Mr. Lilburne, with the same wit and foresight as one promises to freeze a commodity price shortly before it declines sharply.
On a more serious note, one of the barbs with which the Tower Hamlets types tried to prevent justice prevailing was to play the race card and cry Islamophobia at every turn. How would this law affect such a situation there, or in Bradford, or elsewhere?
And would it have outlawed the Charlie Hebdo edition after the massacre?
There is already a de facto blasphemy law in this country. People are being imprisoned for saying things on Twitter or, in Scotland, for singing traditional religious ballads. Had Charlie Hebdo been published widely in this jurisdiction before the massacre, the author, editor and publisher would probably have found themselves on the end of an indictment. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats made any attempt to restore freedom of speech during the last Parliament. Miliband is therefore not announcing a new principle, but merely taking the current position to its logical conclusion.
I would be motivated to vote for any politician who had the cullions to stand up in the Commons and state that in a free country, we have the right to blaspheme.
In any case a religion is inter alia a philosophy, a statement of opinion. It must be legal to oppose it.
Mr. Lilburne, with the same wit and foresight as one promises to freeze a commodity price shortly before it declines sharply.
On a more serious note, one of the barbs with which the Tower Hamlets types tried to prevent justice prevailing was to play the race card and cry Islamophobia at every turn. How would this law affect such a situation there, or in Bradford, or elsewhere?
And would it have outlawed the Charlie Hebdo edition after the massacre?
There is already a de facto blasphemy law in this country. People are being imprisoned for saying things on Twitter or, in Scotland, for singing traditional religious ballads. Had Charlie Hebdo been published widely in this jurisdiction before the massacre, the author, editor and publisher would probably have found themselves on the end of an indictment. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats made any attempt to restore freedom of speech during the last Parliament. Miliband is therefore not announcing a new principle, but merely taking the current position to its logical conclusion.
There's no surprise that the police took no action against voter intimidation and fraud in Tower Hamlets, for years. Most Labour and Conservative front benchers are petrified at being accused of "Islamophobia ". The police simply did the politicians' bidding. Neither party cares a fig for free speech.
Harriet and Mary Creagh has been sent to Glasgow to campign for Curran and Boy Sarwar.
The others spotted on twitter
Khan was in Battarsea this morning and in his constituency this afternoon Umunna: same as above Reeves: her constituency in the morning, Bradford East and West in the afternoon Balls: his constituency and Rother Valley Owen Smith: Vale of Glamorgan (many Welsh MPs and AMs were there today) Dugher: his constituency A Eagle: her constituency Ashworth: Stevenage Powell: Pendle Byrne: Dudley South, Wolverhampton SW and Halesowen Flint: her constituency McNicol (General Secretary): Scotland
A lot of those are actually fairly ambitious. Hope they're not overreaching themselves and letting some softer targets slip through the net.
Ashworth is dreadful. Just a string of cliches with no Emotional Intelligence. Stevenage Con hold.
Mr. Lilburne, with the same wit and foresight as one promises to freeze a commodity price shortly before it declines sharply.
On a more serious note, one of the barbs with which the Tower Hamlets types tried to prevent justice prevailing was to play the race card and cry Islamophobia at every turn. How would this law affect such a situation there, or in Bradford, or elsewhere?
And would it have outlawed the Charlie Hebdo edition after the massacre?
There is already a de facto blasphemy law in this country. People are being imprisoned for saying things on Twitter or, in Scotland, for singing traditional religious ballads. Had Charlie Hebdo been published widely in this jurisdiction before the massacre, the author, editor and publisher would probably have found themselves on the end of an indictment. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats made any attempt to restore freedom of speech during the last Parliament. Miliband is therefore not announcing a new principle, but merely taking the current position to its logical conclusion.
Miliband's disapproval rating is now the lowest of the 4 leaders and his approval rating is much the same as the party. Half the Tory campaign falls over (the local Tory leaflets have a picture of Ed captioned "Miliband's Broxtowe candidate"). And he doesn't even pretend to like football - he's a baseball fan IIRC.
Still a poor rating from Labour supporters though. How soft that part of the vote is anyones guess. If you are a candidate in a marginal, you just have to hope for the best.
In context where just 6 months ago Ed's ratings were in negative territory even with Labour supporters, the turnaround's been bloody spectacular tbh.
Over those six months Labour's support has persistently dropped as the unenthused have looked elsewhere. He's a liability.
Has it persistently dropped? The Labour lead in ELBOW for the week so far (*knocks wood*) is pretty similar to the typical lead they had back in November.
Miliband is certainly not in a good place in general terms, but compared to where he was a while ago, where he was so toxically unpopular that Labour looked set to slide to below Michael Foot levels, it's pretty surprising.
This is how the Lab lead in ELBOW looked like up to LAST week:
There's no surprise that the police took no action against voter intimidation and fraud in Tower Hamlets, for years. Most Labour and Conservative front benchers are petrified at being accused of "Islamophobia ". The police simply did the politicians' bidding. Neither party cares a fig for free speech.
The one decidedly amusing part of this sorry tale of authoritarianism has been the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the academics about the restrictions on free speech in the universities imposed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Much as the restrictions are to be deplored, it was the same academics who spent the last few decades labelling anything they disagreed with as "hate speech" or "-phobia"etc.. Professor Michael Keith is a particularly disagreeable example discussed by the Commissioner in his report to the High Court. As Marcuse said, "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left". The universities can have no complaint that their own logic is now being remorselessly applied against them by the government.
weejonnie How can anyone outlaw a legitimate opinion.. crazy..I thought we had come through the dark ages..apparently not, they are still with us in the form of the Labour Party..the Party that likes to close down free thinking..very Soviet..
Mr. T, I wouldn't go that far. But I would repeat that Miliband is a damned fool.
Not only that, but would the Charlie Hebdo edition after the massacre have been legal in this country?
Miliband is either a malicious creature, or naive to the point of being dangerous to the UK. We need free speech to be strengthened, not stifled, but every measure suggested is of constraining and controlling what we're able to legally say.
Edited extra bit: and would the Jesus and Mo cartoons be suddenly rendered illegal?
There's no surprise that the police took no action against voter intimidation and fraud in Tower Hamlets, for years. Most Labour and Conservative front benchers are petrified at being accused of "Islamophobia ". The police simply did the politicians' bidding. Neither party cares a fig for free speech.
The one decidedly amusing part of this sorry tale of authoritarianism has been the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the academics about the restrictions on free speech in the universities imposed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Much as the restrictions are to be deplored, it was the same academics who spent the last few decades labelling anything they disagreed with as "hate speech" or "-phobia"etc.. Professor Michael Keith is a particularly disagreeable example discussed by the Commissioner in his report to the High Court. As Marcuse said, "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left". The universities can have no complaint that their own logic is now being remorselessly applied against them by the government.
Universities have a rotten record of defending free speech.
And it would be great if Nawaz was elected in Hampstead and Kilburn (and very telling that the muslim news did not name him as a muslim candidate in a winnable seat - I don't think they consider him a muslim)
You don't like surbiton, you don't like lefties, therefore whatever a lefty poster likes, you automatically don't like. You exaggerate what they say ("I can't wait for HIGNFY" becomes the "highlight of your life") - deserving of fake pity.
Talk about cutting other people down to make yourself feel better.
The internet really does bring out the worst in people.
Given the LD share went down even in 2010 and expected swings against Con, I presume Hampstead and Kilburn is a probable easy Lab hold this time around?
Edited extra bit: and would the Jesus and Mo cartoons be suddenly rendered illegal?
If you publish on the internet, there is an argument that such cartoons are already contrary to the criminal law. By the Communications Act 2003, s. 127(1), it is an offence to publish via a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive. What does "grossly offensive" mean? The answer is that it is for the court, applying the standards of an open and just multiracial society and taking account of the context and all relevant circumstances, to determine as a question of fact whether a message is or not grossly offensive (DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 (HL)).
The poor poor chap is getting overwrought. The silly remark about Salmond, the taxing experience of getting bested by Sturgeon, the pressure of all of that jock bashing.
Time to put the poor man out of his misery since he is clearly out of his depth.
On a more delightful note, I've discovered I had a huge gaping blind spot in my classical reading. There are two more books (Italy and the Mediterranean) of Livy that I'd somehow managed to miss all this time. So, huzzah for having those ahead of me (going to try and crack on what the mammoth tome of Shakespeare beforehand).
Miliband's intention to outlaw the act of dilsliking certain forms of religion is a chilling development. Look, I know the bloke's love of baseball is sincere, but I can't take much consolation from that if he's going to turn Britain into Saudi Arabia.
Given the LD share went down even in 2010 and expected swings against Con, I presume Hampstead and Kilburn is a probable easy Lab hold this time around?
It is difficult to say actually. On the face of it with swings against the Tories and Lib Dem collapsing. But Hampstead is one of the richest neighbourhoods in the UK. Kilburn balances it up. But ,of course, Hampstead is full of liberal with a small L people.
Miliband's intention to outlaw the act of dilsliking certain forms of religion is a chilling development. Look, I know the bloke's love of baseball is sincere, but I can't take much consolation from that if he's going to turn Britain into Saudi Arabia.
That must go down as the wittiest remark of the year !
An old colleague in local radio has just e mailed an excitable note on coming Scottish poll tomorrow - haven't got figures but another big one for the NATS.
An old colleague in local radio has just e mailed an excitable note on coming Scottish poll tomorrow - haven't got figures but another big one for the NATS.
An old colleague in local radio has just e mailed an excitable note on coming Scottish poll tomorrow - haven't got figures but another big one for the NATS.
Since when haven't polls been a big one for the nats?
Nick Clegg was much less supine in his interview with the same journal
Clegg is a shameless cozener on civil liberties. He voted for control orders-lite and later for the full fat version as well as the extension of closed material procedures into all civil proceedings. He also voted for the 2015 Act, which inter alia confers on the executive a power to exile British subjects.
Miss Lass, would've thought you'd be getting used to whoppers by now.
Mr. Eagles, you banana. One of the very first books of classical history I read was Livy's The War With Hannibal! [That said, I do need to check out Appian at some point].
Mr. Surbiton, what's your view on outlawing Islamophobia?
There's no surprise that the police took no action against voter intimidation and fraud in Tower Hamlets, for years. Most Labour and Conservative front benchers are petrified at being accused of "Islamophobia ". The police simply did the politicians' bidding. Neither party cares a fig for free speech.
The one decidedly amusing part of this sorry tale of authoritarianism has been the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the academics about the restrictions on free speech in the universities imposed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Much as the restrictions are to be deplored, it was the same academics who spent the last few decades labelling anything they disagreed with as "hate speech" or "-phobia"etc.. Professor Michael Keith is a particularly disagreeable example discussed by the Commissioner in his report to the High Court. As Marcuse said, "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left". The universities can have no complaint that their own logic is now being remorselessly applied against them by the government.
Universities have a rotten record of defending free speech.
The LSE just disbanded their Rugby team for Islamophobia (and sexism and homophobia; it looks as if they went for the full house!)
Some pranks are a little distasteful such as dressing like Guantanamo Bay inmates, but free speech nonetheless, if students cannot behave provicatively then what has the world come to?
Edited extra bit: and would the Jesus and Mo cartoons be suddenly rendered illegal?
If you publish on the internet, there is an argument that such cartoons are already contrary to the criminal law. By the Communications Act 2003, s. 127(1), it is an offence to publish via a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive. What does "grossly offensive" mean? The answer is that it is for the court, applying the standards of an open and just multiracial society and taking account of the context and all relevant circumstances, to determine as a question of fact whether a message is or not grossly offensive (DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 (HL)).
Given that most Muslims would be "grossly offended" by any caricature - or any representation whatsoever? - of the Prophet, then that effectively rules out all and any visual satire or criticism of Islam.
We are briskly marching back to the Middle Ages, and the pace is accelerating not slowing.
I no longer believe that western freedoms, as we have known them since the Enlightenment, are consonant with a Muslim population, in any western country, of more than 5-10%.
The fault lies less with the Muslim population than with an enfeebled and decadent political class.
Mr. Lilburne, with the same wit and foresight as one promises to freeze a commodity price shortly before it declines sharply.
On a more serious note, one of the barbs with which the Tower Hamlets types tried to prevent justice prevailing was to play the race card and cry Islamophobia at every turn. How would this law affect such a situation there, or in Bradford, or elsewhere?
