The Greens

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 22 of 34 < 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jan 15 9.21am
Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 9.01am Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 10.57pm Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 3.56pm This seems so obvious to me, of course people should not be criminalized for what they think, i would argue its one of the pillars of a free society. Saying that, i am interested that you think it would not sell to the public. I think it's a matter of presentation, but if you are right i would find that a very sad indictment of the society we live in. Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done. These laws have repeatedly been used for convenience throughout British History to control 'unpopular or inconvenient beliefs and activities, even when they haven't been aimed at harm to the nation or its citizens'. When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out. You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough. I've never understood why people arrive in the UK and then protest against it's government. Surely you knew what you were getting into when you got here? In terms of our clamping down on 'free speech' if you think we have any issues then feel free to try your luck in one of those clearly wonderful Islamic nations like Saudia Arabia or Iran... To be honest more of a concern is that want 'us' to severe ties with the US, end our nuclear programme and our ENTIRE army. Green Party = anarchy. Maybe they're just exercising their legal right to protest and pursue social justice. Free speech has no meaning as speech devoid of consequence has no value. All the much vaunted 'free speech' does is raise the idea that opinions have value and its a myth anyhow. Speech isn't free, it bought and paid for, tailored and sold back to you as an ideal, when in fact its simply the opinions of those with the power of large scale media influence who have free speech. Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say. Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech. Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm) Probably because they would take a short walk off a long cliff if they voiced their opinions in their country of origin, meaning when they get to the UK (or any other democracey) they go a wee bit mental. Like the proverbial fat kid in a sweet shop. But surely nothing is more British than complaining about how good you've got it.... "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jan 15 9.21am

Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 9.01am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 10.57pm

Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm

Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 3.56pm
This seems so obvious to me, of course people should not be criminalized for what they think, i would argue its one of the pillars of a free society. Saying that, i am interested that you think it would not sell to the public. I think it's a matter of presentation, but if you are right i would find that a very sad indictment of the society we live in.

Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done.

These laws have repeatedly been used for convenience throughout British History to control 'unpopular or inconvenient beliefs and activities, even when they haven't been aimed at harm to the nation or its citizens'.

When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out.

You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough.

I've never understood why people arrive in the UK and then protest against it's government. Surely you knew what you were getting into when you got here? In terms of our clamping down on 'free speech' if you think we have any issues then feel free to try your luck in one of those clearly wonderful Islamic nations like Saudia Arabia or Iran...

To be honest more of a concern is that want 'us' to severe ties with the US, end our nuclear programme and our ENTIRE army.

Green Party = anarchy.

Maybe they're just exercising their legal right to protest and pursue social justice.
Free speech has no meaning as speech devoid of consequence has no value. All the much vaunted 'free speech' does is raise the idea that opinions have value and its a myth anyhow. Speech isn't free, it bought and paid for, tailored and sold back to you as an ideal, when in fact its simply the opinions of those with the power of large scale media influence who have free speech.

Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say.

Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm)

Probably because they would take a short walk off a long cliff if they voiced their opinions in their country of origin, meaning when they get to the UK (or any other democracey) they go a wee bit mental.

Like the proverbial fat kid in a sweet shop.

But surely nothing is more British than complaining about how good you've got it....

