The Decline of Free Speech: How the UK Became a Third-Class Nation

[NoshowJones]

18 hours ago, Red Forever said:

Is she the person who incited the low IQ far right rioters to set fire to the accommodation of terrified humans who had brown faces.

Here. I'll practice my access to free speech by saying that (if she is that awful woman) she got what she deserved!

I agree with Lucy Connolly's views, though I would be careful of saying anything about "setting fires" or "brown faces".

There are lots of people with brown faces doing important jobs in the UK, ie docters, nurses, etc, etc, there is no one more against illegals in the UK than me, ie people arriving and being put up in hotels at the taxpayers expense.

[NoshowJones]

17 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

For me, it became apparent that freedom of speech was under attack when a woman was prosecuted for highlighting a point of law. 

 

Judge defies High Court and orders police to arrest 11 for holding signs

People should have the right to hold protests as long as they are peaceful and not marching or causing any obstruction on the roads.

[NoshowJones]

15 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

I say what I want and have never been arrested.

 

There has been a lot of whining about foreigners in the UK lately, a lot of hate directed towards them.

I prefer to be polite to them.

 

I believe people should be able to go wherever they want in the world. I chose to live in Thailand, my life, my choice. If people want to go to live in cold and miserable England, then good luck to them.

 

Yes people should be allowed to live in any country, as long as they are contributing to that country's economy and not being detrimental to the people of that country.

[Nick Carter icp]

18 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

For me, it became apparent that freedom of speech was under attack when a woman was prosecuted for highlighting a point of law. 

 

Judge defies High Court and orders police to arrest 11 for holding signs

 

   They were arrested for the same offence that Tommy Robinson was arrested for , i.e , protesting outside a sitting Court and they were  held for contempt of Court for trying to influence the outcome of that Court.

   So, you think that Tommy shouldn't have been arrested ?

[Nick Carter icp]

55 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

I agree with Lucy Connolly's views, though I would be careful of saying anything about "setting fires" or "brown faces".

There are lots of people with brown faces doing important jobs in the UK, ie docters, nurses, etc, etc, there is no one more against illegals in the UK than me, ie people arriving and being put up in hotels at the taxpayers expense.

 

   Lots of Asians with brown faces married to retired former ex-pats , now living in the UK

[John Drake]

12 hours ago, Stargeezr said:

Is it free speech when people are yelling out mis information, and out right lies

about the subject they are talking about?  Living in this new woke world, i am curious

about this aspect of people speaking in public, and lying.

 

Go to Stocktwits and Yahoo Finance Stock conversation boards. Lies are everywhere. And they actually cost people money. Comparatively speaking, political discussion boards are mild stuff.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, NoshowJones said:

People should have the right to hold protests as long as they are peaceful and not marching or causing any obstruction on the roads.

I'm not convinced anyone should have the right to hold protests.

 

[RuamRudy]

58 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   They were arrested for the same offence that Tommy Robinson was arrested for , i.e , protesting outside a sitting Court and they were  held for contempt of Court for trying to influence the outcome of that Court.

   So, you think that Tommy shouldn't have been arrested ?

 

They were arrested because they peacefully held up a sign that stated a publicly listed aspect of English law.

If the law is scared of knowledge then there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. Maybe we revert to teaching law, medicine etc in Latin? That way we can really ensure that the hoi poloi are restricted from taking part in how our country is run.

[Nick Carter icp]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

They were arrested because they peacefully held up a sign that stated a publicly listed aspect of English law.

If the law is scared of knowledge then there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. Maybe we revert to teaching law, medicine etc in Latin? That way we can really ensure that the hoi poloi are restricted from taking part in how our country is run.

 

   I very much expect that the Lawyers inside the Court room had knowledge of that law , its very likely that the Judge knows the law as well .

   Its against the law to have people standing outside courtrooms trying to influence  the Judges decision ot stating what laws are .

   Do you think that a Lawyer who studied law for 8 years would be unaware of what the law is ?

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I very much expect that the Lawyers inside the Court room had knowledge of that law , its very likely that the Judge knows the law as well .

 

Are you suggesting that knowledge of the law should be restricted to specific individuals? 

 

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Its against the law to have people standing outside courtrooms trying to influence  the Judges decision ot stating what laws are .

 

I don't think they were trying to influence the judge, but I am intrigued that you think it's illegal for someone to define the law. Can you highlight what law makes it illegal to make it public knowledge that a point of law exists? That sounds very kafkaesque, like something from a Joseph Heller novel. 

[Nick Carter icp]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Are you suggesting that knowledge of the law should be restricted to specific individuals? 

 

 

   I wasn't no .

Not sure how you came to that conclusion because my posts didn't suggest that at all . 

[Nick Carter icp]

13 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I don't think they were trying to influence the judge, but I am intrigued that you think it's illegal for someone to define the law. Can you highlight what law makes it illegal to make it public knowledge that a point of law exists? That sounds very kafkaesque, like something from a Joseph Heller novel. 

 

   You cannot stand outside Courts sending messages to the Judges and jury , that's contempt of Court .

   Lawyers inside the Court already know the law , Lawyers in Court do not learn the learn by people holding up placards outside the Court  telling them what the law is 

[BritManToo]

5 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

You cannot stand outside Courts sending messages to the Judges and jury , that's contempt of Court .

   Lawyers inside the Court already know the law , Lawyers in Court do not learn the learn by people holding up placards outside the Court  telling them what the law is 

I have nothing but contempt for the British police, DPP and the British courts.

[Nick Carter icp]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I have nothing but contempt for the British police, DPP and the British courts.

 

   Not everythings all about you though .

The whole World doesn't revolve around you 

[Thailand]

23 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

I grew up in the UK in the 1940s and 1950s. In those days education, appearance, speech, behaviour, intelligence, law and order, and humour were all vastly superior to what you can see today. Very sad.

I agree, things are certainly darker than they were years ago!

[riclag]

On 11/23/2024 at 3:30 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Last desperate flailings of a governmental system descending into impotence. If they can't stop people criticizing them, stop the people saying anything through intimidation.

 

The worst part of all this is that the police have been exposed as government lackeys, and not as the independent, unbiased organisation they are supposed to be.

They can't prevent crime, but they are pretty top gun at harassing people with the "wrong" speech.

The decline & degradation of Traditional western values !

 

 

[NoshowJones]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I'm not convinced anyone should have the right to hold protests.

 

You mean not even if they are peaceful and causing no obstructions??

[BritManToo]

14 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

You mean not even if they are peaceful and causing no obstructions??

When does that ever happen?

[candide]

5 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

Please remove the ''opinion'' tag as I have provided the references.  As for the intellect claim I fear it might have already been proven by the posters on here.

 

BBC - owned by the royal family in accordance with the royal charter. (BBC, 2016)

 

ITV - regulated by Ofcom which is an arm of the government. (ITV, 2024)

 

Channel 4 - Established by parliament in accordance with Broadcasting Act 1990.  Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which is a department of the UK government.

 

Dave - regulated by Ofcom which is an arm of the government.

 

Advertisements - Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) subject to rules set out by Ofcom.

 

References

 

1. British Broadcasting Corporation. (December 2016). *Agreement*. https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/2016/agreement.pdf

 

2. Independent Television. (Thursday 17 November at 9:59am). *Terms of use for ITVX and ITV Hub*. https://www.itv.com/terms/articles/itvxtermsofuse

 

3. Channel 4 (Channel Four Television Corporation). (8 November 2023). *Terms and conditions*. https://www.channel4.com/4viewers/ts-and-cs

 

4. Dave (UKTV). (November, 2024). *Terms and conditions*.

https://corporate.uktv.co.uk/legal/terms-and-conditions

 

5.  Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Submission to Ofcom’s Call for Evidence on the First Phase of Online Regulation – 13 September 2022
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/consultations/category-1-10-weeks/240428-first-phase-of-online-safety-regulation/responses/advertising-standards-authority-asa/?v=202085

 

Nonsense! Ofcom is not an arm of the government..

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   You cannot stand outside Courts sending messages to the Judges and jury , that's contempt of Court .

 

What utter nonsense; of course you can. It's has been happening for centuries and is prefectly legal. People often stand outside courts during high profile cases and shout slogans, hold placards and generally try to get their message across to whomever will listen. That's called freedom of speech. You know, the very crux of this thread. 

[Gobbler]

Australia is nipping at Britain's heels.

[NoshowJones]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

When does that ever happen?

When I was there in Sept, protests in Glasgow city centre about illegal immigrants living in UK hotels. I agreed with them, but they should have kept their protests in George Sq instead of disrupting traffic on the road, and of course what happened after the poor wee girls after Southport. Then you had the Muslim terrorists in London in 2005.