Someone seems to have an agenda and doesn't like it being highlighted in that light.
Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge
- Thread starter Untied
- Start date
Someone seems to have an agenda and doesn't like it being highlighted in that light.
We have bad politicians but don't put all of them in the same bag, plenty make the difference and plenty like Hollande clearly said that Islam as a whole wasn't a problem.
Would this apply also to those with a known criminal/radical record? I had -wrongly ? - assumed that with his record, he would have to complete time in jail.
Here is one of the first images used by major media that was taken seconds after the crash
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7h7a1mX0AAtknh.jpg
And another
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7h7a1mX0AAtknh.jpg
And another
I'm honestly not sure, I'd assume that it would depend on the individual case to be honest.
The world we live in .....
Isn't he just using the selfie stick to get a better angle on the scene?
None of the radical cartoonists and journalists that you are referring to are advocating that violence can be used against civilians. Stop trying to equate Islamists with right wing/liberal journalists who want to exercise their right to ridicule or criticise Islam - they are not equal.
Clearly a disturbed individual - why is he wearing wraparound shades on a dismal March day in London?
Still no word on the identification of the perp?
The longer it is kept quiet the better.
The police will be bringing in his associates and going through doors as we speak.
Bit of a poser...probably looks even worse without them.
According to you. I'll equate as I wish. I thought thats the point of free speech or does it offend you?
See what I did there?
Last edited:
I guess it is quite an interesting 'selfie' for those who are into such things. Useful for dining out on when he gets home.
I know it's probably too soon but this is too good not to share.
No, it doesn't offend me. But just know that you are wrong.
There is a world of difference between a cartoonist drawing a picture of Muhammad to mock the religion and an Islamist preacher quoting the Quran to justify violent acts being committed on law abiding citizens. If you cannot see this difference, you are a very dangerous and deranged man.
He's not Jack Bauer or one of the Spooks!
So free speech as long as @rednev is OK with it?
I think I'm right. I'm also not very dangerous and nor very deranged. I'd also prefer you did not engage in personal attacks.
So what you gonna do about it?
Last edited:
Just been listening to the PM's speech.
Funny how she now wants to heap praise on the Police. The service she crucified and demoralised as Home Secretary. Wonder how many people inside Parliament would have been slaughtered if G4S were looking after you all Theresa?
Really sticks in the throat.
Funny how she now wants to heap praise on the Police. The service she crucified and demoralised as Home Secretary. Wonder how many people inside Parliament would have been slaughtered if G4S were looking after you all Theresa?
Really sticks in the throat.
Nothing, apart from point out that the purpose of the cartoonist is to mock and make light of religion, while the purpose of the Islamist preacher is to motivate his followers to engage in violence. You appear to believe that the mocking of a silly religion is as tragic as the murder of civilians...this can mean one of two things - either the extent of the brainwashing you have experienced is so extreme that you genuinely regard the ridicule of your religion to be an insufferable tragedy (deranged) or your views on religion have resulted in you having an extremely low regard for the tragedy of murder (dangerous).
I think it is probably the former. And as your religion (which, as you know, does not permit you to leave under the threat of death) requires of you this deranged sensitivity to the mocking of your religion, I will give you some sympathy. But just know, you are not in the best position to be making these comparisons due to your impartiality. To most impartial people, the comparison between the satirical cartoonist and the Islamic preacher is not an equal one.
thanks for the amateurish psycho-babble - I'll be asking for a refund
Of course you refused to address the main point with your troll like diversion: Its free speech as long as @rednev is OK with it?
Last edited:
It's a wake up call for those in charge, if they want to keep the streets safe they need to stop the cut backs.
Very sad
thanks for the psycho-babble - though I'll be asking for a refund
Of course you refused to address the main point with your diversion: Its free speech as long as @rednev is OK with it?
I think the definition set out by John Stuart Mill is still appropriate today - free speech should only be limited by the law when it is used to advocate harm to others. Obviously this leads to the question of what constitutes harm...in my opinion, speech should only be prohibited if it is directly calling for unlawful behavior to be carried out or if it is justifying unlawful violence/behavior in a way that could lead to more violence/harm being carried out. Everything else is fair game (although civil law should of course protect against libel and slander).
Obviously the harm principle extends it to famous the 'shouting fire in a movie theatre' example as well.
Wouldn't have any civil rights if this definition were adhered to.
Aside from incitement, this is too vague a notion to define.
So Trevor Brooks was a false flag?
You all know freedom of speech is a qualified right?
It's not absolute.
It's not absolute.
Woman pulled alive from River Thames after Westminster Bridge attack
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/woman-pulled-alive-river-thames-london-terror-attack/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/woman-pulled-alive-river-thames-london-terror-attack/
Looks like it.
Then its not 'free', is it?
And again the question of who should qualify the 'absolutes'?
The Human Rights Act.
The media do really love these kind of situations, don't they?
Terrorism has next to no impact on public safety, it is policed very well.
The restrictions you would like to see placed on freedom of expression, such as a ban on cartoons you deem offensive, can and will be used against things you hold dear. Are you willing to accept that?
Do you know how much violence and abuse Europeans and Muslims who legally live in UK have been subjected to since the Emergence of Farage? He has inspired far more people into far more hate actions across the UK than a few idiotic muslim preachers who are largely derided by the even the UK muslim population.
Any statistical analysis will prove which is the greater contributor to the creation of hate in UK. That might not fit the desired political narrative of some but that does not make it untrue.
Pls expand?
It never has been, nor should it be. We can't have absolute freedom in any shape or form. The fact that some people can't understand the concept of relativity is ironically a good argument against absolute freedom of speech. The problem however is as you rightly point out, who decides?