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Jan 15 9.34am
Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 8.56am Quote legaleagle at 21 Jan 2015 9.08pm Quote dannyh at 21 Jan 2015 2.01pm Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 12.17pm Quote dannyh at 21 Jan 2015 12.09pm Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 11.55am Quote dannyh at 21 Jan 2015 11.47am Whatless unrealistic flower power utopian bollicks, that whilst may seem to have positive sentiment at it's heart, is utterly unworkable, and more to the point totally unfinaceable. Unless of course all you workers out there are happy to pay most of your hard earned in TAX to feed to the workshy. IMO there is no difference between the trustafarians and the monster raving looney party. I must have missed that bit in the manifesto.... You didn't miss it, because it wasn't there. You see what I did was use my brain, and I kind've worked out that the spend of 280 billion, is going to have to come from somewhere, so lets put our thinking caps on a minute shall we, and have a little think about this hmmmmm.,how do Governments (since the days of Robin hood and beyond), raise funds ? Grow money trees ? Nope. Go to the end of rainbows to find the pots of gold ? Nope. Buy 20 lucky dips a week ? Nope. God this is a toughey...... No wait a minute, you know, by Jove I think I've got it. THEY RAISE TAX'S that you and I have no choice about paying. (unless your a fcukin thick one eyed porridge womble, then you can raise it by selling the nations gold reserves to Webuyanygold.com). You failed to notice my sarcasm. That's fine, but forgive me if i don't take your maths at face value as i suspect it is wrong. You also failed to give any indication where your 'workshy' comment hails from, but i can see that you and logic are not good friends..... From the article, taken itself from the middle class hippies manifesto. THE CITIZENS’ INCOME The flagship policy is an unconditional, non-withdrawable income of £71 a week for everyone living in Britain “as a right of citizenship”, regardless of wealth or whether they are seeking work. Benefits and the tax-free personal allowance will be abolished, and top-ups given for people with children or disabilities, or to pay rent and mortgages. No-one will see a reduction in benefits, and most will see a substantial increase. Parents will be entitled to two years’ paid leave from work. The policy will enable people to “choose their own types and patterns of work”, and will allow people to take up “personally satisfying and socially useful work”. It will cost somewhere between £240-280 billion a year – more than double the current health budget, and ten times the defence budget. Those costs will be off-set by some reduction to the welfare bill, through the replacement of jobseekers’ allowance. It would seem you and reading before you post are not good friends. We are to an extent living in a dreamworld now.With technological change happening ever faster (and just look at how many jobs people used to do which are already done by machines),it is not an unrealistic future reality the a majority of the population won't have jobs in the conventional sense,and not by choice or being "workshy".So,some serious issues about how/if we hang that majority (which might include our kids or grandchildren) out to dry while a minority say "I'm ok Jack"or whether we try and work out (and heaven forbid! actually do a bit of advance groundwork before the nightmare truly arrives),of how that majority are going to survive economically Edited by legaleagle (21 Jan 2015 9.11pm) Point taken and I get that part of the Green argument, but it only works if, and it's a massive if, (and a huge assumption) that the majority of the population won't be employed in the traditional sense, of course they will, whose going to fix the robots, whose going to mend stuff drive stuff, pilot stuff, carry out health care, sell us clothes etc etc. I think the work undertaken may be less and less of a manual nature, but that is a progression of our ability to manipulate our surroundings through improved means, first steam, now the microchip. The point I am trying make, (badly ) is that just because machines and technology are replacing some parts of the workforce, doesn't mean less jobs, it just means a shift in what jobs are out there. To be honest I think your post is a bit Orwellian. And whilst I may agree with a lot of the tree huggers sentiment (who wouldn’t want all that time off for having kids) it really is just unworkable hippie rhetoric, pie in the sky nonsense. If I'm going to be conspiratorial,I'd say we might be heading towards Huxley's "Brave New World" longer term rather than Orwell's "1984"! The truth of course is that we have no real idea how the ongoing massive technological change will pan out... I'm not saying the Greens' policies (based on my reading of Matt's Telegraph link yesterday) on the"bigger" issues are the answer.There's a fair bit in there I wouldn't go for,though some bits I would. Rather,that they are at least in relation to certain parts of their policies,focusing on some important issues and hopefully going to stimulate debate about the "big picture" in terms of where we are heading rather than the short termism and "business as usual within traditional parameters" of the "major" parties.I hope people who diss them will try and come up with alternative potential solutions for the "big issues" facing us in the future rather than just knocking them as hippy dreamers.Plenty of things which are now taken more seriously which would have been dismissed as hippy dippy nonsense 20-45 years ago. Edited by legaleagle (22 Jan 2015 9.41am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Jan 15 9.34am

Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 8.56am

Quote legaleagle at 21 Jan 2015 9.08pm

Quote dannyh at 21 Jan 2015 2.01pm

Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 12.17pm

Quote dannyh at 21 Jan 2015 12.09pm

Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 11.55am

Quote dannyh at 21 Jan 2015 11.47am

Whatless unrealistic flower power utopian bollicks, that whilst may seem to have positive sentiment at it's heart, is utterly unworkable, and more to the point totally unfinaceable. Unless of course all you workers out there are happy to pay most of your hard earned in TAX to feed to the workshy.

IMO there is no difference between the trustafarians and the monster raving looney party.

I must have missed that bit in the manifesto....

You didn't miss it, because it wasn't there. You see what I did was use my brain, and I kind've worked out that the spend of 280 billion, is going to have to come from somewhere, so lets put our thinking caps on a minute shall we, and have a little think about this hmmmmm.,how do Governments (since the days of Robin hood and beyond), raise funds ? Grow money trees ? Nope. Go to the end of rainbows to find the pots of gold ? Nope. Buy 20 lucky dips a week ? Nope. God this is a toughey...... No wait a minute, you know, by Jove I think I've got it.

THEY RAISE TAX'S that you and I have no choice about paying.

(unless your a fcukin thick one eyed porridge womble, then you can raise it by selling the nations gold reserves to Webuyanygold.com).

You failed to notice my sarcasm. That's fine, but forgive me if i don't take your maths at face value as i suspect it is wrong. You also failed to give any indication where your 'workshy' comment hails from, but i can see that you and logic are not good friends.....

From the article, taken itself from the middle class hippies manifesto.

THE CITIZENS’ INCOME

The flagship policy is an unconditional, non-withdrawable income of £71 a week for everyone living in Britain “as a right of citizenship”, regardless of wealth or whether they are seeking work.

Benefits and the tax-free personal allowance will be abolished, and top-ups given for people with children or disabilities, or to pay rent and mortgages. No-one will see a reduction in benefits, and most will see a substantial increase. Parents will be entitled to two years’ paid leave from work.

The policy will enable people to “choose their own types and patterns of work”, and will allow people to take up “personally satisfying and socially useful work”.

It will cost somewhere between £240-280 billion a year – more than double the current health budget, and ten times the defence budget. Those costs will be off-set by some reduction to the welfare bill, through the replacement of jobseekers’ allowance.

It would seem you and reading before you post are not good friends.

We are to an extent living in a dreamworld now.With technological change happening ever faster (and just look at how many jobs people used to do which are already done by machines),it is not an unrealistic future reality the a majority of the population won't have jobs in the conventional sense,and not by choice or being "workshy".So,some serious issues about how/if we hang that majority (which might include our kids or grandchildren) out to dry while a minority say "I'm ok Jack"or whether we try and work out (and heaven forbid! actually do a bit of advance groundwork before the nightmare truly arrives),of how that majority are going to survive economically

Edited by legaleagle (21 Jan 2015 9.11pm)

Point taken and I get that part of the Green argument, but it only works if, and it's a massive if, (and a huge assumption) that the majority of the population won't be employed in the traditional sense, of course they will, whose going to fix the robots, whose going to mend stuff drive stuff, pilot stuff, carry out health care, sell us clothes etc etc.

I think the work undertaken may be less and less of a manual nature, but that is a progression of our ability to manipulate our surroundings through improved means, first steam, now the microchip. The point I am trying make, (badly ) is that just because machines and technology are replacing some parts of the workforce, doesn't mean less jobs, it just means a shift in what jobs are out there.

To be honest I think your post is a bit Orwellian. And whilst I may agree with a lot of the tree huggers sentiment (who wouldn’t want all that time off for having kids) it really is just unworkable hippie rhetoric, pie in the sky nonsense.

If I'm going to be conspiratorial,I'd say we might be heading towards Huxley's "Brave New World" longer term rather than Orwell's "1984"!

The truth of course is that we have no real idea how the ongoing massive technological change will pan out...

I'm not saying the Greens' policies (based on my reading of Matt's Telegraph link yesterday) on the"bigger" issues are the answer.There's a fair bit in there I wouldn't go for,though some bits I would. Rather,that they are at least in relation to certain parts of their policies,focusing on some important issues and hopefully going to stimulate debate about the "big picture" in terms of where we are heading rather than the short termism and "business as usual within traditional parameters" of the "major" parties.I hope people who diss them will try and come up with alternative potential solutions for the "big issues" facing us in the future rather than just knocking them as hippy dreamers.Plenty of things which are now taken more seriously which would have been dismissed as hippy dippy nonsense 20-45 years ago.

Edited by legaleagle (22 Jan 2015 9.41am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Pawson Palace Croydon 22 Jan 15 10.16am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 9.21am Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 9.01am Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 10.57pm Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 3.56pm This seems so obvious to me, of course people should not be criminalized for what they think, i would argue its one of the pillars of a free society. Saying that, i am interested that you think it would not sell to the public. I think it's a matter of presentation, but if you are right i would find that a very sad indictment of the society we live in. Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done. These laws have repeatedly been used for convenience throughout British History to control 'unpopular or inconvenient beliefs and activities, even when they haven't been aimed at harm to the nation or its citizens'. When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out. You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough. I've never understood why people arrive in the UK and then protest against it's government. Surely you knew what you were getting into when you got here? In terms of our clamping down on 'free speech' if you think we have any issues then feel free to try your luck in one of those clearly wonderful Islamic nations like Saudia Arabia or Iran... To be honest more of a concern is that want 'us' to severe ties with the US, end our nuclear programme and our ENTIRE army. Green Party = anarchy. Maybe they're just exercising their legal right to protest and pursue social justice. Free speech has no meaning as speech devoid of consequence has no value. All the much vaunted 'free speech' does is raise the idea that opinions have value and its a myth anyhow. Speech isn't free, it bought and paid for, tailored and sold back to you as an ideal, when in fact its simply the opinions of those with the power of large scale media influence who have free speech. Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say. Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech. Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm) Probably because they would take a short walk off a long cliff if they voiced their opinions in their country of origin, meaning when they get to the UK (or any other democracey) they go a wee bit mental. Like the proverbial fat kid in a sweet shop. But surely nothing is more British than complaining about how good you've got it.... Thought being British was irrelevant? Edited by Pawson Palace (22 Jan 2015 10.16am) Pride of South London Upper Holmesdale Block P
Alert a moderator to this post

Pawson Palace

Croydon 22 Jan 15 10.16am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 9.21am

Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 9.01am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 10.57pm

Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm

Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done.

When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out.

You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough.

Green Party = anarchy.

Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say.

Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm)

Like the proverbial fat kid in a sweet shop.

But surely nothing is more British than complaining about how good you've got it....

Thought being British was irrelevant?

Edited by Pawson Palace (22 Jan 2015 10.16am)

Pride of South London
Upper Holmesdale Block P

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jan 15 11.18am
Quote Pawson Palace at 22 Jan 2015 10.16am Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 9.21am Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 9.01am Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 10.57pm Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 3.56pm This seems so obvious to me, of course people should not be criminalized for what they think, i would argue its one of the pillars of a free society. Saying that, i am interested that you think it would not sell to the public. I think it's a matter of presentation, but if you are right i would find that a very sad indictment of the society we live in. Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done. These laws have repeatedly been used for convenience throughout British History to control 'unpopular or inconvenient beliefs and activities, even when they haven't been aimed at harm to the nation or its citizens'. When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out. You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough. I've never understood why people arrive in the UK and then protest against it's government. Surely you knew what you were getting into when you got here? In terms of our clamping down on 'free speech' if you think we have any issues then feel free to try your luck in one of those clearly wonderful Islamic nations like Saudia Arabia or Iran... To be honest more of a concern is that want 'us' to severe ties with the US, end our nuclear programme and our ENTIRE army. Green Party = anarchy. Maybe they're just exercising their legal right to protest and pursue social justice. Free speech has no meaning as speech devoid of consequence has no value. All the much vaunted 'free speech' does is raise the idea that opinions have value and its a myth anyhow. Speech isn't free, it bought and paid for, tailored and sold back to you as an ideal, when in fact its simply the opinions of those with the power of large scale media influence who have free speech. Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say. Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech. Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm) Probably because they would take a short walk off a long cliff if they voiced their opinions in their country of origin, meaning when they get to the UK (or any other democracey) they go a wee bit mental. Like the proverbial fat kid in a sweet shop. But surely nothing is more British than complaining about how good you've got it.... Thought being British was irrelevant? Edited by Pawson Palace (22 Jan 2015 10.16am) tocuhe. I think its important to people who are British, its just not actually important beyond that. Even those dirty heathens like me who are 'kind of end up being labeled at British or anti-Nationalist'. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jan 15 11.18am

Quote Pawson Palace at 22 Jan 2015 10.16am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 9.21am

Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 9.01am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 10.57pm

Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm

Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done.

When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out.

You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough.

Green Party = anarchy.

Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say.

Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm)

Like the proverbial fat kid in a sweet shop.

But surely nothing is more British than complaining about how good you've got it....

Thought being British was irrelevant?

