In the Ched Evans case, the 19-year-old victim did not go to the police to report that she had been raped. She made no complaint whatsoever. She had no memory of being raped. She called the police to report a missing handbag. It was the police who suggested that she might have a case for rape against two well-known footballers.
Which sounds like pretty questionable behaviour from Plod. The rest of the article is worth reading, the police dont exactly cover themselves in glory.
Why do you think it is questionable? A woman tells police officers that she had been so drunk that she could not recall what happened but that she had had sex with 2 men, one of whom she only met in the hotel room and had not known before. It seems to me there was at least a potential crime to be investigated there and it appears that the jury agreed.
If only the officers dealing with children in care being collected by older men for sex had been half as diligent.
Because it shouldn't be the job of the police to suggest a crime had been committed.
Did you read the article ? In respect of another similar case:
““Dear Allison, Having recently sat as a juror on a rape case in which the defendant was acquitted, and having subsequently taken quite an interest in the subject, it strikes me that the motives of both the police and the CPS in bringing rape cases to court is often highly questionable. One really does wonder if both organisations are under some pressure to reach annual conviction targets – especially since the 2003 re-definition of what constitutes rape.
In the case in which I was involved, it turned out that at no point had the alleged victim ever had any intention of reporting rape, but had been persuaded to do so by domestic violence officers whom, it emerged, told her that what she had experienced 'could be construed as rape’. In fact, she and her long-term partner enjoyed nightly booze/cocaine/porn-fuelled sessions and regularly beat each other up. The result was a frustrated judge and a huge waste of public money.”
Why can't the BBC bring themselves to use the word Terrorist? That is what they are, but the BBC just can't bring themselves to call them that, instead every other weasel word is used.
If world war 2 happened now, instead of interning all Germans, Clegg and Camoron would be telling us at every opportunity after every blitz attack that most Germans are peace loving and passing hate laws to protect Germans; the police would be arresting anyone rude to Germans after a blitz attack, the BBC wouldn't be able to bring themselves to say German when describing blitz attacks and the usual suspect newspaper journalists would be saying we've only got ourselves to blame for upsetting the Germans.
Before we actually fought back against the Germans, the Armed Forces would have to carry out a health and safety review, an equality impact assessment, and be certain that their actions were compliant with the Human Rights Act. Then we'd give German nationals legal aid to sue our servicemen.
Of course many of the Germans and Italians who were interned in 1939 were refugees from Nazism and Fascism. It may well not have been the most sensible thing to do. Indeed many of those interned went on to be excellent additions to our intelligence services and military.
Mass bombing of civilian Germans was quite controversial even during the war.
In the Ched Evans case, the 19-year-old victim did not go to the police to report that she had been raped. She made no complaint whatsoever. She had no memory of being raped. She called the police to report a missing handbag. It was the police who suggested that she might have a case for rape against two well-known footballers.
Which sounds like pretty questionable behaviour from Plod. The rest of the article is worth reading, the police dont exactly cover themselves in glory.
Why do you think it is questionable? A woman tells police officers that she had been so drunk that she could not recall what happened but that she had had sex with 2 men, one of whom she only met in the hotel room and had not known before. It seems to me there was at least a potential crime to be investigated there and it appears that the jury agreed.
If only the officers dealing with children in care being collected by older men for sex had been half as diligent.
Because it shouldn't be the job of the police to suggest a crime had been committed.
Did you read the article ? In respect of another similar case:
“In the case in which I was involved, it turned out that at no point had the alleged victim ever had any intention of reporting rape, but had been persuaded to do so by domestic violence officers whom, it emerged, told her that what she had experienced 'could be construed as rape’. In fact, she and her long-term partner enjoyed nightly booze/cocaine/porn-fuelled sessions and regularly beat each other up. The result was a frustrated judge and a huge waste of public money.”
Each case has to be looked at on its own facts and the facts are that the conviction rate for rape is low because some cases are taken to court that should not be. Certainly in Scotland prosecutors are not allowed to "take a view" that there are minimal prospects of a conviction or a safe conviction and will leave it to the judge to rule there is no case to answer rather than abandoning as they might do in an assault case, for example.
This is a highly questionable policy but in Mr Evans case I think you are wrong to say that it is not the job of the police to suggest a crime might have been committed. That is their job and, so far at least, they were right. On the facts in the media I think the chances of a successful review of that conviction are minimal.
The Mail has the uncensored photo of the injured police officer, lying on the floor with his hands up, about to be executed, at the top of its website. There is no good reason to show that.
I disagree. It makes very clear the type of people we are dealing with.
Does it? Do we need that? On the other hand I think we saw some self censorship when the two British corporals were murdered after stumbling into an IRA funeral. Do you remember that? Just after the murder of catholics by a protestant at an earlier funeral. Michael Stone, Milltown Cemetry. Most of the cameramen gave up their film to the murderers as I recall - this after stopping to take the photos rather than run for help. The murder of these two soldiers was grotesque. The surviving film was not shown much if at all afterwards.
The whole episode was just one of terrible depravity. In thinking about what we do now should we not remember these episodes?
The facts were:-
Unarmed crowd bravely disarmed two armed men in a speeding car who had infiltrated and disrupted a funeral - a funeral, left us not forget, which was caused by the psychopathic atrocity of another armed man (Stone) at another funeral...
Crowd handed the men over to the IRA who, after discovering they were British soldiers in plain-clothes - whether on some nefarious official mission, or some malicious private folly is still unknown - gave them "short shrift".
Deplorable? Yes. Grotesque? Only if you are ignorant of the facts. Depraved? Don't be silly...
Something far wrong with you if you do not think that was depraved and could not possibly be excused in any way shape or form.
Just read a bit of the BBC's live update feed. Police officer shot, British cartoonists calling, effectively, to stop satirising Mohammed/Allah and an e-mail from someone saying this:
"We have to show the world what the true meaning of Islam is. Islam means Peace. Any attack on humanity doesn't justify its harm. But we also have to understand what freedom of speech really means. We can not use this freedom to ridicule any religion, if we all want to co-exist then we respect every religion."
Freedom of speech means the freedom to never ridicule what *I* believe in?
In the Ched Evans case, the 19-year-old victim did not go to the police to report that she had been raped. She made no complaint whatsoever. She had no memory of being raped. She called the police to report a missing handbag. It was the police who suggested that she might have a case for rape against two well-known footballers.
