Free Speech In The Uk

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

I installed bitdefender on my other pc

 

Say what you want about Kaspersky, but only after you tried getting rid of BitDefender, at least once, and be it just for shits and giggles. Last time I tried it, the nag-o-matic to renew the license was about as difficult to get rid of as a real virus.

 

Never. Again.

 

 

Hmm, thanks for that. Perhaps we ought to have a best virus defender thread to keep all this for future reference.

 

Thanks for that anyway.

[Briganza]

 

I was watching a TV programme last night, had one of our ex Politicians called Ed Ball's visiting the parts of America that voted for Donald Trump. Anyway, he want to a gun training centre, where they teach new gun owners responsibility in using their weapon. They featured a piece of film where a hunter, confused as to why his gun didnt fire, looked down the barrel of the gun, and was rewarded by it discharging and shooting off his hat. He got lucky. one might say for showing such crass stupidity, he probably asked to get shot in the head.

Cherry picked single example is cherry picked. Go look at the rates of accidents with guns over the decades. Look at what other accidents cause death or injury. The CDC has very clear data.

 

 

So by the same token, if Tommy Robinson turns up at a court and specifically does something he has already been prosecuted for

Fast and loose with terms. Lord Burnett made a clear point that Robinson's offense wasn't a criminal offense. Calling it "prosecuted for" is I think mistaken.

 

 

 

Note, they are not saying they got the wrong result. They are saying they are not sure they got the right result. They are also not saying he is innocent. If he was as innocent as you believe, he would be free (and not just on bail) because he had no charges to answer. The court has decided he has charges to answer, so they are trying him again. A subtle point to us, but in legal circles, probably a herculean one.

Is it a trial or a hearing? Also it sounds like you're just describing that the trial or hearing are just a formality. He will be found guilty because everyone has decided such. 'Why stress about it eh?'

 

 

Now you can point to as much political meddling as you like. The truth is, our judicial system is not like yours. In fact, there seems to be fundamental differences all down the line between how you prosecute crime and we do it.

Well, according to Lord Burnett, the judge in the case did the equivalent of picking up the gun and looked down the barrel.

 

From where I sit, how you guys handle issues was badly done. Your highest judge says so as well. I was saying somethings looked fishy and you lot said I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about.

 

Your highest appeals court said the case was mishandled. QED.

 

 

Have a read up on the Crown Prosecution service, and you will note how little influence Parliament or politicians has over the judiciary. Other than in the case of national security, and I think it would be a conspiracy theorist of the weight of Fox Mulder to conceive Robinson ranks at that level.

Prosecutors are also politicians of a sort. Police are appointed by politicians are they not? The laws enforced are written by politicians are they not? How do you get the judges picked? Where do they come from?

 

Only took 10 seconds ro find and a couple pf minutes to read.

 

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/jud-appts/

 

 

 

Judicial appointments

 

Since April 2006, judicial appointments have been the responsibility of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.Before this appointments were made on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, who was a Government Minister. The Lord Chancellor’s Department made its own enquiries as to the most eligible candidates. It was considered that the appointment process was open to the criticism that a member of the government should not have the sole responsibility for appointing judges. It was also considered that judges were appointed in the image of existing judges rather than solely on merit from a pool of widely drawn eligible candidates.

 

Despite the criticisms levelled at it the former method of appointment in fact worked rather well. Candidates were selected on merit, there was no question of any political consideration being involved, and the Lord Chancellor usually acted on the advice of the senior judiciary, who were in a position to identify able practitioners. Selection was, however as critics pointed out, from a rather narrow pool and this did nothing for the diversity of the judiciary.

Judges in the UK are not elected by the public.

A hearing is a trial by another name.

I would also suggest you carefully read the conclusion to the Appeal as a number of thing you have said are incorrect.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Im not so surprised, there has been a history on this grate site of Americans misinterpreting British Neo Fascist groups as something else.

There's a history of folks in the media characterizing ANYONE who's not center left as extreme right. I point this out AGAIN, look at how Jordan Peterson has frequently been characterized as such. The left does the same thing about the Proud Boys, except you can look at actual footage of them and see darker skinned folks among their number which belies that point entirely.

 

Nazi's are the left's devil. Labeling someone as dancing with the devil isn't a new thing.

 

 

An intelligent poster, a moderate actually, really thought the English Defence League were something akin to the American teapartyists.

Didn't it start that way and then change? UKIP is too now if you listen to folks? Anything that's not Labor or Tory is Extreme Right Wing.

 

I've sat down and listened to the right wing identitiarians. They say VERY clear things which mark them out. Richard Spencer and David Duke were both very clear. The Left's hard core racist identitarians are ALSO quite clear in what they say.

 

Folks paint Ben Shapiro as right wing, nazi type. They're either so wrong it's not funny or they're lying because it's something they think will work to impugn someone. It's more extreme than calling someone a twat because you don't like what they say but don't have the balls or intelligence to argue with what they say.

 

 

That we are regarded as Socialist, 40 years after the rise of Margaret Thatcher is perhaps the most prevalent misunderstanding.

*points at the Communist spy who leads half your government*.

 

 

Ryan, do you actually keep track of any events in the Uk, or did you stop reading when you got to 1956? Its pretty self evident the far right in the Uk is violent, just as they are in many other countries. Did you not hear of MP Jo Cox, whom was murdered by a man shouting 'Britain First', a British far right group? One your President so thoughtfully retweeted video's of? Are they misunderstood too, or is Political violence to be pardoned if its in a good cause?

 

Its very easy to keep trying to rengineer reality to redefine Robinson as you wish, because you wish to see him as a freedom fighter. In reality, he is a self obsessed Gobshite whom has had very unsavory ties with the British far right, and has re-marketed himself as a demagogue, and you just cannot but help lapping it up. That is not a media opinion by the way, its my own, based on a lifelong hatred of all political extremes. Robinson is a political extremist, a right wing one. He reeks of it, and that you cannot accept my word, or indeed anyones without doubting it I find deeply troubling.

 

You are really equating Peterson with Robinson? Whats next, Adolf Hitler with Nigel Farage?

 

Jeremy Corbyn is not a Communist spy. He is a self obsessed twat. And he has no role in the Government, his sole job is to point out what a poor Job Theresa May is or is not doing, and he isnt even very good at that.

[DB]

A number...

[rmgill]

Ryan, do you actually keep track of any events in the Uk, or did you stop reading when you got to 1956?

Yes, do you? It's evident that the Far left are violent as well.

 

Its very easy to keep trying to rengineer reality to redefine Robinson as you wish

I'm not the one positing FIRM conclusions of law because he's a twat Stuart. Freedom fighter? No. That's a straw man.

 

In reality, he is a self obsessed Gobshite whom has had very unsavory ties with the British far right

Which means he's a nobody who should be locked up and forgotten about is that it?

 

Robinson is a political extremist, a right wing one. He reeks of it, and that you cannot accept my word, or indeed anyones without doubting it I find deeply troubling.

Our founding fathers were political extremists you know. So was Oliver Cromwell. I'm still trying to firm up some sort of clear opinion about Robinson becasuse, as I have pointed out, you lot are very emotionally wed to the 'extreme right wing' narrative while people who have actually sat down and spoken with him or done deep dives into his politics say differently. You then impugn their motives and ethics as well instead of responding to the points.

 

You are really equating Peterson with Robinson? Whats next, Adolf Hitler with Nigel Farage?

Clearly I am not. I'm equating liberals who call someone they don't like Extreme Right Wing with liberals who call someone else they don't like Extreme Right Wing.

 

They're the SAME PEOPLE. They paint people on the other side of the political aisle with extremely broad brushes because it's simple to do. Robinson is working class, so he's less sophisticated and he's clearly not as intelligent as Peterson. Peterson mops the floor with the folks over there (and here) who try to do that to him in person.

 

There's a history of folks in the media characterizing ANYONE who's not center left as extreme right.

 

The common point is how EVERYONE is 'extreme right wing' if you donn't agree with progressive goals.

 

Jeremy Corbyn is not a Communist spy. He is a self obsessed twat. And he has no role in the Government

So he's not the leader of the opposition party, isn't a member of parliament for Islington North and has no voting authority in Parliament?

 

Is parliament part of the government of the UK?

Edited August 6, 2018 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Not that the Brits will watch/listen to the nuanced views.

 

[Briganza]

 

Is parliament part of the government of the UK?

 

No, in a short word.

 

A handy film for you to look at adn explain it all.

 

https://www.parliament.uk/education/about-your-parliament/mps-lords-monarch/mps-in-the-house-of-commons/

Edited August 6, 2018 by Briganza

[Briganza]

Not that the Brits will watch/listen to the nuanced views.

 

 

05.30 and 16.15 tend to disagree with you most if not all you remarks about the trial.

[rmgill]

I feel like you're arguing semantics here.

Corbyn is in the labor party, he's it's leader. He's in the legislative body which is Parliament which is part of the government of the UK. The distinct parliamentary term is that the ruling party is the 'government'. But he's still part of the larger Government of the UK which are many parts which are separate from the citizenry. He's not some powerless rube who has zero authority or effect.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/government-opposition/

Leader of the Opposition

The leader of the largest opposition party is the Leader of the Official Opposition, which for the Commons and Lords is currently the Labour Party.

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP, leader of the Labour party, is the current Leader of the Official Opposition. This role commands an additional salary to the parliamentary salary received as an MP. The Leader of the Official Opposition picks a 'Shadow Cabinet' to follow the work of government departments.

 

Shadow Cabinet

The Shadow Cabinet consists of members from the main opposition party in the House of Commons and Lords, currently the Labour party. Its role is to examine the work of each government department and develop policies in their specific areas.


They develop policies among other things don't they? Is that powerless? He's on the Privy Council too is he not? Is that someone who has no role in government?

[rmgill]

 

Not that the Brits will watch/listen to the nuanced views.

 

 

05.30 and 16.15 tend to disagree with you most if not all you remarks about the trial.

 

Yes. But there are numerous other points which contradict remarks you have made.

 

I can qualify that an accused should be judged in court, fairly and not expeditiously innocent until proven guilty. The Appellate court even noted that the judge who made an initial finding had some level of apparent lack of impartiality towards Robinson. The case should have been handed off for later hearing and/or trial, not handled right then and there with a scrounged up defense attorney.

 

Also note that The Britisher sussed out the differences on the 15, 13 and 3 month sentences mentioned and which you were contesting above.

 

Note KEY thing that has been repeated here, quite incorrectly it would seem. Robinson is supposed to have admitted guilt when the appeal's court notes that it was apparently the attorney who did so on his behalf and that the pleading by Robinson was unclear.

 

The case is a dogs breakfast.

Edited August 6, 2018 by rmgill

[Chris Werb]

 

Robinson committed a crime after being warned not to. He got locked up after the fair application of the judicial process. We couldn't let him off just because he was a low life white fascist how ever much our Colonial friends may have wished it so.

You used to be a pretty middle of the road, rather humorous guy, then you disappeared for a while and came back as a mean, bitter left-winger. Seriously, what happened?

 

 

I'm just stating a fact Jeff. I'm still humorous, but, for some reason that humour generally only comes into play with Europeans these days. I have no idea why.

[Briganza]

Parliament which is part of the government of the UK.

 

Not semantics atall.

 

Did you watch the film?

 

Parliament is not the government. The Government can be drawn from parliament but does not have to be. You do not have to be an MP to be part of the government.

 

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05226

 

 

​​

Ministerial appointments. In theory a Government minister does not have to be a member of either House of Parliament. In practice, however, convention is that ministers must be members of either the House of Commons or House of Lords in order to be accountable to Parliament.

[Chris Werb]

You know, Americans ragging on the UK with made-up shit for months on end despite endlessly repeated representation of facts by British posters, then having the nerve of complaining that some of the latter have turned into bitter "left-wingers", and indulging in self-pitying "Bash America" threads where they whine how everybody hates them says about all about the mechanism driving the development of relations between the US and its rapidly estranging allies in the last years.

 

Excellent!!!! :)

[rmgill]

Parliament is not the government. The Government can be drawn from parliament but does not have to be. You do not have to be an MP to be part of the government.

I think it comes down to terminology.

 

There's the executive body which is HM's Government, that's The Government. Then there's parliament which is the legislative body of the UK. That is also, part of what makes up government in the UK. You know the body that writes laws. There are other judicial and administrative bodies which perform various functions which are also part of government in the UK.

 

In US parlance, a police officer, a dog catcher and a court clerk are part of government. They may be part of specific bodies but have some level of governmental authority to articulate, execute or judge policies or laws.

Some guy on the street who works for himself or some private company is NOT part of government. He's private citizen.

 

Corbyn is NOT a private citizen. His position as Labour Leader and member of the shadow government and being on the Privy Council makes him far more than just some random dude. Describing him as powerless is I think imprecise.

Edited August 6, 2018 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Robinson committed a crime after being warned not to. He got locked up after the fair application of the judicial process. We couldn't let him off just because he was a low life white fascist how ever much our Colonial friends may have wished it so.

I'm just stating a fact Jeff. I'm still humorous, but, for some reason that humour generally only comes into play with Europeans these days. I have no idea why.

That must be some other meaning of the word fair I was previously unaware of. If it was fair there'd have not been a appeal decision that we have just had the opportunity to read.

Edited August 6, 2018 by rmgill

[Jeff]

 

 

Robinson committed a crime after being warned not to. He got locked up after the fair application of the judicial process. We couldn't let him off just because he was a low life white fascist how ever much our Colonial friends may have wished it so.

You used to be a pretty middle of the road, rather humorous guy, then you disappeared for a while and came back as a mean, bitter left-winger. Seriously, what happened?

Realities of life and the way disagreements are handled can make most people more hard-skinned. Can get pretty vicious because it'll cycle through other people reacting in the same way, and thus make the whole group more agitated with each other as the personal history starts to pile up on harsh disagreements.

 

Who wants beer?

 

Happy beer, not angry fist fighting wild west beer, happy beer, like at an Izakaya

 

 

Prost!

[Jeff]

The federal US Judiciary is not elected but many certainly reflect the liberal bent and have no problem legislating from the bench to meet their personal political ideology.

As for the outcasts being easy to abuse, that is why they tend to be the canaries in the coal mine. No one wants to be seen defending their right to say things for fear of being seen as defending what they say. Alex Jones is a total crazy douchebag but if we all agree he has no rights, then none of us do in the end except what those in power at the moment decide to grant us. We actually fought a war over this stuff in the US.


ARE TECH GIANTS WORKING TOGETHER TO CENSOR CONSERVATIVES? — Apple, YouTube and Facebook BAN Infowars on Same Day

[JasonJ]

 

 

 

Robinson committed a crime after being warned not to. He got locked up after the fair application of the judicial process. We couldn't let him off just because he was a low life white fascist how ever much our Colonial friends may have wished it so.

 

You used to be a pretty middle of the road, rather humorous guy, then you disappeared for a while and came back as a mean, bitter left-winger. Seriously, what happened?

Realities of life and the way disagreements are handled can make most people more hard-skinned. Can get pretty vicious because it'll cycle through other people reacting in the same way, and thus make the whole group more agitated with each other as the personal history starts to pile up on harsh disagreements.

Who wants beer?

Happy beer, not angry fist fighting wild west beer, happy beer, like at an Izakaya

Prost!

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Not that the Brits will watch/listen to the nuanced views.

 

 

05.30 and 16.15 tend to disagree with you most if not all you remarks about the trial.

 

 

 

That voice reminds me so much of Lord Haw Haw, its scary.

I feel like you're arguing semantics here.

 

Corbyn is in the labor party, he's it's leader. He's in the legislative body which is Parliament which is part of the government of the UK. The distinct parliamentary term is that the ruling party is the 'government'. But he's still part of the larger Government of the UK which are many parts which are separate from the citizenry. He's not some powerless rube who has zero authority or effect.

 

https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/government-opposition/

Leader of the Opposition

The leader of the largest opposition party is the Leader of the Official Opposition, which for the Commons and Lords is currently the Labour Party.

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP, leader of the Labour party, is the current Leader of the Official Opposition. This role commands an additional salary to the parliamentary salary received as an MP. The Leader of the Official Opposition picks a 'Shadow Cabinet' to follow the work of government departments.

 

Shadow Cabinet

The Shadow Cabinet consists of members from the main opposition party in the House of Commons and Lords, currently the Labour party. Its role is to examine the work of each government department and develop policies in their specific areas.

 

 

They develop policies among other things don't they? Is that powerless? He's on the Privy Council too is he not? Is that someone who has no role in government?

 

 

 

 

Corbyn is the leader of the opposition. He is not in the Government. The difference is quite clear here in the second paragraph.

https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp47-e.htm

 

Otherwise every time Corbyn opened his yap, it would be said 'A Government minister said...'. They dont. They say 'The leader of the opposition say's....' Its a pretty substantice difference, not least because the opposition has limited legislative ability, not least because being in opposition they are outnumbered. I would have to check, but I think it comes down to private members bills, hence the furore when a Tory MP voted down the upskirting bill because he objected to private members bills on principle.

 

 

Briganza said it much better btw. Its just one more occasion when Americans assume Britain works just like their political process, and quite self evidently, it dont.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

I'm not talking about THE Government. I'm talking about the larger administrative, legislative, judicial body or entity known as GOVERNMENT of a nation. That is inclusive of THE Government, your judiciary and your legislative body as well as the specific nuances of your crown. I get the subtle differences. But your effort to explain why a Labor MP is not part of Government in UK is specious and disingenuous. He's not some random git who the media puts on cameras and fawns over his reputed anti-Semitic views.

As to your other gross failure of intellect, I can't help you.

I mean if you're going to sound like one of those Russians that points to everyone they dislike as being a Nazi 2.0 type...


Edit...
The diction of The Britisher reminds me of Professor Tolkien. I think that's down to the diction and emphasis on specific points of pronunciation.

Older with the very specific diction.

Edited August 7, 2018 by rmgill

[Chris Werb]

For the record, I listen to quite a lot of Alex Jones as I like to get a different take on things and, to be honest, he's quite entertaining. I have no desire to limit anyone anywhere's access to his output.

[DKTanker]

 

I think its more to do with the fact that Robinson is, though many ignore it, just what Chris says. A lowlife white Fascist. It doesnt mean he is guilty, equally it doesn't mean he should be given special treatment because it suits some people to think he is a different person than he is.

Is there something organic about being white that would differentiate a white fascist from say a purple fascist, or is it your bigotry oozing through as well?

[Stuart Galbraith]

I am white. How the hell is it being bigoted by noting that other white people can also be fascist?

[rmgill]

Why does it matter what race they are?

Are white fascists worse somehow than say Asian Fascists?

[Brian Kennedy]

Today I learned that Chris Werb from rural England hates white people!