"WE" is such a just elite and arrogant group. Right? So you APPROVE? Stifling the kind of discussion and confrontation that you seem to enjoy so much on USMB??
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws
- Thread starter RWNJ
- Start date
"WE" is such a just elite and arrogant group. Right? So you APPROVE? Stifling the kind of discussion and confrontation that you seem to enjoy so much on USMB??
Lucy Hamilton
Diamond Member
- Oct 30, 2015
- 38,422
- 15,169
- 1,590
- Banned
- #102
This is no longer an unusual occurrence:
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
Tweet from Matthew Doyle following bomb attacks in Belgium sparked furious response from other Twitter users
A man who sparked an outcry on Twitter after tweeting about confronting a Muslim woman on a street in Croydon, south London, and challenging her to “explain Brussels” has been arrested by police.
The Metropolitan police confirmed that a 46-year-old man had been arrested on Wednesday evening in Croydon on suspicion of inciting racial hatred via social media.
He is understood to be Matthew Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, who tweeted earlier in the day: “I confronted a Muslim women [sic] yesterday in croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me” a mealy mouthed reply.”....
Later he tweeted:
Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31)
Who cares if I insulted some towelhead ?? Really.
One of his last tweets on Wednesday evening was to say: “Thanks all you tweeters for proving I can still do PR.”
Officers for the Metropolitan police in Croydon tweeted on Wednesday that a suspect had been arrested for inciting racial hatred.
March 23, 2016
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
"He is understood to be Matthew Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, who tweeted earlier in the day: “I confronted a Muslim women [sic] yesterday in croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me” a mealy mouthed reply.”...."
So just asking a Muslim now to explain terrorist attacks committed by Muslims is against British Tyrannical Law and considered inciting racial hatred and gets someone arrested?
Also what does it refer "a mealy mouthed reply" what is this I Google mealy and I get this below putting this below with mouthed reply is
mealy
ˈmiːli/
adjective
- resembling or containing meal.
"a mealy flavour"- (of a person's complexion, an animal's muzzle, or a bird's plumage) pale.
"in its dark colour and mealy muzzle the Exmoor pony resembles the tarpan" - (of part of a plant or fungus) covered with granules resembling meal.
"mealy leaves"
- (of a person's complexion, an animal's muzzle, or a bird's plumage) pale.
Tilly
Platinum Member
The way it’s going people might consider it safer to just not talk to them at all! Then we’ll need yet more lawsThis is no longer an unusual occurrence:
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
Tweet from Matthew Doyle following bomb attacks in Belgium sparked furious response from other Twitter users
A man who sparked an outcry on Twitter after tweeting about confronting a Muslim woman on a street in Croydon, south London, and challenging her to “explain Brussels” has been arrested by police.
The Metropolitan police confirmed that a 46-year-old man had been arrested on Wednesday evening in Croydon on suspicion of inciting racial hatred via social media.
He is understood to be Matthew Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, who tweeted earlier in the day: “I confronted a Muslim women [sic] yesterday in croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me” a mealy mouthed reply.”....
Later he tweeted:
Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31)
Who cares if I insulted some towelhead ?? Really.
One of his last tweets on Wednesday evening was to say: “Thanks all you tweeters for proving I can still do PR.”
Officers for the Metropolitan police in Croydon tweeted on Wednesday that a suspect had been arrested for inciting racial hatred.
March 23, 2016
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
"He is understood to be Matthew Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, who tweeted earlier in the day: “I confronted a Muslim women [sic] yesterday in croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me” a mealy mouthed reply.”...."
So just asking a Muslim now to explain terrorist attacks committed by Muslims is against British Tyrannical Law and considered inciting racial hatred and gets someone arrested?
Also what does it refer "a mealy mouthed reply" what is this I Google mealy and I get this below putting this below with mouthed reply is
mealy
ˈmiːli/
adjective
- resembling or containing meal.
"a mealy flavour"
- (of a person's complexion, an animal's muzzle, or a bird's plumage) pale.
"in its dark colour and mealy muzzle the Exmoor pony resembles the tarpan"- (of part of a plant or fungus) covered with granules resembling meal.
"mealy leaves"
mealy-mouthed
adjective
- afraid to speak frankly or straightforwardly.
"mealy-mouthed excuses"
Lucy Hamilton
Diamond Member
- Oct 30, 2015
- 38,422
- 15,169
- 1,590
- Banned
- #104
Why would he ask a woman in Croydon to explain the Brussels attack ? I think we know why.This is no longer an unusual occurrence:
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
Tweet from Matthew Doyle following bomb attacks in Belgium sparked furious response from other Twitter users
A man who sparked an outcry on Twitter after tweeting about confronting a Muslim woman on a street in Croydon, south London, and challenging her to “explain Brussels” has been arrested by police.
The Metropolitan police confirmed that a 46-year-old man had been arrested on Wednesday evening in Croydon on suspicion of inciting racial hatred via social media.
He is understood to be Matthew Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, who tweeted earlier in the day: “I confronted a Muslim women [sic] yesterday in croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me” a mealy mouthed reply.”....
Later he tweeted:
Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31)
Who cares if I insulted some towelhead ?? Really.
One of his last tweets on Wednesday evening was to say: “Thanks all you tweeters for proving I can still do PR.”
Officers for the Metropolitan police in Croydon tweeted on Wednesday that a suspect had been arrested for inciting racial hatred.
March 23, 2016
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
You think he should have been arrested?
The man from the article asked the woman a logical question so no he should not have been arrested.
Tilly
Platinum Member
We shouldn’t be surprised that Tammy approves of the tyranny against free speech. After all, he applauded efforts to get Ben Shapiro, Milo and others blocked from speaking on US campuses (something that is now occurring in the UK too). He believes in denying even a platform for those that don’t share his regressive views.
The Slow Death of Free Speech in Britain (America, You're Next!)
Freedom of speech no longer exists in Britain. The land that gave the world the Magna Carta, the Levellers, and John Stuart Mill—three of the key foundation stones of the modern conception of liberty—is now arresting and even jailing people simply for speaking their minds.
A man has been investigated by the police for a hashtag he used on Twitter. Seriously. Never mind speechcrime, or even tweetcrime—now we have hashtagcrime, the criminalisation even of those snarky, ironic asides people pepper the internet with. The man in question, Stephen Dodds, committed the sin of taking a photograph of two Muslims praying at Anfield, the home ground of Liverpool Football Club, and posting it on Twitter alongside the tweet: "Muslims praying at half-time at the match yesterday. #DISGRACE." That hashtag saw him become the victim of a furious Twitterstorm, the modern version of a tomato-wielding mob, and he was eventually reported to the cops. They investigated the matter for two weeks—two weeks!—before finally instructing Liverpool FC to take appropriate action against the evil hashtagger. Liverpool this week said it is deciding how to punish this man who dared to type the word "DISGRACE" on the internet.
2. A journalist, Katie Hopkins, has been reported to the police, and, bizarrely, to the International Criminal Court (ICC), for writing a column for the Sun in which she referred to the African migrants trying to get into Europe as "cockroaches." Hopkins is known for her outré views. She's been reported to the police before, for "hate crimes against fat people"! She said "fat people are just lazy," which is apparently a police matter now. The police didn't charge her over her fat-shaming, but they might well interrogate her over her migrant-bashing. Her cockroaches column caused the Twittersphere to go into meltdown; 285,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Sun to sack her (my preferred solution to Europe's migrant crisis is to swap these 285,000 intolerant Brits who fancy they have the right to shut down writers they don't like for 285,000 Africans who want to live in this country); and now the Society of Black Lawyers has reported Hopkins both to the UK cops and also to the ICC, demanding it investigate her comments "under the provisions of incitement to commit crimes against humanity." Am I allowed to call this a DISGRACE?
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has launched an investigation into the appropriateness of an advert for protein supplements which features a sexy woman in a bikini next to the words: "Are you beach-body ready yet?" The ads, which appear on the London Underground, have been vandalized by SJW feminists who claim they "body shame" the plump. More than 30,000 people have signed an online petition—again with the petitions—demanding the ads be removed because they make women "feel physically inferior to… the bronzed model." And now the ASA, overlord of advertising in Britain, which has the power to expunge from the public sphere any ad it judges to be offensive, is heeding the feminist vandalizers and subjecting the ad to one of its stiff-lipped investigations. We wait with bated breath to see if this unelected institution will graciously allow the rest of us, the 64 million people of Britain, to keep seeing this actually quite pleasant ad.
The cases confirm that everywhere from the new virtual terrain of the Internet (that hashtag guy), to the old-fashioned printed press (the Katie Hopkins case), to the public square itself (that bikini ad), speech is under threat from an unholy marriage of intolerant virtual mobs, censorious Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), and state institutions keen to censor stuff in order to protect the allegedly fragile public.
Other tweeters have been arrested and interrogated by police for making off-colour comments. In December last year, a 19-year-old man was arrested for making a joke about the truck disaster in Glasgow, when an out-of-control truck hit Christmas shoppers and killed six. The tweeter said: "So a bin lorry has apparently driven into 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day." For that, for doing what people have been doing for generations—making up stinging jokes in the wake of a tragedy—he was arrested. He was let off, but the police sent a chilling warning to us all: anyone who makes horrible jokes on Twitter we will be visited and given "strong words of advice," they said.
Various laws enable this police invasion of the online world: the Public Order Act of 1986, which criminalizes "racially aggravated" speech; the Malicious Communications Act of 2003, which criminalizes "offensive, indecent or menacing" speech in electronic media: these are the statutes the cops have used to colonise the internet.
I kinda guarantee that the Bikini Ad example is an example of "threatening and abusive" to Muslims. Since one of the 1st acts of the Mayor of London was to strip ads like these from public transit for just those reasons.
Freedom of speech no longer exists in Britain. The land that gave the world the Magna Carta, the Levellers, and John Stuart Mill—three of the key foundation stones of the modern conception of liberty—is now arresting and even jailing people simply for speaking their minds.