Which sounds like pretty questionable behaviour from Plod. The rest of the article is worth reading, the police dont exactly cover themselves in glory.
In the Ched Evans case, the 19-year-old victim did not go to the police to report that she had been raped. She made no complaint whatsoever. She had no memory of being raped. She called the police to report a missing handbag. It was the police who suggested that she might have a case for rape against two well-known footballers.
Which sounds like pretty questionable behaviour from Plod. The rest of the article is worth reading, the police dont exactly cover themselves in glory.
Why do you think it is questionable? A woman tells police officers that she had been so drunk that she could not recall what happened but that she had had sex with 2 men, one of whom she only met in the hotel room and had not known before. It seems to me there was at least a potential crime to be investigated there and it appears that the jury agreed.
If only the officers dealing with children in care being collected by older men for sex had been half as diligent.
Many of the teenagers in Rotherham did not consider themselves to be rape victims initially. They thought they had "boyfriends".
There is a lot of grey area between seduction (perhaps defined as persuading someone initially unwilling) and stranger rape.
The difference between the two footballers was that the woman did willingly go into a hotel bedroom with the first one after a relatively brief acquaintance. That was not the Case with Ched Evans.
This is a highly questionable policy but in Mr Evans case I think you are wrong to say that it is not the job of the police to suggest a crime might have been committed. That is their job and, so far at least, they were right. On the facts in the media I think the chances of a successful review of that conviction are minimal.
The point at which the police decide it's their business when the alleged victim doesn't feel a crime has been committed, and hadn't previously thought anything was wrong, or had any thought of pressing any charges sounds highly dubious. The whole approach of "you know this could be construed as... " sounds like an attempt to pad arrest figures.
"That charity worker that knocked on your door, did he lean forward a little ? if his toe went over the threshold that could be construed as trespass ? Are you sure he wasn't after looking down your cleavage, that would be harassment. Was his tie particularly brightly coloured, we could always do him for wearing a loud tie in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am"
In the Ched Evans case, the 19-year-old victim did not go to the police to report that she had been raped. She made no complaint whatsoever. She had no memory of being raped. She called the police to report a missing handbag. It was the police who suggested that she might have a case for rape against two well-known footballers.
Which sounds like pretty questionable behaviour from Plod. The rest of the article is worth reading, the police dont exactly cover themselves in glory.
In the Ched Evans case, the 19-year-old victim did not go to the police to report that she had been raped. She made no complaint whatsoever. She had no memory of being raped. She called the police to report a missing handbag. It was the police who suggested that she might have a case for rape against two well-known footballers.
Which sounds like pretty questionable behaviour from Plod. The rest of the article is worth reading, the police dont exactly cover themselves in glory.
Jury found him guilty. End of story.
You are obviously ignorant of the law . A conviction is never the end of the story, there is always the possibility of appeal.
The FT facing well deserved criticism for Tony Barber(Europe Editor)'s disgraceful a article:
LONDON, United Kingdom – The Financial Times faced a backlash on Wednesday after publishing an opinion piece by its European editor that called French magazine Charlie Hebdo, center of a deadly terror attack, “stupid” and “foolish” over its criticism of Islam.
In an article that appeared online, Tony Barber condemned the murder of 12 people during the attack, but accused the satirical magazine of “editorial foolishness” and said that it had “just been stupid” to provoke Muslims with controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.
Freedom of speech carries responsibility. Lame 60s 'radicals' repeatedly ridiculing people's religion in the manner of an adolescent child is their responsibility.
Good article by the FT, nice to have a free press.
I just ridiculed you in a childish manner. Are you going to murder me? If you did, do you think it would be considered morally just and acceptable?
It seems Barber is able to exercise the right to be little more than an apologist for terrorism, but those wishing to exercise the right to mock a chap from 13 centuries ago risk getting murdered by lunatics. That's not freedom of the press, that's freedom to appease.
"The Guardian has a video of the policeman being shot on its website, but is apparently refusing to show the cartoon, on grounds of it being offensive."
Unbelievably pathetic. Our news media is supine and allows Muslim nutters to dictate what they will and will not publish, even items of legitimate public interest. And this all follows on from the refusal of our politicians to properly investigate Muslim rape gangs. It is a corrupt and decadent ruling elite that needs to be utterly replaced.
At this point I have lost all sympathy with protecting Muslim sympathies. Muhammad was a child molesting war criminal. The facts about his appalling nature need to be made clear to all and sundry so people who choose to follow his brutal religion and politics do so fully knowing who they are endorsing.
I hardly think he is acting as an apologist for terrorism, those journalists knew what they were doing, inflaming a situation. It is not just their lives but others they are endangering.
In the Ched Evans case, the 19-year-old victim did not go to the police to report that she had been raped. She made no complaint whatsoever. She had no memory of being raped. She called the police to report a missing handbag. It was the police who suggested that she might have a case for rape against two well-known footballers.
Which sounds like pretty questionable behaviour from Plod. The rest of the article is worth reading, the police dont exactly cover themselves in glory.
Jury found him guilty. End of story.
Birmingham Six,
If you think the Ched Evans case is anything like the Birmingham Six case then I'm not sure what more can be said.
Supporters of Evans seem to base their warped perception of his innocence solely on the fact the victim was drunk. Classic case of blaming the victim - indeed we've seen Evans "supporters" hound the victim into hiding without a peep of protest from Evans himself.
And if you can't see the moral depravity of taking advantage of a woman who is paraletic then your moral compass is badly awry. But just as important, as the rapist Evans found, the law takes a dim view of such a lax moral code.
Mr. Socrates, Channel 4 had a fascinating debate about freedom of speech following the Danish cartoons. A live vote supported the decision to show the cartoons... which the channel then refused to show anyway.
Mr. Flag, inflaming a situation? They mocked all religions, and the British, yet somehow we resisted the urge to murder them.
Are you really saying the boundaries of the press should be dictated by gun-toting terrorists?
Comments by islamists on their brave attack for Allah and the Prophet in Paris yesterday.
Read and weep.
I was arguing with some of these ISIS supporters yesterday. They don't seem to like it when you point out the West is rich and free while they rule shitty patches of desert.
In the Ched Evans case, the 19-year-old victim did not go to the police to report that she had been raped. She made no complaint whatsoever. She had no memory of being raped. She called the police to report a missing handbag. It was the police who suggested that she might have a case for rape against two well-known footballers.