And would it have outlawed the Charlie Hebdo edition after the massacre?
There is already a de facto blasphemy law in this country. People are being imprisoned for saying things on Twitter or, in Scotland, for singing traditional religious ballads. Had Charlie Hebdo been published widely in this jurisdiction before the massacre, the author, editor and publisher would probably have found themselves on the end of an indictment. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats made any attempt to restore freedom of speech during the last Parliament. Miliband is therefore not announcing a new principle, but merely taking the current position to its logical conclusion.
Doesn't say anything about cartoons or criticism. We need more detail. If the changes would in fact privilege Islam as a concept, rather than clarifying the current law, then it is indeed despicable
The poll is proper poll jointly for the radio station and Sunday broadsheet (Sunday Times or perhaps Scotland on Sunday) and shows further surge in SNP - that's all I have for now but I will try and coax out more.
There's no surprise that the police took no action against voter intimidation and fraud in Tower Hamlets, for years. Most Labour and Conservative front benchers are petrified at being accused of "Islamophobia ". The police simply did the politicians' bidding. Neither party cares a fig for free speech.
The one decidedly amusing part of this sorry tale of authoritarianism has been the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the academics about the restrictions on free speech in the universities imposed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Much as the restrictions are to be deplored, it was the same academics who spent the last few decades labelling anything they disagreed with as "hate speech" or "-phobia"etc.. Professor Michael Keith is a particularly disagreeable example discussed by the Commissioner in his report to the High Court. As Marcuse said, "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left". The universities can have no complaint that their own logic is now being remorselessly applied against them by the government.
Universities have a rotten record of defending free speech.
The LSE just disbanded their Rugby team for Islamophobia (and sexism and homophobia; it looks as if they went for the full house!)
Some pranks are a little distasteful such as dressing like Guantanamo Bay inmates, but free speech nonetheless, if students cannot behave provicatively then what has the world come to?
They can behave exactly as they like. They have no right to demand cash, toleration and facilitation of their "antics" from others. Nor is there any right for impoliteness to dominate youth opinion. A crap culture is losing and a more conscientious, if painfully-earnest and unrealistic culture, is winning.
Nick Clegg was much less supine in his interview with the same journal
Clegg is a shameless cozener on civil liberties. He voted for control orders-lite and later for the full fat version as well as the extension of closed material procedures into all civil proceedings. He also voted for the 2015 Act, which inter alia confers on the executive a power to exile British subjects.
Possibly; but actually I am pretty comfortable with those laws.
Edited extra bit: and would the Jesus and Mo cartoons be suddenly rendered illegal?
If you publish on the internet, there is an argument that such cartoons are already contrary to the criminal law. By the Communications Act 2003, s. 127(1), it is an offence to publish via a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive. What does "grossly offensive" mean? The answer is that it is for the court, applying the standards of an open and just multiracial society and taking account of the context and all relevant circumstances, to determine as a question of fact whether a message is or not grossly offensive (DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 (HL)).
I can see why you would want to ban, say, sending beheading videos on e-mail. But that is poor legislation if it'd that flexible
The poll is proper poll jointly for the radio station and Sunday broadsheet (Sunday Times or perhaps Scotland on Sunday) and shows further surge in SNP - that's all I have for now but I will try and coax out more.
However the source is legit.
The polls already imply that the SNP might take every single seat in Scotland. How could the surge grow "stronger"? Are they now slated to win seats in Cumbria and Merseyside?
Carlisle was part of Scotland at the time of the Norman Conquest...
Worth noting there was a kickback. The Danubian emperors (Gothic Claudius, Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian) actually reversed the rot to a significant extent. The Dark Ages, without Aurelian, would've started about two centuries earlier.
Sooner or later there'll be a kickback against capitulation and surrender of freedom of speech. The question is whether it'll be through the political mainstream, or not.
A few years ago no politician dared discuss immigration, after all.
There's no surprise that the police took no action against voter intimidation and fraud in Tower Hamlets, for years. Most Labour and Conservative front benchers are petrified at being accused of "Islamophobia ". The police simply did the politicians' bidding. Neither party cares a fig for free speech.
The one decidedly amusing part of this sorry tale of authoritarianism has been the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the academics about the restrictions on free speech in the universities imposed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Much as the restrictions are to be deplored, it was the same academics who spent the last few decades labelling anything they disagreed with as "hate speech" or "-phobia"etc.. Professor Michael Keith is a particularly disagreeable example discussed by the Commissioner in his report to the High Court. As Marcuse said, "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left". The universities can have no complaint that their own logic is now being remorselessly applied against them by the government.
Universities have a rotten record of defending free speech.
The LSE just disbanded their Rugby team for Islamophobia (and sexism and homophobia; it looks as if they went for the full house!)
Some pranks are a little distasteful such as dressing like Guantanamo Bay inmates, but free speech nonetheless, if students cannot behave provicatively then what has the world come to?
They can behave exactly as they like. They have no right to demand cash, toleration and facilitation of their "antics" from others. Nor is there any right for impoliteness to dominate youth opinion. A crap culture is losing and a more conscientious, if painfully-earnest and unrealistic culture, is winning.
They have every right to demand toleration. If what you do is legal, however offensive others claim to find it, it should be tolerated.
There's no surprise that the police took no action against voter intimidation and fraud in Tower Hamlets, for years. Most Labour and Conservative front benchers are petrified at being accused of "Islamophobia ". The police simply did the politicians' bidding. Neither party cares a fig for free speech.
The one decidedly amusing part of this sorry tale of authoritarianism has been the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the academics about the restrictions on free speech in the universities imposed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Much as the restrictions are to be deplored, it was the same academics who spent the last few decades labelling anything they disagreed with as "hate speech" or "-phobia"etc.. Professor Michael Keith is a particularly disagreeable example discussed by the Commissioner in his report to the High Court. As Marcuse said, "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left". The universities can have no complaint that their own logic is now being remorselessly applied against them by the government.
Universities have a rotten record of defending free speech.
The LSE just disbanded their Rugby team for Islamophobia (and sexism and homophobia; it looks as if they went for the full house!)
Some pranks are a little distasteful such as dressing like Guantanamo Bay inmates, but free speech nonetheless, if students cannot behave provicatively then what has the world come to?
