Britain Has Passed The 'most Extreme Surveillance Law Ever Passed In A Democracy'

[Silversnake 1,099]

Sometimes I really think we are screwed with laws and terrorism and greed and politically correct bull$hit and so so much more and then I think of my kids, my dogs, my guns, my kitchen and so so many other things and how much joy I get and will get in future from these things and I question should I be pessimistic or optimistic? I will try to keep on top of things as much as possible but I most definitely am going to enjoy myself first and foremost.

[Lid 194]

Teaching a dog to react to "Do you wanna gas the Jews" and posting the video online is pretty damn stupid and clearly offensive, imo.

[Born Hunter 17,780]

Teaching a dog to react to "Do you wanna gas the Jews" and posting the video online is pretty damn stupid and clearly offensive, imo.

 

So what? It's f***ing mental that it's illegal to offend someone!

 

In the pursuit of 'fairness and equality' the plastic Liberals have completely shit on the Classical and far more fundamental principle of freedom.

 

And folks still wonder why anti PC/Establishment movements continues to gain momentum!

[Lid 194]

I agree that many of these so called offences are over the top and arresting that bloke was unnecessary. However there has to be a limit to what is permissible and in my view that one over-stepped it and so something had to be done. There does need to be some kind of law, but it should be balanced and more importantly 'enforced' with common sense.

[WILF 47,254]

However abhorrent you find someone's views, it's up to them and their peers to decide.....if someone's views are that bad then they will become a social outcast.

 

You don't need a law and the government to be your social conscience and you certainly never want the state criminalising a private individuals view or their right to express it........that is one hell of a dangerous road to go down.

[Born Hunter 17,780]

I agree that many of these so called offences are over the top and arresting that bloke was unnecessary. However there has to be a limit to what is permissible and in my view that one over-stepped it and so something had to be done. There does need to be some kind of law, but it should be balanced and more importantly 'enforced' with common sense.

 

Why though? Any limit is an infringement of the most fundamental principle of the Western world, the freedom of expression/thought/speech. Being offended is not a legitimate reason for punishing someone else!

 

The irony of this is that folks like you who think that "freedom is great so long as it's my freedom" are of the same ilk as any totalitarian tyrant that you think you are protecting the world from. Those people thought the same way you do, "I'll protect my good people by banning the evil from practicing their beliefs".

 

Whether it's the Establishment or simply human nature, society seems to think the only way to combat Right wing authoritarianism is with Left wing authoritarianism and vise versa. Like they're the only options!

 

We sacrifice our most fundamental principle at our own demise! It's the only thing that should define us in the West.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Born Hunter

[WILF 47,254]

May I add that we are already well on our way down that road in the west at the moment......

[Born Hunter 17,780]

May I add that we are already well on our way down that road in the west at the moment......

 

f***ing right we are mate! Chip chip chip.....

 

All we can do is raise awareness of the importance of things that the likes of the Founding Fathers and Libertarian philosophers were very well versed in. Get passed the 'Right or Left' bollocks and get to the fundamentals of society and democracy.

[Lid 194]

One reason for a limit is to prevent situations getting out of hand. Freedom of expression does not mean some-one can go around grossly insulting others, as an example. When I was a teenager I was often subjected to racism that you would be arrested for now. Now I am not saying these people should be arrested - far from it - but there needs to be limitations prescribed by law or we have anarchy which would lead to violence.

 

The same applies in many circumstances. Would it be OK to say whatever you like to an attractive women in the street such as innuendos, observations about her body or sexual prowess for example.I don't think social conscience can limit that kind of behaviour successfully on it own. (And yes the reverse applies to)

[Born Hunter 17,780]

One reason for a limit is to prevent situations getting out of hand. Freedom of expression does not mean some-one can go around grossly insulting others, as an example. When I was a teenager I was often subjected to racism that you would be arrested for now. Now I am not saying these people should be arrested - far from it - but there needs to be limitations prescribed by law or we have anarchy which would lead to violence.

 

The same applies in many circumstances. Would it be OK to say whatever you like to an attractive women in the street such as innuendos, observations about her body or sexual prowess for example.I don't think social conscience can limit that kind of behaviour successfully on it own. (And yes the reverse applies to)

 

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." - J.S.Mill 'On Liberty'

 

Being offended by an individuals beliefs ain't legitimate. Being harassed and abused while going about ya life is.

 

It's as simple as this, if you go to the barbers and he/she's a bit of a c**t then you find another barbers shop. They may have hurt your feelings but they have not caused you unreasonably avoidable harm. What you do not do is then pass legislation which means you can force that barber to comply to your particular way of being.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Born Hunter

[Lid 194]

Going back to the reason for this offshoot discussion, I don't think that teaching that dog to react to the phrase about gassing Jews constitutes a belief.

And going back to the original topic, the Snoopers Charter is a step too far, and more importantly it is unlikely to achieve its so called aims.

[WILF 47,254]

One reason for a limit is to prevent situations getting out of hand. Freedom of expression does not mean some-one can go around grossly insulting others, as an example. When I was a teenager I was often subjected to racism that you would be arrested for now. Now I am not saying these people should be arrested - far from it - but there needs to be limitations prescribed by law or we have anarchy which would lead to violence.

 

The same applies in many circumstances. Would it be OK to say whatever you like to an attractive women in the street such as innuendos, observations about her body or sexual prowess for example.I don't think social conscience can limit that kind of behaviour successfully on it own. (And yes the reverse applies to)

I think you absolutely have to accept stuff like that.......it's called a downside to freedom........

 

You can't have your cake and eat it sometimes, and the alternative is very much more sinister

Jmho

[Francie 6,368]

100% correct born, were will it end?

 

I dont think it will......

[Blackbriar 8,569]

 

The next time someone says "I find that quite offensive !", ask them what happens just after they're offended......

 

....The answer is "F*** all !"......

[Nik_B 3,790]

Going back to the reason for this offshoot discussion, I don't think that teaching that dog to react to the phrase about gassing Jews constitutes a belief.

 

And going back to the original topic, the Snoopers Charter is a step too far, and more importantly it is unlikely to achieve its so called aims.

 

The thing is who gets to dictate what is offensive? We are now living in an age where not using the correct pronouns about someone who wants to be called Ze is considered offensive because we're living in the age of the special snowflake.

 

The article I put up was just an example but while it might have been a bit dickish, he was clearly not making light of the holocaust. The joke (and it was a joke) was at the expense of his girlfriend who was totally mortified. Personally I found it hilarious.

 

Funny that leftist Frankie Boyle gets away with Madeleine McCann jokes on TV yet other people are arrested for something that can some people consider less offensive.

 

Words are just words at the end of the day, it's the governments that ban words, books and free thought that have always been the worse.