Which sounds like pretty questionable behaviour from Plod. The rest of the article is worth reading, the police dont exactly cover themselves in glory.
Jury found him guilty. End of story.
Birmingham Six,
If you think the Ched Evans case is anything like the Birmingham Six case then I'm not sure what more can be said.
Supporters of Evans seem to base their warped perception of his innocence solely on the fact the victim was drunk. Classic case of blaming the victim - indeed we've seen Evans "supporters" hound the victim into hiding without a peep of protest from Evans himself.
And if you can't see the moral depravity of taking advantage of a woman who is paraletic then your moral compass is badly awry. But just as important, as the rapist Evans found, the law takes a dim view of such a lax moral code.
Shame on Oldham Athletic.
I have no view on Mr Evans, I wasn't there, neither were you, none of the people that were there were sober enough to give a reliable report as to the proceedings. The judge and jury made the assumptions they were entitled to under the law.
There is no connection between Mr Evans case and that of the Birmingham Six except they they were released on appeal after a number of years when additional evidence came to light, such may also happen in the case of Mr Evans, so no, as you fatuously put it, just because the jury found him guilty it isnt the end of the story.
As to Oldham Athletic, the sentence of the judge was to serve time in jail for his crime, it wasn't to be hounded through the social media by a load of idiotic SJWs like you, and it certainly wasn't the be denied to opportunity of future employment in his chosen profession.
The FT facing well deserved criticism for Tony Barber(Europe Editor)'s disgraceful a article:
LONDON, United Kingdom – The Financial Times faced a backlash on Wednesday after publishing an opinion piece by its European editor that called French magazine Charlie Hebdo, center of a deadly terror attack, “stupid” and “foolish” over its criticism of Islam.
In an article that appeared online, Tony Barber condemned the murder of 12 people during the attack, but accused the satirical magazine of “editorial foolishness” and said that it had “just been stupid” to provoke Muslims with controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.
Freedom of speech carries responsibility. Lame 60s 'radicals' repeatedly ridiculing people's religion in the manner of an adolescent child is their responsibility.
Good article by the FT, nice to have a free press.
I'm sure your mate Mr Putin would agree with your first sentiment, if not your third.....
I hardly think he is acting as an apologist for terrorism, those journalists knew what they were doing, inflaming a situation. It is not just their lives but others they are endangering.
Ironic his article has been censored.
That's similar to the argument that if a woman is skimpily dressed, she only has herself to blame if she gets raped.
Mr. Socrates, Channel 4 had a fascinating debate about freedom of speech following the Danish cartoons. A live vote supported the decision to show the cartoons... which the channel then refused to show anyway.
Mr. Flag, inflaming a situation? They mocked all religions, and the British, yet somehow we resisted the urge to murder them.
Are you really saying the boundaries of the press should be dictated by gun-toting terrorists?
I don't think mocking anyone's religion is sensible.
Mr. Socrates, Channel 4 had a fascinating debate about freedom of speech following the Danish cartoons. A live vote supported the decision to show the cartoons... which the channel then refused to show anyway.
Mr. Flag, inflaming a situation? They mocked all religions, and the British, yet somehow we resisted the urge to murder them.
Are you really saying the boundaries of the press should be dictated by gun-toting terrorists?
I don't think mocking anyone's religion is sensible.
Islam is more than a religion, its a political ideology since it does not distinguish between "matters of church" and "matters of state", yet I notice you are not shy of mocking peoples political views
Mr. Flag, why? Why should an idea be open to mockery if it's secular and forbidden from derision if it's religious? Why should someone else's opinion curtail what I'm permitted to think/say?
Mr. Socrates, Channel 4 had a fascinating debate about freedom of speech following the Danish cartoons. A live vote supported the decision to show the cartoons... which the channel then refused to show anyway.
Mr. Flag, inflaming a situation? They mocked all religions, and the British, yet somehow we resisted the urge to murder them.
Are you really saying the boundaries of the press should be dictated by gun-toting terrorists?
I don't think mocking anyone's religion is sensible.
Religion is a belief system like any other. It doesn't deserve any more protection from mockery than astrology, libertarianism or Juche.
Mr. Flag, why? Why should an idea be open to mockery if it's secular and forbidden from derision if it's religious? Why should someone else's opinion curtail what I'm permitted to think/say?
We curtail what we say every day of our lives, its a question of what society thinks is acceptable that leads the way.
David Cameron turns EU enthusiast to little effect Merkel fails to support PM’s call to revise EU’s governing treaties to underpin changes in welfare and benefit rules for migrants
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, declined on Wednesday to endorse David Cameron’s call for a major revision of the EU’s governing treaties to provide a legally watertight basis for British-led reforms before an in-out referendum in 2017.
A day of wooing by the prime minister, in which he made some of his most pro-European comments in over two years and signalled a retreat from plans to water down the fundamental principles of the EU’s freedom of movement, appeared to fall largely on deaf ears
To respond to False Flag, there are two different issues here. One, whether we should mock each others' beliefs, is a matter of taste, courtesy, context and individual judgment. The other, whether we should be physically attacked, even murdered, for whatever we decide, should not be open to debate. Of course we bloody shouldn't.
I remember when I was an MP someone had an exhibit in (I think) the ICA of Christ on a crucifix in a vase of urine. He was obviously trying to be provocative and upsetting, and he succeeded - I had lots of letters demanding that his exhibit should be banned. I made a distinction between what I thought about the exhibit (yuck) and what I thought about banning it (no). The same applies, 1000 times over, to murder, and I'd be surprised if anyone here really disagrees (but if they do, they're entitled to their opinions too).
Mr. Flag, why? Why should an idea be open to mockery if it's secular and forbidden from derision if it's religious? Why should someone else's opinion curtail what I'm permitted to think/say?
We curtail what we say every day of our lives, its a question of what society thinks is acceptable that leads the way.
So you wouldn't be in favour of the equivalent of the First Amendment to be put in force in the UK ? Which society, the 16% of it that hangs out on Twitter ? The bit that likes to feel outraged and offended (which overlaps heavily with the previous set) ? Or the sensibly liberal British majority that think people should be free and even encouraged to speak their mind, and should be responded to in similar terms.
Mr. Root, society doesn't equate to three murderous lunatics. Society's limits of polite (or impolite) discourse must not be set by those willing to kill those whose expressions they dislike.
If we go down that route, we might as well ask Al-Qaeda to send us a list of words and images that they consider acceptable.