Incidentally this spiked article is quite an eye opener on foodbanks:
It seems that the average client of a foodbank makes 2 visits per year. That was news to me and not quite the million people dependent on foodbanks that one reads about on twitter.
The poll is proper poll jointly for the radio station and Sunday broadsheet (Sunday Times or perhaps Scotland on Sunday) and shows further surge in SNP - that's all I have for now but I will try and coax out more.
However the source is legit.
The polls already imply that the SNP might take every single seat in Scotland. How could the surge grow "stronger"? Are they now slated to win seats in Cumbria and Merseyside?
With more probability perhaps. At present as discussed on PB the SNP are favourites in many seats - but it is a bit like a red-hot iron bar fixed to one at room temperature: the laws of thermodynamics and entropy (which are, at base, simply the laws of probability) mean that they will not win in some of those seats. However, if the margin has increased ...
I wonder if in 50 years we will look back and realize that 1950-1980 was actually the golden age of free speech, from which the West inexorably declined.
The Romans must have thought they were destined to grow evermore advanced, until about 300AD, when they began to notice the cracks.
The era of McCarthyism and D-notices was a golden age of nothing. Then again, I suppose it was the right sort of white people doing the censoring then, wasn't it?
Given that most Muslims would be "grossly offended" by any caricature - or any representation whatsoever? - of the Prophet, then that effectively rules out all and any visual satire or criticism of Islam.
We are briskly marching back to the Middle Ages, and the pace is accelerating not slowing.
I no longer believe that western freedoms, as we have known them since the Enlightenment, are consonant with a Muslim population, in any western country, of more than 5-10%.
If reasonable persons would find the message grossly offensive, there is criminal liability if the accused intended his words to be offensive to those to whom they related or was aware that they may be taken to be so. Would a court really hold that reasonable people could not as a matter of law find a depiction of the Prophet grossly offensive? It must be doubted.
We may as well go the whole hog and reintroduce the statute De Haeretico Comburendo of 1401...
There's no surprise that the police took no action against voter intimidation and fraud in Tower Hamlets, for years. Most Labour and Conservative front benchers are petrified at being accused of "Islamophobia ". The police simply did the politicians' bidding. Neither party cares a fig for free speech.
The one decidedly amusing part of this sorry tale of authoritarianism has been the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the academics about the restrictions on free speech in the universities imposed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Much as the restrictions are to be deplored, it was the same academics who spent the last few decades labelling anything they disagreed with as "hate speech" or "-phobia"etc.. Professor Michael Keith is a particularly disagreeable example discussed by the Commissioner in his report to the High Court. As Marcuse said, "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left". The universities can have no complaint that their own logic is now being remorselessly applied against them by the government.
Universities have a rotten record of defending free speech.
The LSE just disbanded their Rugby team for Islamophobia (and sexism and homophobia; it looks as if they went for the full house!)
Some pranks are a little distasteful such as dressing like Guantanamo Bay inmates, but free speech nonetheless, if students cannot behave provicatively then what has the world come to?
Incidentally this spiked article is quite an eye opener on foodbanks:
It seems that the average client of a foodbank makes 2 visits per year. That was news to me and not quite the million people dependent on foodbanks that one reads about on twitter.
If users only use them when needed, e.g. when having problems with sanctions from DSS, then that would certainly explain that pattern in a way of which the most self-reliant Thatcherite* would approve. Doesn't mean that they don't need them when they do use them.
Edit: * - not being ironic here, absolutely straight here.
Some PC authority will take any criticism of Islam as the green light to islamophobia.
I'm getting quite frightened. But what can we do about it? No one seems bothered. (The lead political story on our fearless TV media concerned a bloke who misnamed a soccer club.)
The poll is proper poll jointly for the radio station and Sunday broadsheet (Sunday Times or perhaps Scotland on Sunday) and shows further surge in SNP - that's all I have for now but I will try and coax out more.
However the source is legit.
The polls already imply that the SNP might take every single seat in Scotland. How could the surge grow "stronger"? Are they now slated to win seats in Cumbria and Merseyside?
With more probability perhaps. At present as discussed on PB the SNP are favourites in many seats - but it is a bit like a red-hot iron bar fixed to one at room temperature: the laws of thermodynamics and entropy (which are, at base, simply the laws of probability) mean that they will not win in some of those seats. However, if the margin has increased ...
Well, with the LD score not much able to reduce further and the Lab score already torn into, perhaps they are also now increasing at the expense of the Tory score too, that could be notable.
The poll is proper poll jointly for the radio station and Sunday broadsheet (Sunday Times or perhaps Scotland on Sunday) and shows further surge in SNP - that's all I have for now but I will try and coax out more.
However the source is legit.
The polls already imply that the SNP might take every single seat in Scotland. How could the surge grow "stronger"? Are they now slated to win seats in Cumbria and Merseyside?
With more probability perhaps. At present as discussed on PB the SNP are favourites in many seats - but it is a bit like a red-hot iron bar fixed to one at room temperature: the laws of thermodynamics and entropy (which are, at base, simply the laws of probability) mean that they will not win in some of those seats. However, if the margin has increased ...
Well, with the LD score not much able to reduce further and the Lab score already torn into, perhaps they are also now increasing at the expense of the Tory score too, that could be notable.
Of course, yes. But I had not even thought to consider it, as that 17% seems so immutable, almost Bourbonesque, like the rows of concrete tank traps here and there behind the dunes of the East Coast which need dynamite to shift. We'll see.
There's no surprise that the police took no action against voter intimidation and fraud in Tower Hamlets, for years. Most Labour and Conservative front benchers are petrified at being accused of "Islamophobia ". The police simply did the politicians' bidding. Neither party cares a fig for free speech.
The one decidedly amusing part of this sorry tale of authoritarianism has been the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the academics about the restrictions on free speech in the universities imposed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Much as the restrictions are to be deplored, it was the same academics who spent the last few decades labelling anything they disagreed with as "hate speech" or "-phobia"etc.. Professor Michael Keith is a particularly disagreeable example discussed by the Commissioner in his report to the High Court. As Marcuse said, "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left". The universities can have no complaint that their own logic is now being remorselessly applied against them by the government.
Universities have a rotten record of defending free speech.
The LSE just disbanded their Rugby team for Islamophobia (and sexism and homophobia; it looks as if they went for the full house!)