Edited by Pawson Palace (22 Jan 2015 10.16am)

tocuhe. I think its important to people who are British, its just not actually important beyond that. Even those dirty heathens like me who are 'kind of end up being labeled at British or anti-Nationalist'.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Pawson Palace Croydon 22 Jan 15 12.01pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 11.18am Quote Pawson Palace at 22 Jan 2015 10.16am Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 9.21am Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 9.01am Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 10.57pm Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 3.56pm This seems so obvious to me, of course people should not be criminalized for what they think, i would argue its one of the pillars of a free society. Saying that, i am interested that you think it would not sell to the public. I think it's a matter of presentation, but if you are right i would find that a very sad indictment of the society we live in. Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done. These laws have repeatedly been used for convenience throughout British History to control 'unpopular or inconvenient beliefs and activities, even when they haven't been aimed at harm to the nation or its citizens'. When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out. You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough. I've never understood why people arrive in the UK and then protest against it's government. Surely you knew what you were getting into when you got here? In terms of our clamping down on 'free speech' if you think we have any issues then feel free to try your luck in one of those clearly wonderful Islamic nations like Saudia Arabia or Iran... To be honest more of a concern is that want 'us' to severe ties with the US, end our nuclear programme and our ENTIRE army. Green Party = anarchy. Maybe they're just exercising their legal right to protest and pursue social justice. Free speech has no meaning as speech devoid of consequence has no value. All the much vaunted 'free speech' does is raise the idea that opinions have value and its a myth anyhow. Speech isn't free, it bought and paid for, tailored and sold back to you as an ideal, when in fact its simply the opinions of those with the power of large scale media influence who have free speech. Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say. Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech. Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm) Probably because they would take a short walk off a long cliff if they voiced their opinions in their country of origin, meaning when they get to the UK (or any other democracey) they go a wee bit mental. Like the proverbial fat kid in a sweet shop. But surely nothing is more British than complaining about how good you've got it.... Thought being British was irrelevant? Edited by Pawson Palace (22 Jan 2015 10.16am) tocuhe. I think its important to people who are British, its just not actually important beyond that. Even those dirty heathens like me who are 'kind of end up being labeled at British or anti-Nationalist'. Defo agree that the "prestige" of being British has long been eroded. I think it's sad that Paddy Days is celebrated more than our own national day. Pride of South London Upper Holmesdale Block P
Alert a moderator to this post

Pawson Palace

Croydon 22 Jan 15 12.01pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 11.18am

Quote Pawson Palace at 22 Jan 2015 10.16am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 9.21am

Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 9.01am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 10.57pm

Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm

Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done.

When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out.

You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough.

Green Party = anarchy.

Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say.

Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm)

Like the proverbial fat kid in a sweet shop.

But surely nothing is more British than complaining about how good you've got it....

Thought being British was irrelevant?

Edited by Pawson Palace (22 Jan 2015 10.16am)

Defo agree that the "prestige" of being British has long been eroded.

I think it's sad that Paddy Days is celebrated more than our own national day.

Pride of South London
Upper Holmesdale Block P

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jan 15 12.21pm
Quote legaleagle at 22 Jan 2015 9.34am If I'm going to be conspiratorial,I'd say we might be heading towards Huxley's "Brave New World" longer term rather than Orwell's "1984"! Edited by legaleagle (22 Jan 2015 9.41am) I'm going for Island. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jan 15 12.21pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jan 2015 9.34am

If I'm going to be conspiratorial,I'd say we might be heading towards Huxley's "Brave New World" longer term rather than Orwell's "1984"!

Edited by legaleagle (22 Jan 2015 9.41am)

I'm going for Island.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jan 15 12.22pm
Quote Pawson Palace at 22 Jan 2015 12.01pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 11.18am Quote Pawson Palace at 22 Jan 2015 10.16am Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 9.21am Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 9.01am Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 10.57pm Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 3.56pm This seems so obvious to me, of course people should not be criminalized for what they think, i would argue its one of the pillars of a free society. Saying that, i am interested that you think it would not sell to the public. I think it's a matter of presentation, but if you are right i would find that a very sad indictment of the society we live in. Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done. These laws have repeatedly been used for convenience throughout British History to control 'unpopular or inconvenient beliefs and activities, even when they haven't been aimed at harm to the nation or its citizens'. When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out. You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough. I've never understood why people arrive in the UK and then protest against it's government. Surely you knew what you were getting into when you got here? In terms of our clamping down on 'free speech' if you think we have any issues then feel free to try your luck in one of those clearly wonderful Islamic nations like Saudia Arabia or Iran... To be honest more of a concern is that want 'us' to severe ties with the US, end our nuclear programme and our ENTIRE army. Green Party = anarchy. Maybe they're just exercising their legal right to protest and pursue social justice. Free speech has no meaning as speech devoid of consequence has no value. All the much vaunted 'free speech' does is raise the idea that opinions have value and its a myth anyhow. Speech isn't free, it bought and paid for, tailored and sold back to you as an ideal, when in fact its simply the opinions of those with the power of large scale media influence who have free speech. Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say. Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech. Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm) Probably because they would take a short walk off a long cliff if they voiced their opinions in their country of origin, meaning when they get to the UK (or any other democracey) they go a wee bit mental. Like the proverbial fat kid in a sweet shop. But surely nothing is more British than complaining about how good you've got it.... Thought being British was irrelevant? Edited by Pawson Palace (22 Jan 2015 10.16am) tocuhe. I think its important to people who are British, its just not actually important beyond that. Even those dirty heathens like me who are 'kind of end up being labeled at British or anti-Nationalist'. Defo agree that the "prestige" of being British has long been eroded. I think it's sad that Paddy Days is celebrated more than our own national day. Only defeated peoples need to celebrate 'national days'. The victor never needs confirmation of their national identity, they know it. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jan 15 12.22pm