Hmm .. so the girl in the Ched Evans case only spoke to the police to report a missing handbag. They then initiated proceedings.
In the Rotherham case, the mother of one of the underage girls reported a rape, gave the police the evidence, and what did they do? They didn't want to proceed, and when forced to, "lost" the evidence.
To respond to False Flag, there are two different issues here. One, whether we should mock each others' beliefs, is a matter of taste, courtesy, context and individual judgment. The other, whether we should be physically attacked, even murdered, for whatever we decide, should not be open to debate. Of course we bloody shouldn't.
Absolutely. And I think its worth remembering the long historical slog that it took Europeans to get to such a point: thirty years war, Westphalia treaty, Bill of Rights, Magna Carta etc etc. Our ancestors paid a very heavy price to get to the kind of tolerant society we enjoy.
I'd actually rather UKIP had two MPs than one after the GE. Think of the comedy value of 50% of UKIP's MPs supporting gay marriage and 50% opposing it. This just wouldn't happen were there only one of the fools.
David Cameron turns EU enthusiast to little effect Merkel fails to support PM’s call to revise EU’s governing treaties to underpin changes in welfare and benefit rules for migrants
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, declined on Wednesday to endorse David Cameron’s call for a major revision of the EU’s governing treaties to provide a legally watertight basis for British-led reforms before an in-out referendum in 2017.
A day of wooing by the prime minister, in which he made some of his most pro-European comments in over two years and signalled a retreat from plans to water down the fundamental principles of the EU’s freedom of movement, appeared to fall largely on deaf ears
David Cameron's negotiation strategy seems to entirely entail being told by Angela Merkel what she will back, and he then presents such things as his demands:
David Cameron has dismayed Tory backbenchers after ditching plans for a cap on the number of European migrants coming to Britain, reportedly after pressure from Angela Merkel.
Cameron was going to reveal his plan in a keynote speech on immigration last November, but ditched it reportedly 48 hours before he gave the speech, sources told the Daily Mail.
Merkel is reported to have told the Prime Minister that she would back his proposals for curbs on migrants' access to benefits, however she warned him that she was prepared to let Britain leave the EU rather than allow him to cap the number of EU migrants by changing the European principle of free movement.
To respond to False Flag, there are two different issues here. One, whether we should mock each others' beliefs, is a matter of taste, courtesy, context and individual judgment. The other, whether we should be physically attacked, even murdered, for whatever we decide, should not be open to debate. Of course we bloody shouldn't.
I remember when I was an MP someone had an exhibit in (I think) the ICA of Christ on a crucifix in a vase of urine. He was obviously trying to be provocative and upsetting, and he succeeded - I had lots of letters demanding that his exhibit should be banned. I made a distinction between what I thought about the exhibit (yuck) and what I thought about banning it (no). The same applies, 1000 times over, to murder, and I'd be surprised if anyone here really disagrees (but if they do, they're entitled to their opinions too).
You got letters but from what you write here, no further escalation of those protests?
What would your response had been had you received a number of death threats, or turned up to your office to find it ransacked or firebombed?
Playing devils advocate here so bear with me.
When does the right to free speech need to be subordinated to the responsibility of an employer to keep their staff safe and, for heavens sake, alive?
We in internetland can waffle all we like about the glories of free speech all day behind the comfort of our pseudonyms and the sheer volume of content which makes identifcation of us by jihadists less likely - there are families in France now without husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. What about the cost to them?
Mr. Flag, why? Why should an idea be open to mockery if it's secular and forbidden from derision if it's religious? Why should someone else's opinion curtail what I'm permitted to think/say?
We curtail what we say every day of our lives, its a question of what society thinks is acceptable that leads the way.
It's more than that. It's the law. We do not have free speech in the UK. You can be jailed for inciting religious hatred if you say what you think about Islam! We've seen a slew of 'we must defend free speech' articles and comments in the last 24 hours. I look forward to the repeal of all our laws limiting free speech. Oh - and there goes a pig right past my window.
Mr. Flag, why? Why should an idea be open to mockery if it's secular and forbidden from derision if it's religious? Why should someone else's opinion curtail what I'm permitted to think/say?
We curtail what we say every day of our lives, its a question of what society thinks is acceptable that leads the way.
So you wouldn't be in favour of the equivalent of the First Amendment to be put in force in the UK ? Which society, the 16% of it that hangs out on Twitter ? The bit that likes to feel outraged and offended (which overlaps heavily with the previous set) ? Or the sensibly liberal British majority that think people should be free and even encouraged to speak their mind, and should be responded to in similar terms.
On this site we don't go down the route of telling other people what they are in favour of. Frankly current society disgusts me, Twitter and the internet have a lot to answer for.
Mr. Flag, why? Why should an idea be open to mockery if it's secular and forbidden from derision if it's religious? Why should someone else's opinion curtail what I'm permitted to think/say?
We curtail what we say every day of our lives, its a question of what society thinks is acceptable that leads the way.
It's more than that. It's the law. We do not have free speech in the UK. You can be jailed for inciting religious hatred if you say what you think about Islam! We've seen a slew of 'we must defend free speech' articles and comments in the last 24 hours. I look forward to the repeal of all our laws limiting free speech. Oh - and there goes a pig right past my window.
In courtesy to our kosher and halal readers, I should like to point out that other flying farm animals (and even flying tofu) are available...
To respond to False Flag, there are two different issues here. One, whether we should mock each others' beliefs, is a matter of taste, courtesy, context and individual judgment. The other, whether we should be physically attacked, even murdered, for whatever we decide, should not be open to debate. Of course we bloody shouldn't.
Absolutely. And I think its worth remembering the long historical slog that it took Europeans to get to such a point: thirty years war, Westphalia treaty, Bill of Rights, Magna Carta etc etc. Our ancestors paid a very heavy price to get to the kind of tolerant society we enjoy.
Indeed - and having won these hard fought rights, we must now fight to retain them.
Just read a bit of the BBC's live update feed. Police officer shot, British cartoonists calling, effectively, to stop satirising Mohammed/Allah and an e-mail from someone saying this:
"We have to show the world what the true meaning of Islam is. Islam means Peace. Any attack on humanity doesn't justify its harm. But we also have to understand what freedom of speech really means. We can not use this freedom to ridicule any religion, if we all want to co-exist then we respect every religion."
Freedom of speech means the freedom to never ridicule what *I* believe in?
there are families in France now without husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. What about the cost to them?