Some pranks are a little distasteful such as dressing like Guantanamo Bay inmates, but free speech nonetheless, if students cannot behave provicatively then what has the world come to?
Incidentally this spiked article is quite an eye opener on foodbanks:
It seems that the average client of a foodbank makes 2 visits per year. That was news to me and not quite the million people dependent on foodbanks that one reads about on twitter.
It was a massive whopper put out by Trussell, who just happened to be run by a big Labour supporter. But as they say, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
I think it actually does a lot of damage to the good they do. Rather than report the facts, they keep trying to push certain politician lines with press releases that aren't 100% true.
There is an issue here, but isn't as great as they that "million" claim and not for the reasons that are commonly spread. By Trussell's own research, most people visit once or twice in total and it is overwhemly due to delays in the period between signing up for benefits or sancations on their benefits.
Miss Lass, would've thought you'd be getting used to whoppers by now.
Mr. Eagles, you banana. One of the very first books of classical history I read was Livy's The War With Hannibal! [That said, I do need to check out Appian at some point].
Mr. Surbiton, what's your view on outlawing Islamophobia?
WE have not read any detail yet. He could be more or less saying what is already on statute.
I have gone on record here and in other places saying "je ne suis pas Charlie". I did say "je suis Ahmed" - who died trying to protect Charlie's right to humiliate his prophet who himself died nearly 1500 years ago.
For example, I note that in Austria one cannot question the Holocaust by law. I support that. Not because, it isn't an obstruction to free speech but, at least, it stops nutters like that historian who only questions the numbers to inflame public opinion.
I can see why you would want to ban, say, sending beheading videos on e-mail. But that is poor legislation if it'd that flexible
Why? Should a journalist working at a national newspaper incur criminal liability if he sends such a video to his editor? If the message is sent with the intention of encouraging the commission of a criminal offence, that is of course another matter.
My reading of Miliband's Islamophobia proposal is that the only moment at which a person can lose out is when one is in the process of committing a crime against the person which is found to have been aggravated by one's hatred of the person's religion. Is this really comparable to the fall of the Roman Empire? Come on now.
Mr. Surbiton, he could, which would then raise the question of what the point of the new law is, beyond a headline.
I disagree with you, perhaps unsurprisingly, on Holocaust deniers. Better to public expose the wrongness of such foolishness. Freedom of speech should be curtailed when absolutely necessary, and in no other circumstance. It's very easy to surrender an ancient freedom, and far harder to regain it.
Miss Lass, would've thought you'd be getting used to whoppers by now.
Mr. Eagles, you banana. One of the very first books of classical history I read was Livy's The War With Hannibal! [That said, I do need to check out Appian at some point].
Mr. Surbiton, what's your view on outlawing Islamophobia?
WE have not read any detail yet. He could be more or less saying what is already on statute.
I have gone on record here and in other places saying "je ne suis pas Charlie". I did say "je suis Ahmed" - who died trying to protect Charlie's right to humiliate his prophet who himself died nearly 1500 years ago.
For example, I note that in Austria one cannot question the Holocaust by law. I support that. Not because, it isn't an obstruction to free speech but, at least, it stops nutters like that historian who only questions the numbers to inflame public opinion.
Which other historical facts (or theories) would you like it made illegal to question?
Worth noting there was a kickback. The Danubian emperors (Gothic Claudius, Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian) actually reversed the rot to a significant extent. The Dark Ages, without Aurelian, would've started about two centuries earlier.
Sooner or later there'll be a kickback against capitulation and surrender of freedom of speech. The question is whether it'll be through the political mainstream, or not.
A few years ago no politician dared discuss immigration, after all.
I do not share your optimism. I think the west, especially Europe, is now in serious secular decline, political and psychological, and unable to defend its core values: just like Rome with its crumbling borders. European Muslim populations are expected to grow, which will only accelerate this process. When 20% of a country's population espouses basic hardcore medieval beliefs those beliefs will triumph over a feebly grasped liberalism.
If you have any evidence of resistance to this decline, I'd be happy to see it. As far as I can tell, there is none.
Consider your pessimism shared, and it's a common feeling. Lots of people I know feel the same and would just rather not think about it... I don't blame them
There's no surprise that the police took no action against voter intimidation and fraud in Tower Hamlets, for years. Most Labour and Conservative front benchers are petrified at being accused of "Islamophobia ". The police simply did the politicians' bidding. Neither party cares a fig for free speech.
The one decidedly amusing part of this sorry tale of authoritarianism has been the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the academics about the restrictions on free speech in the universities imposed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Much as the restrictions are to be deplored, it was the same academics who spent the last few decades labelling anything they disagreed with as "hate speech" or "-phobia"etc.. Professor Michael Keith is a particularly disagreeable example discussed by the Commissioner in his report to the High Court. As Marcuse said, "Liberating tolerance, then, would
Universities have a rotten record of defending free speech.
The LSE just disbanded their Rugby team for Islamophobia (and sexism and homophobia; it looks as if they went for the full house!)
Some pranks are a little distasteful such as dressing like Guantanamo Bay inmates, but free speech nonetheless, if students cannot behave provicatively then what has the world come to?
Incidentally this spiked article is quite an eye opener on foodbanks:
It seems that the average client of a foodbank makes 2 visits per year. That was news to me and not quite the million people dependent on foodbanks that one reads about on twitter.
If users only use them when needed, e.g. when having problems with sanctions from DSS, then that would certainly explain that pattern in a way of which the most self-reliant Thatcherite* would approve. Doesn't mean that they don't need them when they do use them.
Edit: * - not being ironic here, absolutely straight here.
3 days food twice a year shows that whatever sanction was used; or delay in payment was pretty short term.
One of the problems of our welfare system is that it disincentivises the sort of casual work that can be entry to more permenant work. No one will take on a couple of weeks fruit picking if it takes a month to get their benifits back when the job is finished. It means either entering the underground economy or staying on the sofa instead.
Mr. Surbiton, he could, which would then raise the question of what the point of the new law is, beyond a headline.
I disagree with you, perhaps unsurprisingly, on Holocaust deniers. Better to public expose the wrongness of such foolishness. Freedom of speech should be curtailed when absolutely necessary, and in no other circumstance. It's very easy to surrender an ancient freedom, and far harder to regain it.
