Media silence

Well if you can thread "Gas the Jews" through the needle of fair comment, well done to you.

It may have escaped your notice that there's loads of speaking out about things in the media every single day. Not All of it results in a conviction and jail. One wonders how that happens.
Possibly because they only choose certain cases. When Abbott made racist comments, no charges were brought.
How are people supposed to know who is going to be offended or not? I've watched the dog video, it's mildly amusing, it's not calling for the death of Jews regardless of the words of command used.



Thankfully though, those thieving scouse ******* are still OK to insult.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
Perhaps you could air the e-mail. Feel free to redact as necessary. Conservative Central Office will pick up no doubt.
Dear "polite title and surname"

I am perturbed by the conviction today of Mark Meechan for grossly
offensive material on the internet. This is the latest example of a
growing infringement of free speech. Meechan's video was offensive to
many and probably stupid, but offending people should not be criminal
and stupidity cannot be criminalised without locking up half the
population.

We are currently marching towards further gross infringements of our
freedoms without any resistance from the party that should be standing
up for those freedoms - the Conservatives. There was a time, in the
80s, when the party stood for and articulated the basic human rights -
freedom of thought and expression and the freedom to act as we want
without infringing the rights of others - that it now seems to be
happily conniving with the Labour party in curtailing with increasing
rapidity. Frankly, it is one aspect of my disillusionment with the
party that has failed since taking power to show any real leadership or
to articulate clearly what it believes in anymore. I am just growing
certain that it probably no longer thinks what I do, or lacks the
individual or collective courage to say it.

I'm not quite sure I know myself what I expect you to do about a lone
email. I hope, but don't expect, that others will be writing to you
about this.

Yours sincerely,

"my real name"
 
I don't understand the outrage. The law is clear. All that is required for the offence to be committed is someone to be offended and to act upon that offence.

You absolutely have the right of free speech, you do not have the right to offend. Given that 99% of the world is made up of dripping quims determined to be outraged then this leaves you very little leeway and is a salutary lesson in keeping your thoughts to yourself and a close circle of friends and family. Certainly don't post it on the interweb for the world to see using your own image and name.


I understand this will lead to much harrumphing but that law is on the books of England and Wales and, it appears, Scotland too. It has been exercised and, until appealed successfully, it appears it has been enforced correctly. You want this changed, you have to get the law off the books and, I'm afraid, you'll be up against the same vested interests that got it there in the first place.
Makes you wonder though why Ricky Gervais hasn't been prosecuted yet? His latest release on Netflix is a prosecution begging to be made, it would seem.
 
I feel that the Edinburgh festival fringe comedy circuit is going to attract a great deal of legal action this year, I may even spend a couple of weeks up there and see if I can be suitably offended enough to lodge a hate crime complaint, say a few times a day, I shall expect and push for each offending comedian to suffer the full weight of the Scottish hate crime Law. Should I be offended by any American Comedians, which I feel is highly likely, it will be interesting to see how the US press regards the prospect of jury-less hate crime trials under Scottish law..

Can the far too pervasive comedy element of the Edinburgh Fringe be driven south of the border and the festival return to theatre, mime and bagpipes?
 
Last edited:
Possibly because they only choose certain cases. When Abbott made racist comments, no charges were brought.
How are people supposed to know who is going to be offended or not? I've watched the dog video, it's mildly amusing, it's not calling for the death of Jews regardless of the words of command used.



Thankfully though, those thieving scouse ******* are still OK to insult.

Only because of our famous sense of humour. You terrible wool.
 
**** me, you lot are the most outraged minority in the country. I'm surprised you thieving ***** arent permanently in court having a cry that the whole world hates you.


******* whining twats

Stop judging me because I’m a Scouser

Racism, sexism, now scouseism
Come and visit the 'Pool. Best city this side of the Pennines by far. Avoid Cains beer like the plague; Higson's can be hit or miss depending on the pub. No visit to Liverpool is complete though without a pint in the Big 'Ous'!
 
Come and visit the 'Pool. Best city this side of the Pennines by far. Avoid Cains beer like the plague; Higson's can be hit or miss depending on the pub. No visit to Liverpool is complete though without a pint in the Big 'Ous'!
I usually pop up just before Christmas, I get all the presents cheap from the smackheads in the pubs in the city centre.
 
A perspective on this utter shitbagging idiocy of a verdict from one of our friends over the Pond.


As he says, why's John Cleese not behind bars for his stuff?
In case anyone missed what's on the t-shirt the commentator is wearing, it's from the Saxon - "Strong Arm of The Law" album. Subtle :cool:
 
Last edited:
Jimmy Carr had better watch himself. I saw him do this routine in Cambridge a good few years ago now, to a similar audience response. From 4.05 is the relevant bit to this thread.


I very much hope he sticks his head over the parapet in support of Mark Meechan as Jonathon Pie suggested would be appropriate but, on checking his Twitter page, nothing doing and ditto for Frankie Boyle and Kevin Bridges.
 
So far it seems that something broadcast in public which was not covered by fair comment and which did give offence was both widely covered by the media and dealt with in the commonplace way these things are dealt with in the jurisdiction concerned.

Personally, I'm far more annoyed by Ministers using distortions and outright lies in official statements on topics within their specific remit than about an idiot getting his comeuppance.
 
You are right but all those things were a by product of Colonialism at the point of a gun. how did we Brits rule half the world with a few thousand troops and administrators, by killing a few ,pour encourager les autres as the other great Colonial power said. France and Britain carved up the world and look what the result is chaos but hey it was jolly fun whilst it lasted.............................
You need to read up on your history, As an example, to cite the “jewel in the colonial crown” and the largest colony by far, The honourable east India company started out by establishing a few trading posts in the late 17th century and faced threats from all sides including the other colonial powers, they succeeded largely by forming an army comprised mainly of local sepoys and sowars. In 1857 during the mutiny in the Bengal presidency, the indigenous Indians had no better opportunity to kick out the “hated British” once and for all. Despite your assertion that we ruled at the point of a gun, the Madras and Bombay troops (who remarkably enough all had guns too and outnumbered the British by a huge factor) stayed loyal and actively helped to put down the mutiny as did many troops in the Bengal presidency.
 
You need to read up on your history, As an example, to cite the “jewel in the colonial crown” and the largest colony by far, The honourable east India company started out by establishing a few trading posts in the late 17th century and faced threats from all sides including the other colonial powers, they succeeded largely by forming an army comprised mainly of local sepoys and sowars.
In 1857 during the mutiny in the Bengal presidency, the indigenous Indians had no better opportunity to kick out the “hated British” once and for all. Despite your assertion that we ruled at the point of a gun, the Madras and Bombay troops (who remarkably enough all had guns too and outnumbered the British by a huge factor) stayed loyal and actively helped to put down the mutiny as did many troops in the Bengal presidency.
The battles of Plassey and Buxar, in which the British defeated the Bengali powers, left the company in control of Bengal and a major military and political power in India. In the following decades it gradually increased the extent of the territories under its control, controlling the majority of the Indian subcontinent either directly or indirectly via local puppet rulers under the threat of force by its Presidency armies, much of which were composed of native Indian sepoys.
By 1803, at the height of its rule in India, the British East India company had a private army of about 260,000—twice the size of the British Army, with Indian revenues of £13,464,561, and expenses of £14,017,473.[6][7] The company eventually came to rule large areas of India with its private armies, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions.[8] Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 and lasted until 1858, when, following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Government of India Act 1858 led to the British Crown's assuming direct control of the Indian subcontinent in the form of the new British Raj.

Presumably this is the quaint old things that you are telling me the Benevolent British did to control the population and trade with our many Colonies, an Empire on which the sun never set.
(Source wikki)
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads