We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Where should the line between speaking freely and incitement to violence be placed and who decides? Are 30k boozed up Rangers fans bellowing out 'We're up to our knees in Fenian blood, Surrender or you'll die' (a paean to one of their Blackshirted, KKK tribe) likely to cause more, less or no violence?
It would depend on context. 30,000 people singing sectarian songs at a football match is unlikely to be a problem. 30,0000 singing sectarian songs outside a church likely would be.
Thank goodness what happens at an Old Firm match stays in an Old Firm match.
I reckon Trainspotting 2 though....
'No more Catholics left'
There's a scurrilous rumour going round that even some true red , white & blue Loyalists laughed at that bit.
Not sure whether anyone knows or cares, but just found out Malcolm MacLaren was basically raping and pillaging South African music in the 80s and passing it off as his own. Remember "Double Dutch"?
No!! Paul Simon was not ripping off SA musics. He went to SA and spent months working with local musicians, learning their unique style of playing and taking part in rehearsals and local concerts. A team of musicians then bought together the different songs on Graceland; many of whom went on tour with him afterwards and gained access to world audience. Some of the songs had joint writing credits with local musicians.
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Where should the line between speaking freely and incitement to violence be placed and who decides? Are 30k boozed up Rangers fans bellowing out 'We're up to our knees in Fenian blood, Surrender or you'll die' (a paean to one of their Blackshirted, KKK tribe) likely to cause more, less or no violence?
It would depend on context. 30,000 people singing sectarian songs at a football match is unlikely to be a problem. 30,0000 singing sectarian songs outside a church likely would be.
Thank goodness what happens at an Old Firm match stays in an Old Firm match.
I reckon Trainspotting 2 though....
'No more Catholics left'
There's a scurrilous rumour going round that even some true red , white & blue Loyalists laughed at that bit.
I reckon most of them also changed the PIN on their debit/credit cards after watching that movie.
We should have free speech - curtailed only by the caveat that you may not incite or cause direct harm to others. So no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre or inciting 'let's go beat up XYZ'. Beyond that we should be completely free to say what we like, no matter how offensive one man's views may be to another. You don't have a right to avoid offence that trumps another man's right to speak his mind freely. Don't like what he says? Then argue back. The cure for the problems of really free speech is more free speech. Today this country does not have free speech. You can be arrested for telling a policeman his horse looks gay.
Where should the line between speaking freely and incitement to violence be placed and who decides? Are 30k boozed up Rangers fans bellowing out 'We're up to our knees in Fenian blood, Surrender or you'll die' (a paean to one of their Blackshirted, KKK tribe) likely to cause more, less or no violence?
It would depend on context. 30,000 people singing sectarian songs at a football match is unlikely to be a problem. 30,0000 singing sectarian songs outside a church likely would be.
Thank goodness what happens at an Old Firm match stays in an Old Firm match.
Except unfortunately it doesn't. The police find very large spikes in domestic violence after an old firm game. Presumably, these days, the protestant women of the west coast have a legitimate cause for complaint about being unfairly picked on.
That was my point really, though apocalyptic predictions for the Hogmanay OF match seemed to have been overcooked. Perhaps things really are changing..
Why are people so surprised by the unravelling of Mr Nuttall's personal narrative? We've all met people like him, prone to exaggeration to make themselves more important or interesting. You can see how it happens. It doesn't require much of a stretch:
I was quite good at football. I used to play a bit when I was a kid. Tranmere Rovers were interested. -> I played for Tranmere Rovers. I supported Liverpool. I went to lots of Liverpool matches. Hillsborough was awful. -> I was at Hillsborough and lost friends. etc etc Just means you can't believe a word a person like that says without fact checking it.
I think the 12/1 on Labour to win Copeland and lose Stoke is far more tempting.
It'd be a weird, but decent enough result for me. If Labour are strong enough to hold Copeland I can't see them losing Stoke though... Troughton is good but local exceptionalism just doesn't stretch that far.
More trouble at Stoke Central: Lib dems officially complaining about Labour Texts to the Muslim community asking dfor the candidate and party to apologise. All signs of Labours anxiety I suppose.
Why are people so surprised by the unravelling of Mr Nuttall's personal narrative? We've all met people like him, prone to exaggeration to make themselves more important or interesting. You can see how it happens. It doesn't require much of a stretch:
I was quite good at football. I used to play a bit when I was a kid. Tranmere Rovers were interested. -> I played for Tranmere Rovers. I supported Liverpool. I went to lots of Liverpool matches. Hillsborough was awful. -> I was at Hillsborough and lost friends. etc etc Just means you can't believe a word a person like that says without fact checking it.