Indeed. There is too much playing it safe and protecting people from unsanitary opinions. Even the little annoyances can be troublesome, like when someone says something purportedly offensive, and no news outlet finds itself able to repeat what was actually said due to this culture and sometimes laws around not saying things, only generalities reported, meaning we have to be told how offended we are supposed to be, rather than actually figuring out how offended we should be.
It seems that the average client of a foodbank makes 2 visits per year. That was news to me and not quite the million people dependent on foodbanks that one reads about on twitter.
If users only use them when needed, e.g. when having problems with sanctions from DSS, then that would certainly explain that pattern in a way of which the most self-reliant Thatcherite* would approve. Doesn't mean that they don't need them when they do use them.
Edit: * - not being ironic here, absolutely straight here.
3 days food twice a year shows that whatever sanction was used; or delay in payment was pretty short term.
One of the problems of our welfare system is that it disincentivises the sort of casual work that can be entry to more permenant work. No one will take on a couple of weeks fruit picking if it takes a month to get their benifits back when the job is finished. It means either entering the underground economy or staying on the sofa instead.
Excellent comment. Which is where the citizen's wage idea scores, whatever the other issues with it.
3 days food twice a year shows that whatever sanction was used; or delay in payment was pretty short term.
One of the problems of our welfare system is that it disincentivises the sort of casual work that can be entry to more permenant work. No one will take on a couple of weeks fruit picking if it takes a month to get their benifits back when the job is finished. It means either entering the underground economy or staying on the sofa instead.
This is actually a huge problem for a number of groups. That many benefits are basically binary, you are on or off and/or if you exceed a number of hours work in a week. And if you go off a benefit, it takes time to get back on.
As well as abled bodied individuals, it is a big issue for instance amongst those with say learning difficulties and physical difficulties. It is makes it very difficult for people to take small steps into work, perhaps doing 2 days a week, then 3 etc, and for employers to give them a go in this gradual way.
I know of a particular support group that was supposed to be assisting those with learning difficulties to seek work and basically the advice was constantly don't take that, don't take this...because the fear was basically it would mess with their benefits. Rather than the opposite, lets get you something to get started.
I understand why those running the group had some an approach. They could certainly have been more pro-active / creative rather than a very neative "computer says no", but the system doesn't exactly encourage it.
Miss Lass, would've thought you'd be getting used to whoppers by now.
Mr. Eagles, you banana. One of the very first books of classical history I read was Livy's The War With Hannibal! [That said, I do need to check out Appian at some point].
Mr. Surbiton, what's your view on outlawing Islamophobia?
WE have not read any detail yet. He could be more or less saying what is already on statute.
I have gone on record here and in other places saying "je ne suis pas Charlie". I did say "je suis Ahmed" - who died trying to protect Charlie's right to humiliate his prophet who himself died nearly 1500 years ago.
For example, I note that in Austria one cannot question the Holocaust by law. I support that. Not because, it isn't an obstruction to free speech but, at least, it stops nutters like that historian who only questions the numbers to inflame public opinion.
Truly unnerving how adherents to socialism are conditioned to disregard the most basic freedoms in the rush for their dream society.
Given that most Muslims would be "grossly offended" by any caricature - or any representation whatsoever? - of the Prophet, then that effectively rules out all and any visual satire or criticism of Islam.
We are briskly marching back to the Middle Ages, and the pace is accelerating not slowing.
I no longer believe that western freedoms, as we have known them since the Enlightenment, are consonant with a Muslim population, in any western country, of more than 5-10%.
If reasonable persons would find the message grossly offensive, there is criminal liability if the accused intended his words to be offensive to those to whom they related or was aware that they may be taken to be so. Would a court really hold that reasonable people could not as a matter of law find a depiction of the Prophet grossly offensive? It must be doubted.
We may as well go the whole hog and reintroduce the statute De Haeretico Comburendo of 1401...
I'm a reasonable person and would not find such a picture offensive.
I'm a reasonable person and even if I found something offensive, I would not want it banned.
Offense should not be banned.
You have the right to be offended. You have the right to contradict the offending statement or image. You have the right to verbally attack the perpetrator of such an image or statement.
OOOOOHHH....people on here are getting scared about a Labour policy.
Christ on a bike, grow a pair.
Yes, laws restricting free speech and a cultural change which encourages not rocking the boat over the same, is just a silly concern really.
Can people get hyperbolistic about the 'fear'? Of course they can. But it does not mean there is not a problem where the fear of accusation (particular where the accusation may form part of a criminal offence now) leads people to not take action when they should, or not say things when they should. As this week and the Rahman verdict shows, commenting on the other recent scandals where the same principles applied, it is legitimate to have that concern. You don't have to care about it, but it has and is still a problem for many.
Holocaust denial laws were not introduced as some kind of abstract philosophical exercise or an attempt to hasten a repeat of the decline of the Roman Empire. They were introduced to suppress Nazis primarily in countries which had been ruled by Nazis and where Holocaust denial was being used as a rhetorical tool to recruit Nazis. Yes, it's a law to lock up Nazis. Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West, tantamount to Geert Wilders's exhortation to send home the Moroccans, surely the same commenters can recognise the merits of targetted persecution of actual Neo-Nazis.
It seems that the average client of a foodbank makes 2 visits per year. That was news to me and not quite the million people dependent on foodbanks that one reads about on twitter.
If users only use them when needed, e.g. when having problems with sanctions from DSS, then that would certainly explain that pattern in a way of which the most self-reliant Thatcherite* would approve. Doesn't mean that they don't need them when they do use them.
Edit: * - not being ironic here, absolutely straight here.
3 days food twice a year shows that whatever sanction was used; or delay in payment was pretty short term.
One of the problems of our welfare system is that it disincentivises the sort of casual work that can be entry to more permenant work. No one will take on a couple of weeks fruit picking if it takes a month to get their benifits back when the job is finished. It means either entering the underground economy or staying on the sofa instead.
Excellent comment. Which is where the citizen's wage idea scores, whatever the other issues with it.
This is what Universal Credit is designed to deal with.
Given that most Muslims would be "grossly offended" by any caricature - or any representation whatsoever? - of the Prophet, then that effectively rules out all and any visual satire or criticism of Islam.
We are briskly marching back to the Middle Ages, and the pace is accelerating not slowing.
