himself and he makes no secret of regarding himself as a provocateur but he is willing to answer questions no matter what they are and in no way can it be said that rioting to prevent him speaking is justified in any  way, it's simple censorship by violence and it's spreading and becoming more acceptable.

Remember the student who was arrested for saying a police horse was gay, that was so ridiculous they had to change the law but we are getting very close to getting into bother for wrong think. SJWs will never be satisfied.  Already we have a situation where only white people can be racist and only men can be sexist, definitions have been arbitarily changed.

Who is it that determines what parts of the Bible are acceptable and what are not?

[j_uk643]

I thought they might be. Must be 7 plus years, and awfully long time for a simple op

So is it astro, Jones, Williams or Evans - surely not forrin??

[j_uk643]

They were thin-skinned and hypocrites, and it's still a fatuous remark

Im sure he does like answering questions, it's more publicity, but it's still largely hot air in pursuit of self promotion. 

There's a difference between self-promotion and principle

Im not sure who you wish to 'check with' and it would be rather impractical, and unlikely to yield unanimity

I think free speech is important, currently the DOJ are seeking ip addresses for 1.2 million posters on an anti-Trump website, without citing any crime at all. 

However when some talk of 'free speech' they usual mean their own, and not others

The law makes the distinction, you may or may not agree with it.

[astrologica]

Never assume, you know the old saying. No need for me to repeat it. We have had posters on here before who made assumptions about people they don't know. 

[j_uk643]

So it's a fake name then - oh dear lol

[j_uk643]

No, it's possible for non white people to be racist, but Western history has been largely one of oppression of white on black

Usually when people try to invoke some sort of reverse inequality my experience has been that it's to justify their own prejudice and divert attention

Society and norms change.Sometimes people of a certain age don't always feel comfortable with that

To a certain extent I have some empathy with that, but not beyond the point where it's simply a personal diversion founded in deceit at others expense.

[bankhaunter]

Richards Brooks vice president of the NUS.   "Some people have more equal rights than others"

Now where have we heard that before?

If some sort of policy is being thought up with regards to a section of the public, it can't be beyond the realms of fantasy to actually confer with members of that section.

Of course one could do what the Yara Council in Melbourne did when deciding to do away with Australia Day.  They distributed a survey paper among activists and their associates in order to get the result they wanted.

We are living in a time of the victim olympics where everyone (other than white males) are some sort of victim somewhere on the victim ladder and where they turn to authority to put things right.  Except of course they cannot be put right because no longer being a victim is unacceptable, the goalposts are moved so often they are on wheels.

There's a difference between self-promotion and principle

Decided by whom?  You could say that every politian who make a speech is only doing it to promote themselves.

[j_uk643]

Thats a statement without context, which is a bit meaningless

If it was a national or state policy they could, but most comments on social media aren't

And if they did and it didn't please you would it still be a problem?

SJW is a bit pejorative, would it be fair to respond with  whiney males keen to hang on to their self appointed entitlement?

Democracy means some of us will not be satisfied, possibly most since it's often a compromise

Personally I don't care if Milo speaks or doesn't. Provided he stays within the law.However it's others right to exercise their rights to protest, whether I agree with it or not.

Milo isn't a politician just a wannabe minor celeb and not much more

[bankhaunter]

What self appointed entitlement?  Would it be the right to get longer prison sentences for the same offence for example, or perhaps be one of the great majority of the homeless?  Even never being the victim of domestic violence but always the perpetrator.

I wasn't talking about comments on social media, though there are many transgender people who are very upset about all the rubbish spouted by so self called non binary, knowing that it will adversaly affect them

However it's others right to exercise their rights to protest

That would include using violence to shut down and stop them speaking would it. To do the same to shut down a debate on the high rate of male suicide by setting off fire alarms.

Would it also include appearing on TV invited by the broadcaster to tell lies in order to shut down the showing of a film even though they and the person invited to give their opinion, have never seen it. 

[j_uk643]

You were talking about victimhood, and now seem to be revelling in the same.

Freedoms are usually residual.You seem to think that certain freedoms are inviolable and absolute if you agree with those views

Milo for eg has the right to hold his opinions, promote and present them within the law.What he and the rest of us don't have are the  freedom to promote them  where , when, and  in a manner we choose, regardless of others.You see anyone opposing his views as almost heretical, denying him and those who support him his  views,not exercising their rights,  they appear to have no rights because milo's freedom of speech trumps all. It doesn't.

I may  vote for one party that doesn't win. I am denied my choice, but not the right to vote. We don't always get what we want.Thats integral to democracy, as frustrating at times as it might be.

I'm not aware of the individual circumstances you mention, but I'm sure it's all as one sided as you claim and that they have no rights, just violent opposition.

Milo  was proceeded on social media by a female who went along the same path which he then appeared and emulated after her removal. I recall looking at her followers who were largely gun lobby, white nationalists, various supporters with nazi symbols and slogans and KKK, one even had his toddler daughter in a KKK outfit

Ah yes, the 'talking points'. I'm not unsympathetic to some points, but often they are presented in such a way to try to re-write history

Historically the most advantaged have largely been males across a whole range of issues.That they might not win every point doesn't invalidate that, however much spin one tries.

As said on the above freedoms before, I don't think your idea holds much water.One only has to look at Nazi Germany where certain views were tolerated by some in order to promote and further their agenda, thinking they could control what they had enabled. Tens of millions of people died as a result.

[0125arwen]

Some of the attitudes displayed here are the Exact reason the abuse was allowed and in some cases encouraged to continue for decades.

The same attitudes which are also allowing it to happen in the here and now.

But don't worry fake outrage and hurt feelings are obviously more important than the abuse and worse, of thousands of children.

[kh-vince]

Hi everyone,

I would like to remind you that hostile comments are against our Board Usage Policy and Community Values.

Please feel free to share your own opinions, but avoid such comments.

Thanks!