This would be the relatives of the cartoonists who knew they were in danger, having been so warned by the French security services only recently, and having two close protection officers on duty guarding their premises. A premises let us not forget that was occupied because their previous one was firebombed and burned to the ground.
The self same cartoonists who said they felt that free speech was too important to stop just because they had been threatened, and whose leader said « Je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux » ("I'd rather die standing than live on my knees")
Mr. Flag, why? Why should an idea be open to mockery if it's secular and forbidden from derision if it's religious? Why should someone else's opinion curtail what I'm permitted to think/say?
We curtail what we say every day of our lives, its a question of what society thinks is acceptable that leads the way.
It's more than that. It's the law. We do not have free speech in the UK. You can be jailed for inciting religious hatred if you say what you think about Islam! We've seen a slew of 'we must defend free speech' articles and comments in the last 24 hours. I look forward to the repeal of all our laws limiting free speech. Oh - and there goes a pig right past my window.
In courtesy to our kosher and halal readers, I should like to point out that other flying farm animals (and even flying tofu) are available...
Is it possible that Ed Miliband might successfully munch through various non bacon related hot meat sandwiches ?
I'd actually rather UKIP had two MPs than one after the GE. Think of the comedy value of 50% of UKIP's MPs supporting gay marriage and 50% opposing it. This just wouldn't happen were there only one of the fools.
Just like the Parliamentary Conservative Party, really.
To respond to False Flag, there are two different issues here. One, whether we should mock each others' beliefs, is a matter of taste, courtesy, context and individual judgment. The other, whether we should be physically attacked, even murdered, for whatever we decide, should not be open to debate. Of course we bloody shouldn't.
I remember when I was an MP someone had an exhibit in (I think) the ICA of Christ on a crucifix in a vase of urine. He was obviously trying to be provocative and upsetting, and he succeeded - I had lots of letters demanding that his exhibit should be banned. I made a distinction between what I thought about the exhibit (yuck) and what I thought about banning it (no). The same applies, 1000 times over, to murder, and I'd be surprised if anyone here really disagrees (but if they do, they're entitled to their opinions too).
So do you think the publication of Life of Brian, Charlie Hebdo, South Park etc was wrong because it we shouldn't mock each others' beliefs?
If so, this is nonsense. All beliefs should be held up to scrutiny and mockery. Sometimes the mockery is making a serious point that needs to be made, sometimes it's just for the pleasure of humour. What's appalling is that the vast majority of British Muslims thinks the publication of these sorts of cartoons should result in prosecution. Apparently only about 10-15% of Muslims in this country believe in free speech, and I suspect that such Muslims are actually Muslims in Name Only, and have, for all practical purposes, left the faith.
To respond to False Flag, there are two different issues here. One, whether we should mock each others' beliefs, is a matter of taste, courtesy, context and individual judgment. The other, whether we should be physically attacked, even murdered, for whatever we decide, should not be open to debate. Of course we bloody shouldn't.
I remember when I was an MP someone had an exhibit in (I think) the ICA of Christ on a crucifix in a vase of urine. He was obviously trying to be provocative and upsetting, and he succeeded - I had lots of letters demanding that his exhibit should be banned. I made a distinction between what I thought about the exhibit (yuck) and what I thought about banning it (no). The same applies, 1000 times over, to murder, and I'd be surprised if anyone here really disagrees (but if they do, they're entitled to their opinions too).
You got letters but from what you write here, no further escalation of those protests?
What would your response had been had you received a number of death threats, or turned up to your office to find it ransacked or firebombed?
Playing devils advocate here so bear with me.
When does the right to free speech need to be subordinated to the responsibility of an employer to keep their staff safe and, for heavens sake, alive?
We in internetland can waffle all we like about the glories of free speech all day behind the comfort of our pseudonyms and the sheer volume of content which makes identifcation of us by jihadists less likely - there are families in France now without husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. What about the cost to them?
Nick can answer for himself, but if I received death threats from Islamists, I'd probably make myself scarce. Unfortunately, these people really mean it when they say "behead those who insult Islam."
He's an American commentator and former aide to Richard Nixon. Is it fair to say that he's on the Christian fundamentalist right? So he thinks that Europe should self-censor free speech to appease Muslim fundamentalists -and you agree with him. I think that you may be in a minority today.
"The Guardian has a video of the policeman being shot on its website, but is apparently refusing to show the cartoon, on grounds of it being offensive."
Unbelievably pathetic. Our news media is supine and allows Muslim nutters to dictate what they will and will not publish, even items of legitimate public interest. And this all follows on from the refusal of our politicians to properly investigate Muslim rape gangs. It is a corrupt and decadent ruling elite that needs to be utterly replaced.
At this point I have lost all sympathy with protecting Muslim sympathies. Muhammad was a child molesting war criminal. The facts about his appalling nature need to be made clear to all and sundry so people who choose to follow his brutal religion and politics do so fully knowing who they are endorsing.
Put your real name to those views and allow people to trace you to a work or home address and you may have a case for calling our ruling elite and media supine and pathetic. But someone accusing identifiable others of cowardice for not expressing certain views while posting anonymously on an internet message board could come across as a "chicken hawk".
To respond to False Flag, there are two different issues here. One, whether we should mock each others' beliefs, is a matter of taste, courtesy, context and individual judgment. The other, whether we should be physically attacked, even murdered, for whatever we decide, should not be open to debate. Of course we bloody shouldn't.
I remember when I was an MP someone had an exhibit in (I think) the ICA of Christ on a crucifix in a vase of urine. He was obviously trying to be provocative and upsetting, and he succeeded - I had lots of letters demanding that his exhibit should be banned. I made a distinction between what I thought about the exhibit (yuck) and what I thought about banning it (no). The same applies, 1000 times over, to murder, and I'd be surprised if anyone here really disagrees (but if they do, they're entitled to their opinions too).
You got letters but from what you write here, no further escalation of those protests?
What would your response had been had you received a number of death threats, or turned up to your office to find it ransacked or firebombed?
Playing devils advocate here so bear with me.
When does the right to free speech need to be subordinated to the responsibility of an employer to keep their staff safe and, for heavens sake, alive?
We in internetland can waffle all we like about the glories of free speech all day behind the comfort of our pseudonyms and the sheer volume of content which makes identifcation of us by jihadists less likely - there are families in France now without husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. What about the cost to them?
Nick can answer for himself, but if I received death threats from Islamists, I'd probably make myself scarce. Unfortunately, these people really mean it when they say "behead those who insult Islam."
For the record, Marf got one for a cartoon she published here.
You got letters but from what you write here, no further escalation of those protests?
What would your response had been had you received a number of death threats, or turned up to your office to find it ransacked or firebombed?
Playing devils advocate here so bear with me.
When does the right to free speech need to be subordinated to the responsibility of an employer to keep their staff safe and, for heavens sake, alive?
We in internetland can waffle all we like about the glories of free speech all day behind the comfort of our pseudonyms and the sheer volume of content which makes identifcation of us by jihadists less likely - there are families in France now without husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. What about the cost to them?
Sure - I think we all vary in how far we'd choose to risk our lives to express an opinion, and the management of a company has a special responsibility to involve its staff in the decisions if they are collectively threatened. That doesn't affect the basic principle that people have a right to choose to be provocative if they wish.
For what it's worth I did ignore a death threat over something else (a bloke said that if I voted for the hunting ban he'd come to my office and kill me). I didn't take it very seriously but we took a few precautions. If I'd had a lot of threats, I'd have asked for police security, and again when Stephen Timms was stabbed at a surgery we were a bit careful for a while in case of copycats. But I wouldn't have been able to do my job if I'd changed my vote in response to threats, and in the last resort I guess cartoonists feel the same.
To respond to False Flag, there are two different issues here. One, whether we should mock each others' beliefs, is a matter of taste, courtesy, context and individual judgment. The other, whether we should be physically attacked, even murdered, for whatever we decide, should not be open to debate. Of course we bloody shouldn't.
I remember when I was an MP someone had an exhibit in (I think) the ICA of Christ on a crucifix in a vase of urine. He was obviously trying to be provocative and upsetting, and he succeeded - I had lots of letters demanding that his exhibit should be banned. I made a distinction between what I thought about the exhibit (yuck) and what I thought about banning it (no). The same applies, 1000 times over, to murder, and I'd be surprised if anyone here really disagrees (but if they do, they're entitled to their opinions too).
Nick, I agree with you on this. What I have difficulty with is having such a position and then voting for the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. That Act was an unacceptable restriction of free speech and one of the reasons at least some of the cartoons from the French publication are shown here in pixilated form is apprehension that showing them entire might well be an offence. The amendments to the Public Order Act included the following:
s29C (1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public."
"Threatening" is not defined.
This Act should be repealed. It would be a fitting and appropriate response to yesterday's disgrace. Our assertions of our principles cannot be merely words. We need to be more vigorous in defending our values, even if some are offended as a result.
"The Guardian has a video of the policeman being shot on its website, but is apparently refusing to show the cartoon, on grounds of it being offensive."
Unbelievably pathetic. Our news media is supine and allows Muslim nutters to dictate what they will and will not publish, even items of legitimate public interest. And this all follows on from the refusal of our politicians to properly investigate Muslim rape gangs. It is a corrupt and decadent ruling elite that needs to be utterly replaced.
At this point I have lost all sympathy with protecting Muslim sympathies. Muhammad was a child molesting war criminal. The facts about his appalling nature need to be made clear to all and sundry so people who choose to follow his brutal religion and politics do so fully knowing who they are endorsing.
Put your real name to those views and allow people to trace you to a work or home address and you may have a case for calling our ruling elite and media supine and pathetic. But someone accusing identifiable others of cowardice for not expressing certain views while posting anonymously on an internet message board could come across as a "chicken hawk".
Perhaps that's true, but you'd expect those you place themselves in the firing line to be backed and defended by the state: the police, the security services and the politicians.
Yet one gets the impression the attitude of our leaders is more 'at your own risk' and 'you're on your own, mate'.
To respond to False Flag, there are two different issues here. One, whether we should mock each others' beliefs, is a matter of taste, courtesy, context and individual judgment. The other, whether we should be physically attacked, even murdered, for whatever we decide, should not be open to debate. Of course we bloody shouldn't.
I remember when I was an MP someone had an exhibit in (I think) the ICA of Christ on a crucifix in a vase of urine. He was obviously trying to be provocative and upsetting, and he succeeded - I had lots of letters demanding that his exhibit should be banned. I made a distinction between what I thought about the exhibit (yuck) and what I thought about banning it (no). The same applies, 1000 times over, to murder, and I'd be surprised if anyone here really disagrees (but if they do, they're entitled to their opinions too).
Nick, I agree with you on this. What I have difficulty with is having such a position and then voting for the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. That Act was an unacceptable restriction of free speech and one of the reasons at least some of the cartoons from the French publication are shown here in pixilated form is apprehension that showing them entire might well be an offence. The amendments to the Public Order Act included the following:
s29C (1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public."
"Threatening" is not defined.
This Act should be repealed. It would be a fitting and appropriate response to yesterday's disgrace. Our assertions of our principles cannot be merely words. We need to be more vigorous in defending our values, even if some are offended as a result.
Agreed, and I would repeal *all* legislation against "inciting hatred" (as opposed to inciting crime), because it legitimises the view that being offended by a publication is grounds for prosecution.
"The Guardian has a video of the policeman being shot on its website, but is apparently refusing to show the cartoon, on grounds of it being offensive."
Unbelievably pathetic. Our news media is supine and allows Muslim nutters to dictate what they will and will not publish, even items of legitimate public interest. And this all follows on from the refusal of our politicians to properly investigate Muslim rape gangs. It is a corrupt and decadent ruling elite that needs to be utterly replaced.
At this point I have lost all sympathy with protecting Muslim sympathies. Muhammad was a child molesting war criminal. The facts about his appalling nature need to be made clear to all and sundry so people who choose to follow his brutal religion and politics do so fully knowing who they are endorsing.
Put your real name to those views and allow people to trace you to a work or home address and you may have a case for calling our ruling elite and media supine and pathetic. But someone accusing identifiable others of cowardice for not expressing certain views while posting anonymously on an internet message board could come across as a "chicken hawk".
A strikingly weak point. As Dr Johnson said, you can criticise a man for making a bad table though you couldn't make a better one yourself; it is not your business to make tables. Politicians and the press are making claims of leadership, fearlessness in the quest for truth, etc., which Socrates isn't. If they can't stand the heat even with the fortune spent on police protection for their homes (which would not be spent on Socrates' home if he acted as you propose), they are welcome to vacate the kitchen.
