Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Laurence Fox - Political ambitions

endure

GCM
Hm. It does when I click on it.

Anyway, the gist of it is outrage at the 'paedo' slur. As noted, it seems to be alright to make a groundless slur of racism but a groundless slur in return is offensive.
The difference is that paedophilia is a crime whereas racism isn't. Stirring up racial hatred is but racism in and of itself isn't.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The difference is that paedophilia is a crime whereas racism isn't. Stirring up racial hatred is but racism in and of itself isn't.
Fox is no more a racist than the person he called a paedophile is a kiddie-fiddler. That was his point; a baseless accusation is idle and morally and intellectually bankrupt.
 

endure

GCM
Fox is no more a racist than the person he called a paedophile is a kiddie-fiddler. That was his point; a baseless accusation is idle and morally and intellectually bankrupt.
You miss the point. They are suing him because he's accused them of a particularly vile crime.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
You miss the point. They are suing him because he's accused them of a particularly vile crime.
No, I don't and no, he hasn't. He threw a ridiculous slur at them because they threw a similarly ridiculous one at him.

They've set out to take his response and turn it into an accusation to try and shut him down. In doing that, they're actually proving his point.
 
Its called " lawfare" , its designed to attack people with malicious litigation claims in order to shut down their opinions. A favourite tactic of the totalitarian left.
 

NSP

LE
No, I don't and no, he hasn't. He threw a ridiculous slur at them because they threw a similarly ridiculous one at him.

They've set out to take his response and turn it into an accusation to try and shut him down. In doing that, they're actually proving his point.
He could have played a blinder here. If he presents that premise in his defence and the court agrees then there'll be a marker put down in case law. Might not then be such a good idea to cry "racist!" when someone puts forward a counter to the narrative thereafter.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
He could have played a blinder here. If he presents that premise in his defence and the court agrees then there'll be a marker put down in case law. Might not then be such a good idea to cry "racist!" when someone puts forward a counter to the narrative thereafter.
Someone needs to park the needless use of the word 'racist' where it should be - as defamation/slander.

It would sort a lot of the current nonsense.
 
Someone needs to park the needless use of the word 'racist' where it should be - as defamation/slander.

It would sort a lot of the current nonsense.

I'm surprised no one has. There's plenty of Laws in this country, and the Argument of "Ok you believe I'm a racist. Take me to court and prove it!" would be line one.
If they fail to do so, or fail at court, then you twat them with the Libel/Slander charge. It would seem they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, as it has been proven in a criminal court not to be so.

But, as I've said before there's a lot of people who want to push Racism to get their way, but REALLY don't want to see their comments in court, because courts can be down right unpredictable, and if it goes the wrong way then a lot of them are going to be in a lot of trouble.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm surprised no one has. There's plenty of Laws in this country, and the Argument of "Ok you believe I'm a racist. Take me to court and prove it!" would be line one.
If they fail to do so, or fail at court, then you twat them with the Libel/Slander charge. It would seem they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, as it has been proven in a criminal court not to be so.

But, as I've said before there's a lot of people who want to push Racism to get their way, but REALLY don't want to see their comments in court, because courts can be down right unpredictable, and if it goes the wrong way then a lot of them are going to be in a lot of trouble.
The problem is that New Labour so weaponised the word as part of efforts to hide its migration policy. The government of the day was all over it. To be accused was to be guilty.

Things have changed - Muslim rape gangs would still be getting away with it if Labour was still in power - but there are aftershocks. It’s just that that hasn’t percolated down through all the organs of state.
 

NSP

LE
Fox's just been on with Nick Ferrari being all eloquent and reasonable. Pointed out that some bunch in Manchester have sent a cease and desist order on the basis that they had formed a political group called "Reclaim" first. Anything to shut down debate, eh? They ignore that if he loses in court he won't go away; he'll just pick a different name.

:rolleyes:
 

A.N.Other

Old-Salt
The difference is that paedophilia is a crime whereas racism isn't. Stirring up racial hatred is but racism in and of itself isn't.
Paedophilia isn't a crime. Acting on paedophillic feelings is a crime.

Racism isn't a crime. Acting on racist feelings is a crime.

This is a defamation issue and what is considered to be an acceptable insult with no justifiable evidence. Fox could just as easily bring a case of defamation against them as they can against him.
 

Latest Threads

Top