Quote Pawson Palace at 22 Jan 2015 12.01pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 11.18am

Quote Pawson Palace at 22 Jan 2015 10.16am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jan 2015 9.21am

Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 9.01am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 10.57pm

Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm

Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done.

When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out.

You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough.

Green Party = anarchy.

Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say.

Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm)

Like the proverbial fat kid in a sweet shop.

But surely nothing is more British than complaining about how good you've got it....

Thought being British was irrelevant?

Edited by Pawson Palace (22 Jan 2015 10.16am)

Defo agree that the "prestige" of being British has long been eroded.

I think it's sad that Paddy Days is celebrated more than our own national day.

Only defeated peoples need to celebrate 'national days'. The victor never needs confirmation of their national identity, they know it.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Seth On a pale blue dot 22 Jan 15 2.43pm
The Green surge: is this the party that will decide the election? The Green party is not just riding high in the opinion polls – it has signed up 13,000 new members in one week. If it keeps growing at this rate, it will be bigger than Labour by May. Is it really on the verge of a breakthrough? [Link] "You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16
Alert a moderator to this post

Seth

On a pale blue dot 22 Jan 15 2.43pm

The Green surge: is this the party that will decide the election?
The Green party is not just riding high in the opinion polls – it has signed up 13,000 new members in one week. If it keeps growing at this rate, it will be bigger than Labour by May. Is it really on the verge of a breakthrough?

[Link]

"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 22 Jan 15 3.03pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Jan 2015 9.11pm My reasoning for voting green is their anti austerity stance. On a side issue, will be interesting to see what happens in Greece if Syriza win. That's easy. They'll do as they're told by the Troika or get kicked out of the Eurozone and be totally fecked. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 22 Jan 15 3.03pm

Quote nickgusset at 21 Jan 2015 9.11pm

My reasoning for voting green is their anti austerity stance.

On a side issue, will be interesting to see what happens in Greece if Syriza win.

That's easy. They'll do as they're told by the Troika or get kicked out of the Eurozone and be totally fecked.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 24 Jan 15 7.26pm
crackpots [Link] Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

24 Jan 15 7.26pm

crackpots

[Link]

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

Raven South Croydon 24 Jan 15 7.36pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 24 Jan 2015 7.26pm crackpots [Link] What an immense bit of trolling.
Alert a moderator to this post

Raven

South Croydon 24 Jan 15 7.36pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 24 Jan 2015 7.26pm

crackpots

[Link]

What an immense bit of trolling.

Alert a moderator to this post

Pawson Palace Croydon 25 Jan 15 8.19pm
Anyone watch the interview this morning? Laughable. Greens are as badly run as UKIP. She couldn't answer anything and just asked the viewers to google their policies. She couldnt explain when quizzed how they were going to fund their radical plans for the economy along with a string of other key ideas. She couldn't defend their stance on reducing border controls and legalising terrorist membership. Genuinely frightening all things considering, 4 months to go and not a clue. Pride of South London Upper Holmesdale Block P
Alert a moderator to this post

Pawson Palace

Croydon 25 Jan 15 8.19pm

Anyone watch the interview this morning?

Laughable. Greens are as badly run as UKIP. She couldn't answer anything and just asked the viewers to google their policies. She couldnt explain when quizzed how they were going to fund their radical plans for the economy along with a string of other key ideas. She couldn't defend their stance on reducing border controls and legalising terrorist membership.

Genuinely frightening all things considering, 4 months to go and not a clue.

Pride of South London
Upper Holmesdale Block P

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 22 of 34 < 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Greens

Site Map

Sponsors