"The Guardian has a video of the policeman being shot on its website, but is apparently refusing to show the cartoon, on grounds of it being offensive."
Unbelievably pathetic. Our news media is supine and allows Muslim nutters to dictate what they will and will not publish, even items of legitimate public interest. And this all follows on from the refusal of our politicians to properly investigate Muslim rape gangs. It is a corrupt and decadent ruling elite that needs to be utterly replaced.
At this point I have lost all sympathy with protecting Muslim sympathies. Muhammad was a child molesting war criminal. The facts about his appalling nature need to be made clear to all and sundry so people who choose to follow his brutal religion and politics do so fully knowing who they are endorsing.
Put your real name to those views and allow people to trace you to a work or home address and you may have a case for calling our ruling elite and media supine and pathetic. But someone accusing identifiable others of cowardice for not expressing certain views while posting anonymously on an internet message board could come across as a "chicken hawk".
Unfortunately my terms of employment prevent me from making public statements of political views with my name, but I haven't been recalcitrant about sharing my views in my personal life. I currently have a Charlie Hebdo cartoon for my desktop at work.
Besides, media outlets clearly have a responsibility to share news in the public interest that private citizens do not.
To respond to False Flag, there are two different issues here. One, whether we should mock each others' beliefs, is a matter of taste, courtesy, context and individual judgment. The other, whether we should be physically attacked, even murdered, for whatever we decide, should not be open to debate. Of course we bloody shouldn't.
I remember when I was an MP someone had an exhibit in (I think) the ICA of Christ on a crucifix in a vase of urine. He was obviously trying to be provocative and upsetting, and he succeeded - I had lots of letters demanding that his exhibit should be banned. I made a distinction between what I thought about the exhibit (yuck) and what I thought about banning it (no). The same applies, 1000 times over, to murder, and I'd be surprised if anyone here really disagrees (but if they do, they're entitled to their opinions too).
You got letters but from what you write here, no further escalation of those protests?
What would your response had been had you received a number of death threats, or turned up to your office to find it ransacked or firebombed?
Playing devils advocate here so bear with me.
When does the right to free speech need to be subordinated to the responsibility of an employer to keep their staff safe and, for heavens sake, alive?
We in internetland can waffle all we like about the glories of free speech all day behind the comfort of our pseudonyms and the sheer volume of content which makes identifcation of us by jihadists less likely - there are families in France now without husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. What about the cost to them?
If the principles of media responsibility and free speech can be sacrificed in the name of improving people's safety, what about sacrificing some principles the left cherishes first? How about the principle of no discrimination? If we ban any further Muslims from immigrating here, that would clearly help reduce the risk of terrorism down the line. And that is far less damaging to society than media censorship.
This is a highly questionable policy but in Mr Evans case I think you are wrong to say that it is not the job of the police to suggest a crime might have been committed. That is their job and, so far at least, they were right. On the facts in the media I think the chances of a successful review of that conviction are minimal.
The point at which the police decide it's their business when the alleged victim doesn't feel a crime has been committed, and hadn't previously thought anything was wrong, or had any thought of pressing any charges sounds highly dubious. The whole approach of "you know this could be construed as... " sounds like an attempt to pad arrest figures.
"That charity worker that knocked on your door, did he lean forward a little ? if his toe went over the threshold that could be construed as trespass ? Are you sure he wasn't after looking down your cleavage, that would be harassment. Was his tie particularly brightly coloured, we could always do him for wearing a loud tie in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am"
Many of the teenagers in Rotherham did not consider themselves to be rape victims initially. They thought they had "boyfriends".
Children in many ways are a separate case I would say.
clutching at straws, jury got all the facts , beats the pathetic speculation and tittle tattle on here with people trying to justify non consensual intercourse. Come out of your caves and see the light in the 21st century. Even as a 70's teenager it is obvious some people are still living in the past.
Comments
If only the officers dealing with children in care being collected by older men for sex had been half as diligent.
Because it shouldn't be the job of the police to suggest a crime had been committed.
Did you read the article ? In respect of another similar case:
Mass bombing of civilian Germans was quite controversial even during the war.
Did you read the article ? In respect of another similar case:
Each case has to be looked at on its own facts and the facts are that the conviction rate for rape is low because some cases are taken to court that should not be. Certainly in Scotland prosecutors are not allowed to "take a view" that there are minimal prospects of a conviction or a safe conviction and will leave it to the judge to rule there is no case to answer rather than abandoning as they might do in an assault case, for example.
This is a highly questionable policy but in Mr Evans case I think you are wrong to say that it is not the job of the police to suggest a crime might have been committed. That is their job and, so far at least, they were right. On the facts in the media I think the chances of a successful review of that conviction are minimal.
Just read a bit of the BBC's live update feed. Police officer shot, British cartoonists calling, effectively, to stop satirising Mohammed/Allah and an e-mail from someone saying this:
"We have to show the world what the true meaning of Islam is. Islam means Peace. Any attack on humanity doesn't justify its harm. But we also have to understand what freedom of speech really means. We can not use this freedom to ridicule any religion, if we all want to co-exist then we respect every religion."
Freedom of speech means the freedom to never ridicule what *I* believe in?
Fuck that.
Jury found him guilty. End of story.
If only the officers dealing with children in care being collected by older men for sex had been half as diligent.
Many of the teenagers in Rotherham did not consider themselves to be rape victims initially. They thought they had "boyfriends".
There is a lot of grey area between seduction (perhaps defined as persuading someone initially unwilling) and stranger rape.
The difference between the two footballers was that the woman did willingly go into a hotel bedroom with the first one after a relatively brief acquaintance. That was not the Case with Ched Evans.
"That charity worker that knocked on your door, did he lean forward a little ? if his toe went over the threshold that could be construed as trespass ? Are you sure he wasn't after looking down your cleavage, that would be harassment. Was his tie particularly brightly coloured, we could always do him for wearing a loud tie in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am" Children in many ways are a separate case I would say.
Birmingham Six.
You are obviously ignorant of the law . A conviction is never the end of the story, there is always the possibility of appeal.
Good article by the FT, nice to have a free press.
I just ridiculed you in a childish manner. Are you going to murder me? If you did, do you think it would be considered morally just and acceptable?
It seems Barber is able to exercise the right to be little more than an apologist for terrorism, but those wishing to exercise the right to mock a chap from 13 centuries ago risk getting murdered by lunatics. That's not freedom of the press, that's freedom to appease.
At this point I have lost all sympathy with protecting Muslim sympathies. Muhammad was a child molesting war criminal. The facts about his appalling nature need to be made clear to all and sundry so people who choose to follow his brutal religion and politics do so fully knowing who they are endorsing.
Ironic his article has been censored.
Comments by islamists on their brave attack for Allah and the Prophet in Paris yesterday.
Read and weep.
If you think the Ched Evans case is anything like the Birmingham Six case then I'm not sure what more can be said.
Supporters of Evans seem to base their warped perception of his innocence solely on the fact the victim was drunk. Classic case of blaming the victim - indeed we've seen Evans "supporters" hound the victim into hiding without a peep of protest from Evans himself.
And if you can't see the moral depravity of taking advantage of a woman who is paraletic then your moral compass is badly awry. But just as important, as the rapist Evans found, the law takes a dim view of such a lax moral code.
Shame on Oldham Athletic.
Mr. Flag, inflaming a situation? They mocked all religions, and the British, yet somehow we resisted the urge to murder them.
Are you really saying the boundaries of the press should be dictated by gun-toting terrorists?
Supporters of Evans seem to base their warped perception of his innocence solely on the fact the victim was drunk. Classic case of blaming the victim - indeed we've seen Evans "supporters" hound the victim into hiding without a peep of protest from Evans himself.
And if you can't see the moral depravity of taking advantage of a woman who is paraletic then your moral compass is badly awry. But just as important, as the rapist Evans found, the law takes a dim view of such a lax moral code.
Shame on Oldham Athletic.
I have no view on Mr Evans, I wasn't there, neither were you, none of the people that were there were sober enough to give a reliable report as to the proceedings. The judge and jury made the assumptions they were entitled to under the law.
There is no connection between Mr Evans case and that of the Birmingham Six except they they were released on appeal after a number of years when additional evidence came to light, such may also happen in the case of Mr Evans, so no, as you fatuously put it, just because the jury found him guilty it isnt the end of the story.
As to Oldham Athletic, the sentence of the judge was to serve time in jail for his crime, it wasn't to be hounded through the social media by a load of idiotic SJWs like you, and it certainly wasn't the be denied to opportunity of future employment in his chosen profession.
Perhaps I'm a kipper.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/07/cameron-merkel-eu-freedom-movement
David Cameron turns EU enthusiast to little effect
Merkel fails to support PM’s call to revise EU’s governing treaties to underpin changes in welfare and benefit rules for migrants
I remember when I was an MP someone had an exhibit in (I think) the ICA of Christ on a crucifix in a vase of urine. He was obviously trying to be provocative and upsetting, and he succeeded - I had lots of letters demanding that his exhibit should be banned. I made a distinction between what I thought about the exhibit (yuck) and what I thought about banning it (no). The same applies, 1000 times over, to murder, and I'd be surprised if anyone here really disagrees (but if they do, they're entitled to their opinions too).
If we go down that route, we might as well ask Al-Qaeda to send us a list of words and images that they consider acceptable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/getting-it-right/11171179/Telegraph-latest-cartoon-gallery.html?frame=3157383
In the Rotherham case, the mother of one of the underage girls reported a rape, gave the police the evidence, and what did they do? They didn't want to proceed, and when forced to, "lost" the evidence.
Has Evans got a case for racial discrimination?
David Cameron has dismayed Tory backbenchers after ditching plans for a cap on the number of European migrants coming to Britain, reportedly after pressure from Angela Merkel.
Cameron was going to reveal his plan in a keynote speech on immigration last November, but ditched it reportedly 48 hours before he gave the speech, sources told the Daily Mail.
Merkel is reported to have told the Prime Minister that she would back his proposals for curbs on migrants' access to benefits, however she warned him that she was prepared to let Britain leave the EU rather than allow him to cap the number of EU migrants by changing the European principle of free movement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/07/uk-migration-cap-cameron-merkel_n_6428840.html
What would your response had been had you received a number of death threats, or turned up to your office to find it ransacked or firebombed?
Playing devils advocate here so bear with me.
When does the right to free speech need to be subordinated to the responsibility of an employer to keep their staff safe and, for heavens sake, alive?
We in internetland can waffle all we like about the glories of free speech all day behind the comfort of our pseudonyms and the sheer volume of content which makes identifcation of us by jihadists less likely - there are families in France now without husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. What about the cost to them?
http://humanevents.com/2006/02/07/europes-juvenile-idiots-start-religious-war/
The self same cartoonists who said they felt that free speech was too important to stop just because they had been threatened, and whose leader said « Je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux » ("I'd rather die standing than live on my knees")
http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2015/01/07/charb-je-prefere-mourir-debout-que-vivre-a-genoux_4550759_3236.html
I think they knew what the cost might be, they decided their freedom of speech was more important.
If so, this is nonsense. All beliefs should be held up to scrutiny and mockery. Sometimes the mockery is making a serious point that needs to be made, sometimes it's just for the pleasure of humour. What's appalling is that the vast majority of British Muslims thinks the publication of these sorts of cartoons should result in prosecution. Apparently only about 10-15% of Muslims in this country believe in free speech, and I suspect that such Muslims are actually Muslims in Name Only, and have, for all practical purposes, left the faith.
So he thinks that Europe should self-censor free speech to appease Muslim fundamentalists -and you agree with him.
I think that you may be in a minority today.
law.scu.edu/wp-content/uploads/hightech/Wild,%20Joff.pdf
She shrugged it off. It was probably a hoax.
For what it's worth I did ignore a death threat over something else (a bloke said that if I voted for the hunting ban he'd come to my office and kill me). I didn't take it very seriously but we took a few precautions. If I'd had a lot of threats, I'd have asked for police security, and again when Stephen Timms was stabbed at a surgery we were a bit careful for a while in case of copycats. But I wouldn't have been able to do my job if I'd changed my vote in response to threats, and in the last resort I guess cartoonists feel the same.
s29C (1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public."
"Threatening" is not defined.
This Act should be repealed. It would be a fitting and appropriate response to yesterday's disgrace. Our assertions of our principles cannot be merely words. We need to be more vigorous in defending our values, even if some are offended as a result.
Yet one gets the impression the attitude of our leaders is more 'at your own risk' and 'you're on your own, mate'.
Besides, media outlets clearly have a responsibility to share news in the public interest that private citizens do not.