I no longer believe that western freedoms, as we have known them since the Enlightenment, are consonant with a Muslim population, in any western country, of more than 5-10%.
If reasonable persons would find the message grossly offensive, there is criminal liability if the accused intended his words to be offensive to those to whom they related or was aware that they may be taken to be so. Would a court really hold that reasonable people could not as a matter of law find a depiction of the Prophet grossly offensive? It must be doubted.
We may as well go the whole hog and reintroduce the statute De Haeretico Comburendo of 1401...
I'm a reasonable person and would not find such a picture offensive.
I'm a reasonable person and even if I found something offensive, I would not want it banned.
Offense should not be banned.
You have the right to be offended. You have the right to contradict the offending statement or image. You have the right to verbally attack the perpetrator of such an image or statement.
You have no further rights.
Tha law should say: "suck it up".
As I like to quote the inimitable Simon Phoenix Esq 'You can't take away peoples' right to be assholes'.
Holocaust denial laws were not introduced as some kind of abstract philosophical exercise or an attempt to hasten a repeat of the decline of the Roman Empire. They were introduced to suppress Nazis primarily in countries which had been ruled by Nazis and where Holocaust denial was being used as a rhetorical tool to recruit Nazis. Yes, it's a law to lock up Nazis. Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West, tantamount to Geert Wilders's exhortation to send home the Moroccans, surely the same commenters can recognise the merits of targetted persecution of actual Neo-Nazis.
Worth noting there was a kickback. The Danubian emperors (Gothic Claudius, Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian) actually reversed the rot to a significant extent. The Dark Ages, without Aurelian, would've started about two centuries earlier.
Sooner or later there'll be a kickback against capitulation and surrender of freedom of speech. The question is whether it'll be through the political mainstream, or not.
A few years ago no politician dared discuss immigration, after all.
I do not share your optimism. I think the west, especially Europe, is now in serious secular decline, political and psychological, and unable to defend its core values: just like Rome with its crumbling borders. European Muslim populations are expected to grow, which will only accelerate this process. When 20% of a country's population espouses basic hardcore medieval beliefs those beliefs will triumph over a feebly grasped liberalism.
If you have any evidence of resistance to this decline, I'd be happy to see it. As far as I can tell, there is none.
Consider your pessimism shared, and it's a common feeling. Lots of people I know feel the same and would just rather not think about it... I don't blame them
It's a physical, moral and mental decline too. Just to add to the cheeriness of the discussion!
It seems that the average client of a foodbank makes 2 visits per year. That was news to me and not quite the million people dependent on foodbanks that one reads about on twitter.
If users only use them when needed, e.g. when having problems with sanctions from DSS, then that would certainly explain that pattern in a way of which the most self-reliant Thatcherite* would approve. Doesn't mean that they don't need them when they do use them.
Edit: * - not being ironic here, absolutely straight here.
3 days food twice a year shows that whatever sanction was used; or delay in payment was pretty short term.
One of the problems of our welfare system is that it disincentivises the sort of casual work that can be entry to more permenant work. No one will take on a couple of weeks fruit picking if it takes a month to get their benifits back when the job is finished. It means either entering the underground economy or staying on the sofa instead.
Excellent comment. Which is where the citizen's wage idea scores, whatever the other issues with it.
This is what Universal Credit is designed to deal with.
It does and it doesn't. The idea is certainly a step in the right direction, but only deals with I think is it 6-7 common benefits. Anybody who has seen the handbook of availabel benefits will know that it just a tiny part of a labyrinthian benefits system. Nobody but a madman would devise a system quite like it, if they were starting from scratch today.
My reading of Miliband's Islamophobia proposal is that the only moment at which a person can lose out is when one is in the process of committing a crime against the person which is found to have been aggravated by one's hatred of the person's religion. Is this really comparable to the fall of the Roman Empire? Come on now.
"Islamophobia" as an accusation has been used by those who would cover up the mass racialised gang rape of white girls, and widespread political corruption - including rigged elections - in London and elsewhere.
It is clear that it is a boo word used by those, mainly on the Left, who seek to deconstruct the hardwon freedoms of westerners. Freedoms which took us many centuries to achieve.
Miliband would actually like to FURTHER this horrible process, with his stupid and pernicious law. So, yeah: Decline and Fall, Decline and Fall.
If Miliband proposes to criminalise the discussion of mass rape in Rotherham, I will join you on the barricades. As long as he is talking about getting tougher on crimes committed by hate criminals, I will refrain. This is in the context of our freedoms' being stronger than ever today. A few decades ago, you could have been sacked for being a Communist or imprisoned for being a homosexual.
Though it's funny how nobody here was up in arms about the child abuse ring that was revealed a few days ago. Is it cos they were white?
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
My reading of Miliband's Islamophobia proposal is that the only moment at which a person can lose out is when one is in the process of committing a crime against the person which is found to have been aggravated by one's hatred of the person's religion. Is this really comparable to the fall of the Roman Empire? Come on now.
"Islamophobia" as an accusation has been used by those who would cover up the mass racialised gang rape of white girls, and widespread political corruption - including rigged elections - in London and elsewhere.
It is clear that it is a boo word used by those, mainly on the Left, who seek to deconstruct the hardwon freedoms of westerners. Freedoms which took us many centuries to achieve.
Miliband would actually like to FURTHER this horrible process, with his stupid and pernicious law. So, yeah: Decline and Fall, Decline and Fall.
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Given that I've been called an Islamophobe on PB and elsewhere, we're long past parody.
Comments
In any case a religion is inter alia a philosophy, a statement of opinion. It must be legal to oppose it.
I think Maajiz Nawaz would state something like that. Nobody else springs to mind, though hopefully some would.
Up the ELBOW too
As an aside, IJS Tweeling sounds like a hobbit author.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/589749837446434816
Not only that, but would the Charlie Hebdo edition after the massacre have been legal in this country?
Miliband is either a malicious creature, or naive to the point of being dangerous to the UK. We need free speech to be strengthened, not stifled, but every measure suggested is of constraining and controlling what we're able to legally say.
Edited extra bit: and would the Jesus and Mo cartoons be suddenly rendered illegal?
Plus he's going to have time to go to more games anyway.
