Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[albitz]

He said what he said to a woman he was having a conversation with. He didnt know the woman. When he finished speaking to her, the CPSO (who is the local rep for the gay police assoc.)went over to the woman, had a conversation with her and then events started to unfold.Entrapment imo.

But the women made a complaint that the PCSO is duty bound to follow up. 

This case may not be proved, with the CPS no doubt deciding not to pursue the matter further.  However, the principles I have outlined still hold good for the law of this land to protect the vunerable, and to be used against those that abuse the right of free speech and actions.

I dont think she did make a genuine complaint. she was either an agent provocatuer or he extracted a complaint rrom her to enable him to persue his agenda.
No matter really, my opinion on this sort of thing is that it has gone much to far. We used to have gay bashing etc. years ago and no reasonable person would ever want to turn the clock back to that, but like many other things in this country in recent years we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and gone almost completely in the opposite direction.
The gay militant lobby have been much too succesful in recent times imo. Its not "Good As You "anymore.Its "Better then you and dont ever forget it" which seems to be the message.
We are now at the point where Peter Tatchell wants us to stop thinking in terms of an age of consent for young gays.How young is young ?  - you tell me. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Let us treasure our laws that in fact protects free speech, but conversely stops individuals and groups, such as the so called 'Christian', abusing that right by spreading hatred, unhappiness, isolation, and perhaps encourage violence from those with twisted minds. 8-) 8-)

I'm sorry, but I think you've totally missed the point, Lizzie. He is, in my view, perfectly entitled to believe that sodomy is wrong. You may disagree, I may disagree, we may both agree, who knows? The important point is that he is entitled to his view and is entitled to express it. Who decides when freedom of speech is "being abused"? You? Kent Police?

Free speech is only abused when a person uses that right to encourage others to commit crime. He wasn't.

 

Again Nick I think it is best to agree to disagree

[Banjax]

If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? 

[Nickbat]

If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? 

...and the relevance of that post to this thread is what exactly? 

[Banjax]

If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? 

...and the relevance of that post to this thread is what exactly? 

sorry - I thought we were discussing freedom of speech.....whats not relevant exactly?  :-?

[Nickbat]

If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? 

...and the relevance of that post to this thread is what exactly? 

sorry - I thought we were discussing freedom of speech.....whats not relevant exactly?  :-?

You know perfectly well that we're discussing the ability to voice one's views and opinions.

Is that too difficult for you?

[Banjax]

If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? 

...and the relevance of that post to this thread is what exactly? 

sorry - I thought we were discussing freedom of speech.....whats not relevant exactly?  :-?

You know perfectly well that we're discussing the ability to voice one's views and opinions.

Is that too difficult for you?

 

ahh, bless - sorry Nick I forgot - I'll explain for you:

Freedom of speech isn't a switch thats either on or off - it's all relative to the context and the situation, if someone - inspired by those words (either the nutjob shouting fire or the cleric spouting hate) to cause harm then, no you don't have free speech  8-)

[Nickbat]

If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? 

...and the relevance of that post to this thread is what exactly? 

sorry - I thought we were discussing freedom of speech.....whats not relevant exactly?  :-?

You know perfectly well that we're discussing the ability to voice one's views and opinions.

Is that too difficult for you?

 

ahh, bless - sorry Nick I forgot - I'll explain for you:

Freedom of speech isn't a switch thats either on or off - it's all relative to the context and the situation, if someone - inspired by those words (either the nutjob shouting fire or the cleric spouting hate) to cause harm then, no you don't have free speech  8-)

The cleric was not "spouting hate" as you put it. Did he say that he hated gays? Nope. Did he espouse harming gays? Nope.

All he claimed was that sodomy was against the teachings of the deity to which he adheres.

Am I going too fast for you? 

[albitz]

your wasting your time Nick.

[Banjax]

your wasting your time Nick.

how dare you Albs! Nick spends hours reading up on freedom of speech, whatever your views he doesn't need you criticising him 

[Nickbat]

your wasting your time Nick.

Yes, indeed, Albs. Taking up cudgels against someone who believes Gordon Brown is a good steward of the economy is a lost cause! 

[albitz]

Exactly

[Vamps]

your wasting your time Nick.

Yes, indeed, Albs. Taking up cudgels against someone who believes Gordon Brown is a good steward of the economy is a lost cause! 

Is he not??? Problem caused by the banks and everyone else wants to Cut services via local government to solve the problem. The same people will be the ones who shout when we have another Baby P..........

[Banjax]

I'm glad Nick, that you and Albs are all for freedom of speech 

maybe you'll not direct so much hostility to other opinions in the future - we'll see 

[albitz]

your wasting your time Nick.

Yes, indeed, Albs. Taking up cudgels against someone who believes Gordon Brown is a good steward of the economy is a lost cause! 

Is he not??? Problem caused by the banks and everyone else wants to Cut services via local government to solve the problem. The same people will be the ones who shout when we have another Baby P..........

No Mike, he is arguably the worst steward the British economy has ever had.The point about the banks is arguable to a degree but what isnt arguable is that he proudly boasted of his "light touch" regarding banking regulations administereed by his brainchild the useless FSA. He sold the national gold reserves at the bottom of the market and then lied that he was advised to do so by the treasury and the bank of England.
He levied more than 50 tax increases on the taxpayers, bringing in many billions to the treasury.
The city had the biggest boom in its history while he was chancellor which brought in mind boggling amounts of money to the treasury. He was advised to put some of this money aside for the hard times, but there was no need, he had abolished boom and bust - there would be no hard times.
He not only spent all of the huge revenue which came into the Treasury but he borrowed enormous amounts of money to finance all of the new Labour social engineerin projects.
So when he was proved wrong and boom did indeed turn to bust (it always does) the country was already skint, so he had to embark on a borrowing spree which was previously unimaginable in this country and no matter what he or anyone else says, public spending will have to be cut very deeply very soon.