A man has been investigated by the police for a hashtag he used on Twitter. Seriously. Never mind speechcrime, or even tweetcrime—now we have hashtagcrime, the criminalisation even of those snarky, ironic asides people pepper the internet with. The man in question, Stephen Dodds, committed the sin of taking a photograph of two Muslims praying at Anfield, the home ground of Liverpool Football Club, and posting it on Twitter alongside the tweet: "Muslims praying at half-time at the match yesterday. #DISGRACE." That hashtag saw him become the victim of a furious Twitterstorm, the modern version of a tomato-wielding mob, and he was eventually reported to the cops. They investigated the matter for two weeks—two weeks!—before finally instructing Liverpool FC to take appropriate action against the evil hashtagger. Liverpool this week said it is deciding how to punish this man who dared to type the word "DISGRACE" on the internet.
2. A journalist, Katie Hopkins, has been reported to the police, and, bizarrely, to the International Criminal Court (ICC), for writing a column for the Sun in which she referred to the African migrants trying to get into Europe as "cockroaches." Hopkins is known for her outré views. She's been reported to the police before, for "hate crimes against fat people"! She said "fat people are just lazy," which is apparently a police matter now. The police didn't charge her over her fat-shaming, but they might well interrogate her over her migrant-bashing. Her cockroaches column caused the Twittersphere to go into meltdown; 285,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Sun to sack her (my preferred solution to Europe's migrant crisis is to swap these 285,000 intolerant Brits who fancy they have the right to shut down writers they don't like for 285,000 Africans who want to live in this country); and now the Society of Black Lawyers has reported Hopkins both to the UK cops and also to the ICC, demanding it investigate her comments "under the provisions of incitement to commit crimes against humanity." Am I allowed to call this a DISGRACE?
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has launched an investigation into the appropriateness of an advert for protein supplements which features a sexy woman in a bikini next to the words: "Are you beach-body ready yet?" The ads, which appear on the London Underground, have been vandalized by SJW feminists who claim they "body shame" the plump. More than 30,000 people have signed an online petition—again with the petitions—demanding the ads be removed because they make women "feel physically inferior to… the bronzed model." And now the ASA, overlord of advertising in Britain, which has the power to expunge from the public sphere any ad it judges to be offensive, is heeding the feminist vandalizers and subjecting the ad to one of its stiff-lipped investigations. We wait with bated breath to see if this unelected institution will graciously allow the rest of us, the 64 million people of Britain, to keep seeing this actually quite pleasant ad.
The cases confirm that everywhere from the new virtual terrain of the Internet (that hashtag guy), to the old-fashioned printed press (the Katie Hopkins case), to the public square itself (that bikini ad), speech is under threat from an unholy marriage of intolerant virtual mobs, censorious Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), and state institutions keen to censor stuff in order to protect the allegedly fragile public.
Other tweeters have been arrested and interrogated by police for making off-colour comments. In December last year, a 19-year-old man was arrested for making a joke about the truck disaster in Glasgow, when an out-of-control truck hit Christmas shoppers and killed six. The tweeter said: "So a bin lorry has apparently driven into 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day." For that, for doing what people have been doing for generations—making up stinging jokes in the wake of a tragedy—he was arrested. He was let off, but the police sent a chilling warning to us all: anyone who makes horrible jokes on Twitter we will be visited and given "strong words of advice," they said.
Various laws enable this police invasion of the online world: the Public Order Act of 1986, which criminalizes "racially aggravated" speech; the Malicious Communications Act of 2003, which criminalizes "offensive, indecent or menacing" speech in electronic media: these are the statutes the cops have used to colonise the internet.
I kinda guarantee that the Bikini Ad example is an example of "threatening and abusive" to Muslims. Since one of the 1st acts of the Mayor of London was to strip ads like these from public transit for just those reasons.
Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
If some knobhead abused my wife in the street then I would want him arrested. What are you driving at ?Why would he ask a woman in Croydon to explain the Brussels attack ? I think we know why.This is no longer an unusual occurrence:
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
Tweet from Matthew Doyle following bomb attacks in Belgium sparked furious response from other Twitter users
A man who sparked an outcry on Twitter after tweeting about confronting a Muslim woman on a street in Croydon, south London, and challenging her to “explain Brussels” has been arrested by police.
The Metropolitan police confirmed that a 46-year-old man had been arrested on Wednesday evening in Croydon on suspicion of inciting racial hatred via social media.
He is understood to be Matthew Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, who tweeted earlier in the day: “I confronted a Muslim women [sic] yesterday in croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me” a mealy mouthed reply.”....
Later he tweeted:
Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31)
Who cares if I insulted some towelhead ?? Really.
One of his last tweets on Wednesday evening was to say: “Thanks all you tweeters for proving I can still do PR.”
Officers for the Metropolitan police in Croydon tweeted on Wednesday that a suspect had been arrested for inciting racial hatred.
March 23, 2016
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
You think he should have been arrested?
Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
You choose to attack me rather than engage in debate. I know how this works so I will leave you to it.That is your opinion on the OP. But the OP is fact free and as such is just a standard Islamophobic rant.The distinction between "threatening and abusive" is an affront to all who use the English language. Any good lawyer can make the threaterning merely abusive. And the abusive clearly threatening.. It STINKS. It needs repeal or rewriting. THAT is the point of the OP...
Oh there it is.... Perfect example of danger and capriciousness of letting Tommy interpret Hate Speech.. Case closed huh?
I take this passage to protect my rights to free speech.
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
It seems quite clear to me.
Just read a bit further down the points and you will come to this.
The Football Offences Act 1991 (amended by the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999) forbids indecent or racialist chanting at designated football matches.[9] For a normative critique of prison being used to regulate hate speech, see Dennis J. Baker and Lucy X. Zhao, The Normativity of Using Prison to Control Hate Speech: The Hollowness of Waldron's Harm Theory (October 17, 2013). (2013) 16(4) New Criminal Law Review 621-656; Buffalo Criminal Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 3,
British football grounds in the 70s and 80s were horrible places. Black players were subject to monkey chants and even had bananas thrown at them. Black football fans did not attend because of the toxic atmosphere.
The laws brought in made this an offence. No decent people objected to this and the only people upset were knuckle dragging right wing racist trash.
Its a public order issue. Rights come with responsibilities.
First paragraph "Nothing in this part" ONLY protects the RELIGION, not the culture or character of "those people". So berating Muslim CULTURE or practice is NOT exempted by those weasel words...
Your problem with Sports incivilities won't be fixed by putting 421 chanters in cuffs. If there is a toxic atmosphere, then if all the "decent" folks stayed home, the LEAGUES would fix the problem without guys/gals with guns and cuffs. Oh well at least they have the cuffs right?? LOL...
Tilly
Platinum Member
You don’t allow your wife to be asked questions?If some knobhead abused my wife in the street then I would want him arrested. What are you driving at ?Why would he ask a woman in Croydon to explain the Brussels attack ? I think we know why.This is no longer an unusual occurrence:
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
Tweet from Matthew Doyle following bomb attacks in Belgium sparked furious response from other Twitter users
A man who sparked an outcry on Twitter after tweeting about confronting a Muslim woman on a street in Croydon, south London, and challenging her to “explain Brussels” has been arrested by police.
The Metropolitan police confirmed that a 46-year-old man had been arrested on Wednesday evening in Croydon on suspicion of inciting racial hatred via social media.
He is understood to be Matthew Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, who tweeted earlier in the day: “I confronted a Muslim women [sic] yesterday in croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me” a mealy mouthed reply.”....
Later he tweeted:
Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31)
Who cares if I insulted some towelhead ?? Really.
One of his last tweets on Wednesday evening was to say: “Thanks all you tweeters for proving I can still do PR.”
Officers for the Metropolitan police in Croydon tweeted on Wednesday that a suspect had been arrested for inciting racial hatred.
March 23, 2016
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
You think he should have been arrested?
Lucy Hamilton
Diamond Member
- Oct 30, 2015
- 38,422
- 15,169
- 1,590
- Banned
- #110
We shouldn’t be surprised that Tammy approves of the tyranny against free speech. After all, he applauded efforts to get Ben Shapiro, Milo and others blocked from speaking on US campuses (something that is now occurring in the UK too). He believes in denying even a platform for those that don’t share his regressive views.
^^^^ That is because the Far Left Pro-Islamists are the purest of Fascists Tilly.
The below is a WTF?! If the British cannot even quote now Winston Churchill without getting arrested well that is pretty much the end of Free Speech in Britain, um have they outlawed Rudyard Kipling books yet, are they going to begin burning books next?
Quoting Winston Churchill’s criticism of Islam contributes to U.K. politician’s arrest
Quoting Winston Churchill’s criticism of Islam contributes to U.K. politician’s arrest
Lucy Hamilton
Diamond Member
- Oct 30, 2015
- 38,422
- 15,169
- 1,590
- Banned
- #111
You don’t allow your wife to be asked questions?If some knobhead abused my wife in the street then I would want him arrested. What are you driving at ?Why would he ask a woman in Croydon to explain the Brussels attack ? I think we know why.This is no longer an unusual occurrence:
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
Tweet from Matthew Doyle following bomb attacks in Belgium sparked furious response from other Twitter users
A man who sparked an outcry on Twitter after tweeting about confronting a Muslim woman on a street in Croydon, south London, and challenging her to “explain Brussels” has been arrested by police.
The Metropolitan police confirmed that a 46-year-old man had been arrested on Wednesday evening in Croydon on suspicion of inciting racial hatred via social media.
He is understood to be Matthew Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, who tweeted earlier in the day: “I confronted a Muslim women [sic] yesterday in croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me” a mealy mouthed reply.”....
Later he tweeted:
Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31)
Who cares if I insulted some towelhead ?? Really.
One of his last tweets on Wednesday evening was to say: “Thanks all you tweeters for proving I can still do PR.”
Officers for the Metropolitan police in Croydon tweeted on Wednesday that a suspect had been arrested for inciting racial hatred.
March 23, 2016
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
You think he should have been arrested?
Bizarro Leftist Pro-Islamist Logic, asking a Muslim woman a question = abusing her
Tilly
Platinum Member
.....His arrest has led reignited the debate about freedom of speech, particularly given that Mr Weston was reading from a book by wartime Prime Minister, Winston Churchill.
But those in the Muslim community said the police were correct to act if Mr Weston’s actions were deliberately intended to incite hatred.
Mohamed Shafiq, leader of the Ramadan Foundation, said: “Of course there should be freedom of speech, but with freedom of speech comes responsibility. If someone was to deliver this message in the centre of Bradford for example where there is a large Muslim population then it could be seen as a deliberate act of incitement.....
Whatever happened to sticks and stones....
Why can’t people decide that the nasty words can simply be ignored, or even countered with more words ......rather than violence???
But those in the Muslim community said the police were correct to act if Mr Weston’s actions were deliberately intended to incite hatred.
Mohamed Shafiq, leader of the Ramadan Foundation, said: “Of course there should be freedom of speech, but with freedom of speech comes responsibility. If someone was to deliver this message in the centre of Bradford for example where there is a large Muslim population then it could be seen as a deliberate act of incitement.....
Whatever happened to sticks and stones....
Why can’t people decide that the nasty words can simply be ignored, or even countered with more words ......rather than violence???
Lucy Hamilton
Diamond Member
- Oct 30, 2015
- 38,422
- 15,169
- 1,590
- Banned
- #113
The Slow Death of Free Speech in Britain (America, You're Next!)
Freedom of speech no longer exists in Britain. The land that gave the world the Magna Carta, the Levellers, and John Stuart Mill—three of the key foundation stones of the modern conception of liberty—is now arresting and even jailing people simply for speaking their minds.
A man has been investigated by the police for a hashtag he used on Twitter. Seriously. Never mind speechcrime, or even tweetcrime—now we have hashtagcrime, the criminalisation even of those snarky, ironic asides people pepper the internet with. The man in question, Stephen Dodds, committed the sin of taking a photograph of two Muslims praying at Anfield, the home ground of Liverpool Football Club, and posting it on Twitter alongside the tweet: "Muslims praying at half-time at the match yesterday. #DISGRACE." That hashtag saw him become the victim of a furious Twitterstorm, the modern version of a tomato-wielding mob, and he was eventually reported to the cops. They investigated the matter for two weeks—two weeks!—before finally instructing Liverpool FC to take appropriate action against the evil hashtagger. Liverpool this week said it is deciding how to punish this man who dared to type the word "DISGRACE" on the internet.
2. A journalist, Katie Hopkins, has been reported to the police, and, bizarrely, to the International Criminal Court (ICC), for writing a column for the Sun in which she referred to the African migrants trying to get into Europe as "cockroaches." Hopkins is known for her outré views. She's been reported to the police before, for "hate crimes against fat people"! She said "fat people are just lazy," which is apparently a police matter now. The police didn't charge her over her fat-shaming, but they might well interrogate her over her migrant-bashing. Her cockroaches column caused the Twittersphere to go into meltdown; 285,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Sun to sack her (my preferred solution to Europe's migrant crisis is to swap these 285,000 intolerant Brits who fancy they have the right to shut down writers they don't like for 285,000 Africans who want to live in this country); and now the Society of Black Lawyers has reported Hopkins both to the UK cops and also to the ICC, demanding it investigate her comments "under the provisions of incitement to commit crimes against humanity." Am I allowed to call this a DISGRACE?
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has launched an investigation into the appropriateness of an advert for protein supplements which features a sexy woman in a bikini next to the words: "Are you beach-body ready yet?" The ads, which appear on the London Underground, have been vandalized by SJW feminists who claim they "body shame" the plump. More than 30,000 people have signed an online petition—again with the petitions—demanding the ads be removed because they make women "feel physically inferior to… the bronzed model." And now the ASA, overlord of advertising in Britain, which has the power to expunge from the public sphere any ad it judges to be offensive, is heeding the feminist vandalizers and subjecting the ad to one of its stiff-lipped investigations. We wait with bated breath to see if this unelected institution will graciously allow the rest of us, the 64 million people of Britain, to keep seeing this actually quite pleasant ad.
The cases confirm that everywhere from the new virtual terrain of the Internet (that hashtag guy), to the old-fashioned printed press (the Katie Hopkins case), to the public square itself (that bikini ad), speech is under threat from an unholy marriage of intolerant virtual mobs, censorious Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), and state institutions keen to censor stuff in order to protect the allegedly fragile public.
Other tweeters have been arrested and interrogated by police for making off-colour comments. In December last year, a 19-year-old man was arrested for making a joke about the truck disaster in Glasgow, when an out-of-control truck hit Christmas shoppers and killed six. The tweeter said: "So a bin lorry has apparently driven into 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day." For that, for doing what people have been doing for generations—making up stinging jokes in the wake of a tragedy—he was arrested. He was let off, but the police sent a chilling warning to us all: anyone who makes horrible jokes on Twitter we will be visited and given "strong words of advice," they said.
Various laws enable this police invasion of the online world: the Public Order Act of 1986, which criminalizes "racially aggravated" speech; the Malicious Communications Act of 2003, which criminalizes "offensive, indecent or menacing" speech in electronic media: these are the statutes the cops have used to colonise the internet.
I kinda guarantee that the Bikini Ad example is an example of "threatening and abusive" to Muslims. Since one of the 1st acts of the Mayor of London was to strip ads like these from public transit for just those reasons.
"I kinda guarantee that the Bikini Ad example is an example of "threatening and abusive" to Muslims. Since one of the 1st acts of the Mayor of London was to strip ads like these from public transit for just those reasons."
Re. The Bikini Ad....well thank God they didn't notice the Mohammed Condom Ad or it would have been
Tilly
Platinum Member
The Slow Death of Free Speech in Britain (America, You're Next!)
Freedom of speech no longer exists in Britain. The land that gave the world the Magna Carta, the Levellers, and John Stuart Mill—three of the key foundation stones of the modern conception of liberty—is now arresting and even jailing people simply for speaking their minds.
A man has been investigated by the police for a hashtag he used on Twitter. Seriously. Never mind speechcrime, or even tweetcrime—now we have hashtagcrime, the criminalisation even of those snarky, ironic asides people pepper the internet with. The man in question, Stephen Dodds, committed the sin of taking a photograph of two Muslims praying at Anfield, the home ground of Liverpool Football Club, and posting it on Twitter alongside the tweet: "Muslims praying at half-time at the match yesterday. #DISGRACE." That hashtag saw him become the victim of a furious Twitterstorm, the modern version of a tomato-wielding mob, and he was eventually reported to the cops. They investigated the matter for two weeks—two weeks!—before finally instructing Liverpool FC to take appropriate action against the evil hashtagger. Liverpool this week said it is deciding how to punish this man who dared to type the word "DISGRACE" on the internet.
2. A journalist, Katie Hopkins, has been reported to the police, and, bizarrely, to the International Criminal Court (ICC), for writing a column for the Sun in which she referred to the African migrants trying to get into Europe as "cockroaches." Hopkins is known for her outré views. She's been reported to the police before, for "hate crimes against fat people"! She said "fat people are just lazy," which is apparently a police matter now. The police didn't charge her over her fat-shaming, but they might well interrogate her over her migrant-bashing. Her cockroaches column caused the Twittersphere to go into meltdown; 285,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Sun to sack her (my preferred solution to Europe's migrant crisis is to swap these 285,000 intolerant Brits who fancy they have the right to shut down writers they don't like for 285,000 Africans who want to live in this country); and now the Society of Black Lawyers has reported Hopkins both to the UK cops and also to the ICC, demanding it investigate her comments "under the provisions of incitement to commit crimes against humanity." Am I allowed to call this a DISGRACE?
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has launched an investigation into the appropriateness of an advert for protein supplements which features a sexy woman in a bikini next to the words: "Are you beach-body ready yet?" The ads, which appear on the London Underground, have been vandalized by SJW feminists who claim they "body shame" the plump. More than 30,000 people have signed an online petition—again with the petitions—demanding the ads be removed because they make women "feel physically inferior to… the bronzed model." And now the ASA, overlord of advertising in Britain, which has the power to expunge from the public sphere any ad it judges to be offensive, is heeding the feminist vandalizers and subjecting the ad to one of its stiff-lipped investigations. We wait with bated breath to see if this unelected institution will graciously allow the rest of us, the 64 million people of Britain, to keep seeing this actually quite pleasant ad.
The cases confirm that everywhere from the new virtual terrain of the Internet (that hashtag guy), to the old-fashioned printed press (the Katie Hopkins case), to the public square itself (that bikini ad), speech is under threat from an unholy marriage of intolerant virtual mobs, censorious Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), and state institutions keen to censor stuff in order to protect the allegedly fragile public.
Other tweeters have been arrested and interrogated by police for making off-colour comments. In December last year, a 19-year-old man was arrested for making a joke about the truck disaster in Glasgow, when an out-of-control truck hit Christmas shoppers and killed six. The tweeter said: "So a bin lorry has apparently driven into 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day." For that, for doing what people have been doing for generations—making up stinging jokes in the wake of a tragedy—he was arrested. He was let off, but the police sent a chilling warning to us all: anyone who makes horrible jokes on Twitter we will be visited and given "strong words of advice," they said.
Various laws enable this police invasion of the online world: the Public Order Act of 1986, which criminalizes "racially aggravated" speech; the Malicious Communications Act of 2003, which criminalizes "offensive, indecent or menacing" speech in electronic media: these are the statutes the cops have used to colonise the internet.
I kinda guarantee that the Bikini Ad example is an example of "threatening and abusive" to Muslims. Since one of the 1st acts of the Mayor of London was to strip ads like these from public transit for just those reasons.
I believe this is the ad in question:
Within a week or so of this being banned, buses in London and other cities were emblazoned with ads promoting Islam. Tammy approved of both decisions.
Lucy Hamilton
Diamond Member
- Oct 30, 2015
- 38,422
- 15,169
- 1,590
- Banned
- #115
The Slow Death of Free Speech in Britain (America, You're Next!)
Freedom of speech no longer exists in Britain. The land that gave the world the Magna Carta, the Levellers, and John Stuart Mill—three of the key foundation stones of the modern conception of liberty—is now arresting and even jailing people simply for speaking their minds.
A man has been investigated by the police for a hashtag he used on Twitter. Seriously. Never mind speechcrime, or even tweetcrime—now we have hashtagcrime, the criminalisation even of those snarky, ironic asides people pepper the internet with. The man in question, Stephen Dodds, committed the sin of taking a photograph of two Muslims praying at Anfield, the home ground of Liverpool Football Club, and posting it on Twitter alongside the tweet: "Muslims praying at half-time at the match yesterday. #DISGRACE." That hashtag saw him become the victim of a furious Twitterstorm, the modern version of a tomato-wielding mob, and he was eventually reported to the cops. They investigated the matter for two weeks—two weeks!—before finally instructing Liverpool FC to take appropriate action against the evil hashtagger. Liverpool this week said it is deciding how to punish this man who dared to type the word "DISGRACE" on the internet.
2. A journalist, Katie Hopkins, has been reported to the police, and, bizarrely, to the International Criminal Court (ICC), for writing a column for the Sun in which she referred to the African migrants trying to get into Europe as "cockroaches." Hopkins is known for her outré views. She's been reported to the police before, for "hate crimes against fat people"! She said "fat people are just lazy," which is apparently a police matter now. The police didn't charge her over her fat-shaming, but they might well interrogate her over her migrant-bashing. Her cockroaches column caused the Twittersphere to go into meltdown; 285,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Sun to sack her (my preferred solution to Europe's migrant crisis is to swap these 285,000 intolerant Brits who fancy they have the right to shut down writers they don't like for 285,000 Africans who want to live in this country); and now the Society of Black Lawyers has reported Hopkins both to the UK cops and also to the ICC, demanding it investigate her comments "under the provisions of incitement to commit crimes against humanity." Am I allowed to call this a DISGRACE?
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has launched an investigation into the appropriateness of an advert for protein supplements which features a sexy woman in a bikini next to the words: "Are you beach-body ready yet?" The ads, which appear on the London Underground, have been vandalized by SJW feminists who claim they "body shame" the plump. More than 30,000 people have signed an online petition—again with the petitions—demanding the ads be removed because they make women "feel physically inferior to… the bronzed model." And now the ASA, overlord of advertising in Britain, which has the power to expunge from the public sphere any ad it judges to be offensive, is heeding the feminist vandalizers and subjecting the ad to one of its stiff-lipped investigations. We wait with bated breath to see if this unelected institution will graciously allow the rest of us, the 64 million people of Britain, to keep seeing this actually quite pleasant ad.
The cases confirm that everywhere from the new virtual terrain of the Internet (that hashtag guy), to the old-fashioned printed press (the Katie Hopkins case), to the public square itself (that bikini ad), speech is under threat from an unholy marriage of intolerant virtual mobs, censorious Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), and state institutions keen to censor stuff in order to protect the allegedly fragile public.
Other tweeters have been arrested and interrogated by police for making off-colour comments. In December last year, a 19-year-old man was arrested for making a joke about the truck disaster in Glasgow, when an out-of-control truck hit Christmas shoppers and killed six. The tweeter said: "So a bin lorry has apparently driven into 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day." For that, for doing what people have been doing for generations—making up stinging jokes in the wake of a tragedy—he was arrested. He was let off, but the police sent a chilling warning to us all: anyone who makes horrible jokes on Twitter we will be visited and given "strong words of advice," they said.
Various laws enable this police invasion of the online world: the Public Order Act of 1986, which criminalizes "racially aggravated" speech; the Malicious Communications Act of 2003, which criminalizes "offensive, indecent or menacing" speech in electronic media: these are the statutes the cops have used to colonise the internet.
I kinda guarantee that the Bikini Ad example is an example of "threatening and abusive" to Muslims. Since one of the 1st acts of the Mayor of London was to strip ads like these from public transit for just those reasons.
I believe this is the ad in question:
View attachment 173988
Within a week or so of this being banned, buses in London and other cities were emblazoned with ads promoting Islam. Tammy approved of both decisions.
The Leftist Pro-Islamist Fanatics prefer that women are on the beach like the below, this is because Leftist men are such Beta Cuck Faggots that girls in Bikini's want nothing to do with them and Leftist women are either so fat and ugly or are just carpet munchers that NOBODY wants to see them IN a Bikini.
So the Leftist Pro-Islamist Fanatics on every section of the Internet that they Troll on be it Twitter or forums like this forum they promote this:
You choose to attack me rather than engage in debate. I know how this works so I will leave you to it.That is your opinion on the OP. But the OP is fact free and as such is just a standard Islamophobic rant.The distinction between "threatening and abusive" is an affront to all who use the English language. Any good lawyer can make the threaterning merely abusive. And the abusive clearly threatening.. It STINKS. It needs repeal or rewriting. THAT is the point of the OP...
Oh there it is.... Perfect example of danger and capriciousness of letting Tommy interpret Hate Speech.. Case closed huh?
I take this passage to protect my rights to free speech.
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
It seems quite clear to me.
Just read a bit further down the points and you will come to this.
The Football Offences Act 1991 (amended by the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999) forbids indecent or racialist chanting at designated football matches.[9] For a normative critique of prison being used to regulate hate speech, see Dennis J. Baker and Lucy X. Zhao, The Normativity of Using Prison to Control Hate Speech: The Hollowness of Waldron's Harm Theory (October 17, 2013). (2013) 16(4) New Criminal Law Review 621-656; Buffalo Criminal Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 3,
British football grounds in the 70s and 80s were horrible places. Black players were subject to monkey chants and even had bananas thrown at them. Black football fans did not attend because of the toxic atmosphere.
The laws brought in made this an offence. No decent people objected to this and the only people upset were knuckle dragging right wing racist trash.
Its a public order issue. Rights come with responsibilities.
First paragraph "Nothing in this part" ONLY protects the RELIGION, not the culture or character of "those people". So berating Muslim CULTURE or practice is NOT exempted by those weasel words...
Your problem with Sports incivilities won't be fixed by putting 421 chanters in cuffs. If there is a toxic atmosphere, then if all the "decent" folks stayed home, the LEAGUES would fix the problem without guys/gals with guns and cuffs. Oh well at least they have the cuffs right?? LOL...
You characterized the OP as a "standard Islamophobic rant" -- when it is no such thing. If you take that as personal --- then you must be paranoid.. It's just letting your guard down IMO...
The Slow Death of Free Speech in Britain (America, You're Next!)
Freedom of speech no longer exists in Britain. The land that gave the world the Magna Carta, the Levellers, and John Stuart Mill—three of the key foundation stones of the modern conception of liberty—is now arresting and even jailing people simply for speaking their minds.
A man has been investigated by the police for a hashtag he used on Twitter. Seriously. Never mind speechcrime, or even tweetcrime—now we have hashtagcrime, the criminalisation even of those snarky, ironic asides people pepper the internet with. The man in question, Stephen Dodds, committed the sin of taking a photograph of two Muslims praying at Anfield, the home ground of Liverpool Football Club, and posting it on Twitter alongside the tweet: "Muslims praying at half-time at the match yesterday. #DISGRACE." That hashtag saw him become the victim of a furious Twitterstorm, the modern version of a tomato-wielding mob, and he was eventually reported to the cops. They investigated the matter for two weeks—two weeks!—before finally instructing Liverpool FC to take appropriate action against the evil hashtagger. Liverpool this week said it is deciding how to punish this man who dared to type the word "DISGRACE" on the internet.
2. A journalist, Katie Hopkins, has been reported to the police, and, bizarrely, to the International Criminal Court (ICC), for writing a column for the Sun in which she referred to the African migrants trying to get into Europe as "cockroaches." Hopkins is known for her outré views. She's been reported to the police before, for "hate crimes against fat people"! She said "fat people are just lazy," which is apparently a police matter now. The police didn't charge her over her fat-shaming, but they might well interrogate her over her migrant-bashing. Her cockroaches column caused the Twittersphere to go into meltdown; 285,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Sun to sack her (my preferred solution to Europe's migrant crisis is to swap these 285,000 intolerant Brits who fancy they have the right to shut down writers they don't like for 285,000 Africans who want to live in this country); and now the Society of Black Lawyers has reported Hopkins both to the UK cops and also to the ICC, demanding it investigate her comments "under the provisions of incitement to commit crimes against humanity." Am I allowed to call this a DISGRACE?
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has launched an investigation into the appropriateness of an advert for protein supplements which features a sexy woman in a bikini next to the words: "Are you beach-body ready yet?" The ads, which appear on the London Underground, have been vandalized by SJW feminists who claim they "body shame" the plump. More than 30,000 people have signed an online petition—again with the petitions—demanding the ads be removed because they make women "feel physically inferior to… the bronzed model." And now the ASA, overlord of advertising in Britain, which has the power to expunge from the public sphere any ad it judges to be offensive, is heeding the feminist vandalizers and subjecting the ad to one of its stiff-lipped investigations. We wait with bated breath to see if this unelected institution will graciously allow the rest of us, the 64 million people of Britain, to keep seeing this actually quite pleasant ad.
The cases confirm that everywhere from the new virtual terrain of the Internet (that hashtag guy), to the old-fashioned printed press (the Katie Hopkins case), to the public square itself (that bikini ad), speech is under threat from an unholy marriage of intolerant virtual mobs, censorious Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), and state institutions keen to censor stuff in order to protect the allegedly fragile public.
Other tweeters have been arrested and interrogated by police for making off-colour comments. In December last year, a 19-year-old man was arrested for making a joke about the truck disaster in Glasgow, when an out-of-control truck hit Christmas shoppers and killed six. The tweeter said: "So a bin lorry has apparently driven into 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day." For that, for doing what people have been doing for generations—making up stinging jokes in the wake of a tragedy—he was arrested. He was let off, but the police sent a chilling warning to us all: anyone who makes horrible jokes on Twitter we will be visited and given "strong words of advice," they said.
Various laws enable this police invasion of the online world: the Public Order Act of 1986, which criminalizes "racially aggravated" speech; the Malicious Communications Act of 2003, which criminalizes "offensive, indecent or menacing" speech in electronic media: these are the statutes the cops have used to colonise the internet.
I kinda guarantee that the Bikini Ad example is an example of "threatening and abusive" to Muslims. Since one of the 1st acts of the Mayor of London was to strip ads like these from public transit for just those reasons.
I believe this is the ad in question:
View attachment 173988
Within a week or so of this being banned, buses in London and other cities were emblazoned with ads promoting Islam. Tammy approved of both decisions.
I approve of that ad. On the basis of promoting "proper healthy body recognition" -- of course.
And if I'm not wrong -- it's the same type of Ad that the London Mayor ordered removed on the basis of being offensive to Muslims.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 267
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 102
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 180
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 92
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 39
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 191
- Replies
- 84
- Views
- 318
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 55
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8248
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 476
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-