West Ham 1
Tories 0
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/top-stories/clegg-pledges-early-review-of-new-prevent-legislation-in-an-exclusive-interview/
And really quite forthright about freedom of speech in the aftermath of the Hebdo killings:
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6436520
And it would be great if Nawaz was elected in Hampstead and Kilburn (and very telling that the muslim news did not name him as a muslim candidate in a winnable seat - I don't think they consider him a muslim)
http://www.hampsteadandkilburnlibdems.org.uk/endorsements
You don't like surbiton, you don't like lefties, therefore whatever a lefty poster likes, you automatically don't like. You exaggerate what they say ("I can't wait for HIGNFY" becomes the "highlight of your life") - deserving of fake pity.
Talk about cutting other people down to make yourself feel better.
The internet really does bring out the worst in people.
The poor poor chap is getting overwrought. The silly remark about Salmond, the taxing experience of getting bested by Sturgeon, the pressure of all of that jock bashing.
Time to put the poor man out of his misery since he is clearly out of his depth.
On a more delightful note, I've discovered I had a huge gaping blind spot in my classical reading. There are two more books (Italy and the Mediterranean) of Livy that I'd somehow managed to miss all this time. So, huzzah for having those ahead of me (going to try and crack on what the mammoth tome of Shakespeare beforehand).
An old colleague in local radio has just e mailed an excitable note on coming Scottish poll tomorrow - haven't got figures but another big one for the NATS.
Mr. Eagles, you banana. One of the very first books of classical history I read was Livy's The War With Hannibal! [That said, I do need to check out Appian at some point].
Mr. Surbiton, what's your view on outlawing Islamophobia?
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/rugby-lads-the-last-of-the-campus-rebels/16907#.VTvlJRBwaBY
Some pranks are a little distasteful such as dressing like Guantanamo Bay inmates, but free speech nonetheless, if students cannot behave provicatively then what has the world come to?
Gap now only 9%
We need more detail.
If the changes would in fact privilege Islam as a concept, rather than clarifying the current law, then it is indeed despicable
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/review-sallust-catilines-war-jugurthine.html
The poll is proper poll jointly for the radio station and Sunday broadsheet (Sunday Times or perhaps Scotland on Sunday) and shows further surge in SNP - that's all I have for now but I will try and coax out more.
However the source is legit.
General election 2015: Labour will toughen hate crimes legislation surrounding Islamophobia
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-labour-will-toughen-hate-crimes-legislation-surrounding-islamophobia-10203918.html
Some PC authority will take any criticism of Islam as the green light to islamophobia.
Date aside, I broadly agree. The Golden Age of Emperors was a great time.
Blame Marcus Aurelius. http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/succession-matters.html
Worth noting there was a kickback. The Danubian emperors (Gothic Claudius, Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian) actually reversed the rot to a significant extent. The Dark Ages, without Aurelian, would've started about two centuries earlier.
Sooner or later there'll be a kickback against capitulation and surrender of freedom of speech. The question is whether it'll be through the political mainstream, or not.
A few years ago no politician dared discuss immigration, after all.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/food-banks-time-for-a-bit-of-perspective/16902#.VTvnKhBwaBY
It seems that the average client of a foodbank makes 2 visits per year. That was news to me and not quite the million people dependent on foodbanks that one reads about on twitter.
We may as well go the whole hog and reintroduce the statute De Haeretico Comburendo of 1401...
Edit: * - not being ironic here, absolutely straight here.
I think it actually does a lot of damage to the good they do. Rather than report the facts, they keep trying to push certain politician lines with press releases that aren't 100% true.
There is an issue here, but isn't as great as they that "million" claim and not for the reasons that are commonly spread. By Trussell's own research, most people visit once or twice in total and it is overwhemly due to delays in the period between signing up for benefits or sancations on their benefits.
I have gone on record here and in other places saying "je ne suis pas Charlie". I did say "je suis Ahmed" - who died trying to protect Charlie's right to humiliate his prophet who himself died nearly 1500 years ago.
For example, I note that in Austria one cannot question the Holocaust by law. I support that. Not because, it isn't an obstruction to free speech but, at least, it stops nutters like that historian who only questions the numbers to inflame public opinion.
I disagree with you, perhaps unsurprisingly, on Holocaust deniers. Better to public expose the wrongness of such foolishness. Freedom of speech should be curtailed when absolutely necessary, and in no other circumstance. It's very easy to surrender an ancient freedom, and far harder to regain it.
One of the problems of our welfare system is that it disincentivises the sort of casual work that can be entry to more permenant work. No one will take on a couple of weeks fruit picking if it takes a month to get their benifits back when the job is finished. It means either entering the underground economy or staying on the sofa instead.
Christ on a bike, grow a pair.
As well as abled bodied individuals, it is a big issue for instance amongst those with say learning difficulties and physical difficulties. It is makes it very difficult for people to take small steps into work, perhaps doing 2 days a week, then 3 etc, and for employers to give them a go in this gradual way.
I know of a particular support group that was supposed to be assisting those with learning difficulties to seek work and basically the advice was constantly don't take that, don't take this...because the fear was basically it would mess with their benefits. Rather than the opposite, lets get you something to get started.
I understand why those running the group had some an approach. They could certainly have been more pro-active / creative rather than a very neative "computer says no", but the system doesn't exactly encourage it.
Mr. kle4, people using the words "I'm offended" in the place of an actual argument is damned irritating.
I'm a reasonable person and even if I found something offensive, I would not want it banned.
Offense should not be banned.
You have the right to be offended. You have the right to contradict the offending statement or image. You have the right to verbally attack the perpetrator of such an image or statement.
You have no further rights.
Tha law should say: "suck it up".
Can people get hyperbolistic about the 'fear'? Of course they can. But it does not mean there is not a problem where the fear of accusation (particular where the accusation may form part of a criminal offence now) leads people to not take action when they should, or not say things when they should. As this week and the Rahman verdict shows, commenting on the other recent scandals where the same principles applied, it is legitimate to have that concern. You don't have to care about it, but it has and is still a problem for many.
Though it's funny how nobody here was up in arms about the child abuse ring that was revealed a few days ago. Is it cos they were white?
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Ed Miliband will end tax breaks for 'rip-off landlords' and cap rents
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-end-tax-breaks-5584072 …
Also, I see we are back to goodies vs baddies again. Who is going to go around and judge who is a goodie and baddie?