He is definitely an old school bullshit artist. The problem these days is most of the source for fact checking have an agenda as well, so it starts to become a "balance of probabilities" game which is all a bit unsatisfactory.
Aggravating/mitigating factors are useful in our criminal justice system.
As I said a few years ago, if some punches in me the head because they don't like Pakis/Muslims/Immigrants/brilliantly dressed people or if someone punches me in the head because they want to steal my mobile, it will still hurt me the same.
Actually thinking about it, I'd be more hurt if I was without my phone.
Yes, but your friends who are also Muslim or Tory or terribly dressed would feel threatened in a way they wouldn't if it was a random assault. It's the chilling effect on others that makes it more serious
Why are people so surprised by the unravelling of Mr Nuttall's personal narrative? We've all met people like him, prone to exaggeration to make themselves more important or interesting. You can see how it happens. It doesn't require much of a stretch:
I was quite good at football. I used to play a bit when I was a kid. Tranmere Rovers were interested. -> I played for Tranmere Rovers. I supported Liverpool. I went to lots of Liverpool matches. Hillsborough was awful. -> I was at Hillsborough and lost friends. etc etc Just means you can't believe a word a person like that says without fact checking it.
He is definitely an old school bullshit artist. The problem these days is most of the source for fact checking have an agenda as well, so it starts to become a "balance of probabilities" game which is all a bit unsatisfactory.
He leads himself into his lies in interviews. Saw it in the TV interview he gave. Why though ? Does this sort of crap impress people ?
Why are people so surprised by the unravelling of Mr Nuttall's personal narrative? We've all met people like him, prone to exaggeration to make themselves more important or interesting. You can see how it happens. It doesn't require much of a stretch:
I was quite good at football. I used to play a bit when I was a kid. Tranmere Rovers were interested. -> I played for Tranmere Rovers. I supported Liverpool. I went to lots of Liverpool matches. Hillsborough was awful. -> I was at Hillsborough and lost friends. etc etc Just means you can't believe a word a person like that says without fact checking it.
Most of Nuttall's problems seem to stem from statements and claims made by him when he was well below the radar screen (ie, up to a few months ago) and not subject to any kind of real scrutiny.
He leads himself into his lies in interviews. Saw it in the TV interview he gave. Why though ? Does this sort of crap impress people ?
I dont know if this is Nuttal yet, but it certainly sounds like Trump:
“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth, producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all bets are off. … He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies are.” - On Bullshit
Why are people so surprised by the unravelling of Mr Nuttall's personal narrative? We've all met people like him, prone to exaggeration to make themselves more important or interesting. You can see how it happens. It doesn't require much of a stretch:
I was quite good at football. I used to play a bit when I was a kid. Tranmere Rovers were interested. -> I played for Tranmere Rovers. I supported Liverpool. I went to lots of Liverpool matches. Hillsborough was awful. -> I was at Hillsborough and lost friends. etc etc Just means you can't believe a word a person like that says without fact checking it.
He is definitely an old school bullshit artist. The problem these days is most of the source for fact checking have an agenda as well, so it starts to become a "balance of probabilities" game which is all a bit unsatisfactory.
He leads himself into his lies in interviews. Saw it in the TV interview he gave. Why though ? Does this sort of crap impress people ?
Some people just can't help themselves. There seems to be a Walt on every Fire station, who has always been to worse accidents or fires than the one you're discussing with them. The trick is to steadily ramp up whatever you're talking about, and lead them into some outrageous lie.
Don't DB have enough financial woes without scaring off influential customers who might feel that they are looking into customers financial affairs in a way which could be construed as political ?
Comments
You can see how it happens. It doesn't require much of a stretch:
I was quite good at football. I used to play a bit when I was a kid. Tranmere Rovers were interested. -> I played for Tranmere Rovers.
I supported Liverpool. I went to lots of Liverpool matches. Hillsborough was awful. -> I was at Hillsborough and lost friends.
etc etc
Just means you can't believe a word a person like that says without fact checking it.
Leaks that don't = Bad
Whoever would have thought it?
It's the chilling effect on others that makes it more serious
Does this sort of crap impress people ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/16/britain-will-attempt-offset-brexit-cost-150-billion-worth-european/
“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth, producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all bets are off. … He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies are.” - On Bullshit
Bank looked for evidence of whether loans to president were underpinned by guarantees from Moscow, Guardian learns
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/16/deutsche-bank-examined-trump-account-for-russia-links?CMP=share_btn_tw
NEW THREAD