Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43

Thread: The UK has lost Free Speech

  1. #16
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    29,584

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Tension View Post
    I never implied "they" were - whoever they are. As usual, you inferred more than was written.
    You made a list of three things, I presume you deem those three things are being upheld by the State, as my disagreement with this case is based on how the State is trampling someone's rights. One of those three things on your list...

    But now you think protecting the individual's rights and addressing mental health issues are relevant?
    Well fucking duh. Go back up to the post where I brought this story into play and complained about it. I complained that his rights (which in the UK he has none of) were being abused.

    As for his mental health, yes that's important, but not to the detriment of his rights. If he'd broken a law and been convicted, I'd have zero issues with this case. This has not happened, thus his thoughts are now being policed, not his actions, and he still hasn't been convicted by a court of actually breaking a law, not even a thought crime...


    Which yes, I understand why the law works the way it is in the UK, it's to allow for incredible leeway of the State to infringe upon the individual without actually convicting them of any crime. Court ordered sentences without charges are much harder to defend against.
    I wouldn't even censor you.

 

  • #17
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    I presume you deem those three things are being upheld by the State...
    You presume incorrectly. Perhaps you shouldn't presume. I pointed out three referents which I thought should be borne in mind when evaluating this case.

    I think the State has failed Mr O'Neill absolutely at every stage: now he is jobless, homeless and - mad world - something of a media personality. It's a clusterfuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny
    ...my disagreement with this case is based on how the State is trampling someone's rights. One of those three things on your list...

    ...Which yes, I understand why the law works the way it is in the UK, it's to allow for incredible leeway of the State to infringe upon the individual without actually convicting them of any crime. Court ordered sentences without charges are much harder to defend against.
    You seem satisfied that the UK is a very authoritarian and repressive society!

    There are definitely problems with SROs, and they'll likely be phased out: ASBOs have already been ditched. But superimposing an Americocentric understanding of constitutional rights upon a justice system which is based on precedent and Acts of Parliament is anachronistic.

  • #18
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,013

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Tension View Post
    You presume incorrectly. Perhaps you shouldn't presume. I pointed out three referents which I thought should be borne in mind when evaluating this case.

    I think the State has failed Mr O'Neill absolutely at every stage: now he is jobless, homeless and - mad world - something of a media personality. It's a clusterfuck.



    You seem satisfied that the UK is a very authoritarian and repressive society!

    There are definitely problems with SROs, and they'll likely be phased out: ASBOs have already been ditched. But superimposing an Americocentric understanding of constitutional rights upon a justice system which is based on precedent and Acts of Parliament is anachronistic.
    Anachronistic? Huh? Both systems are in modern use and were talking about modern implementation. Nothing anachronistic there.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Anachronistic?
    I agree it was a poor choice of word. Inappropriate would have been better.

  • #20
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,013

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Tension View Post
    I agree it was a poor choice of word. Inappropriate would have been better.
    I like contraindicated.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    I like contraindicated.
    That would be anachronistic. Modern usage is primarily medical.

  • #22
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,013

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Tension View Post
    That would be anachronistic. Modern usage is primarily medical.
    Nooe, still not anachronistic, and I'll wait while you catch up on the subtlty of the choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #23
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    29,584

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Tension View Post
    You seem satisfied that the UK is a very authoritarian and repressive society!
    Is English a second or third language for you?
    I wouldn't even censor you.

  • #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Tension View Post
    But superimposing an Americocentric understanding of constitutional rights upon a justice system which is based on precedent and Acts of Parliament is inappropriate.
    Changed it to inappropriate for you.

    I still disagree (which ever word you use) with that sentence. How do you feel about Human Right Violations under Sharia Law? Is it still inappropriate?

  • #25
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    Is English a second or third language for you?
    I hope not.

    If you are suggesting that you don't think the UK is repressive and authoritarian, maybe you should not have written:

    The UK has lost free speech
    I wouldn't want them to go to jail for stating their opinions
    I hope this sentence isn't counted as 'harassment of government officials'.
    Holy fuck... The UK has is now thought policing...
    the State is trampling someone's rights
    I complained that his rights (which in the UK he has none of)...
    I understand why the law works the way it is in the UK, it's to allow for incredible leeway of the State to infringe upon the individual
    Or maybe just turn down the hyperbole a little.

  • #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Sadras View Post
    Changed it to inappropriate for you.

    I still disagree (which ever word you use) with that sentence. How do you feel about Human Right Violations under Sharia Law? Is it still inappropriate?
    I think you probably understand the difference between enacting an imperfect law passed in a modern parliamentary democracy, and cutting people's hands off based on a crazy medieval religious code.

    Ovi - whatever his weird choice of medical terminology - is correct when he intimates that appealing to the written constitution of the US is not a solution to problems with the "gentleman's agreement" in the UK. Trust is baked in to the British system; it is not so implicit in the US.

    I grew up in the UK, and I used to rail against the fact that it had no written constitution; I've been in the 'States for 20 years now, and have come to realize that the argument is rather more nuanced, and the British system has certain merits.
    Last edited by Tension; February 3rd, 2018 at 04:11 PM.

  • #27
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    29,584

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Tension View Post
    If you are suggesting that you don't think the UK is repressive and authoritarian, maybe you should not have written:
    What I find odd is your misrepresentation* of my position:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tension View Post
    You seem satisfied that the UK is a very authoritarian and repressive society!
    I'm not satisfied that the UK is an authoritarian and repressive society.

    It's a very odd word you've chosen, as I'm not contented or pleased in any fashion with the way the UK is trampling it's people's rights.



    * Or maybe you just don't understand the definitions of the words you're using?
    I wouldn't even censor you.

  • #28
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    What I find odd is your misrepresentation* of my position:


    I'm not satisfied that the UK is an authoritarian and repressive society.

    It's a very odd word you've chosen, as I'm not contented or pleased in any fashion with the way the UK is trampling it's people's rights.



    * Or maybe you just don't understand the definitions of the words you're using?

    The sense of "adequately meet or comply with (the conditions of an argument)."

    I am not suggesting that you derive emotional gratification from civil rights abuses in the UK.

  • #29
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,013

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Tension View Post

    The sense of "adequately meet or comply with (the conditions of an argument)."

    I am not suggesting that you derive emotional gratification from civil rights abuses in the UK.
    An argument is satisfied in that way, but you said bunny was satisfied. bunny isn't an argument, so the first definition didn't hold -- it's read as asserting bunny is pleased.

    And contraindicated works on a few levels. The primary being that American-style formal constitutions are not a satisfactory cure for British common law. The second is that British common law is something that needs treatment.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #30
    Sigh.

    Sufficient evidence has been presented to satisfy me that this sort of verbal pedantry won't lead anywhere.

    And yes, I understand what you were trying to do with contraindicate Sheep-Sorcerer. The point is also that the American Constitution is not a cure for anything.

  • Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •