And that's just it. I've said things about one of our previous owners that could be taken as an incitement to violence depending on how someone looks at it
Lucy Connolly is guilty of being an idiot, I don't believe anyone, hand on heart believes posting unpleasant things that she did is worthy of a prison sentence. I say that as someone who regularly talks about publicly flogging people who use their phones in cinemas, planes or in public generally.
It was hateful speech however I'd hope some intelligence was to be applied to someone of her pedigree posting stupid shit. She doesn't have an audience of willing participants to rouse to my knowledge anyway.
She was quite literally suggesting setting human beings on fire.
A fair few of us chant about setting some football fans alight a lot of match weeks, should that be an arrestable offence?
(Not saying what she did was acceptable btw)
There's not a court in the land that would convict us for Palace and Millwall.
Of course not, but my point is where is the line. How can someone be arrested online for saying they want to see a group of people burned, but another group can say the same thing but face no legal action because it's seen as a joke.
Surely anyone could just say it was a joke what they said in that instance.
I am just trying to play devil's advocate here. I don't agree with what she said.
But we know where the line is. It's like someone asking why they are being arrested for arson when people light fires every Guy Fawkes.
We only know where the line is because someone with a lot more power than any of us drew it.
There are so many examples of one rule for one and one rule another.
If we really simplify it, comedians will joke about racism, ableism, rape, religion, etc. It's just a joke, no one cares, and the people that do are told it's just a joke.
On the flipside an ordinary person could make the same jokes as a comedian in a public space, or a powerful person (think Trumps gestures, or Sean Stricklands comments) and they'll face repercussions. Most people in this country would lose their job if they said something out of line, whereas there are others who can get away with it.
There's a ton of selective outrage over the freedom of speech, and who can and can't say what.
I don't really follow where you're going to be honest. Not to say you've not gone somewhere. I think the law is pretty clear re: where the lines are drawn in terms of free speech, vs inciting racial hatred / violence, Vs jokes, etc.. and I don't have a problem with it. I agree there is selective outrage, hence why nobody is saying Abu Hamza didn't deserve prison.
That is why I said it is probably an in person conversation for me personally. I only got a C in English for a reason, I can't really articulate my thoughts in writing too well 😂
Well Abu Hamza did deserve a prison sentence, who is his counterpart in this instance. Assuming there is someone you have in mind to highlight Abu?
Yeah, he and Lucy Connolly were both convicted of incitement under the public order act.
Ok, now back to my point about discrepancies, there is a bit of a difference between the two characters.
One is an ordinary citizen with 0 clout who made an ill advised tweet. The other was an Imam which is a powerful position/leadership role in a Mosque where he would have had influence of over thousands of Muslims visiting the Mosque. Radicalisation is a huge issue in the UK.
The threat levels are entirely different, which shows on the sentence lengths. I don't really think that is a case of selective outrage tbh.
That's a person of influence with dangerous intentions vs a silly bint who got wound up on social media. She was hardly going to start a movement.
The irony is now when she gets out she will have more influence than she did before that sentence. Seems like a misguided punishment personally.
It doesn’t matter. They both have platforms. Lucy Connolly’s was social media, where she decided to incite racial hatred, threaten and encourage others to hunt down asylum seekers and refugees and burn them. Equally, she also had the potential to influence thousands of extremists.
Radicalisation isn’t limited to non-white people.
From what I understand, because of social media, Lucy Connolly's written statement was reaching a much wider audience...
The problem with social media is that it's publication (the social media companies argue (unconvincingly IMHO) that they are not publishers, and thus not subject to legislation that affects newspapers, TV, radio, etc. It's something that I expect will end up in court sooner rather than later, but people are knowingly publishing ever more unhinged shite via social media sites (often under the influence of America's Wild West internet).
No-one could post what she did and not expect to suffer the legal consequences.
Which means that I hope that Gordon Lyons MLA gets it in the neck for publishing on social media that terrified people, fleeing racist rioting in Ballymena, were being sheltered in Larne Leisure Centre, which was then, itself, the target of a racist mob.
You also can’t say her actions didn’t have very real consequences. Not far from where I live, in the centre of Leeds, they were shutting roads and parts of train stations with police manning the hotels and roads leading up to them.
Like football, we have laws, not rules. They are open to interpretation within guidelines. There are grey areas and we have experienced, wise (mostly) people to look at the facts, the guidelines and the precedents and then pass judgement on each individual case. As I already pointed out, and Brazilliance didn't respond to - I imagine he didn't see the post - she had pre and post tweet evidence to show her true colours. I can only guess this is why the judge made the decison he/she did?
"Do you know how many times I have heard someone who is mentally ill say outrageous claims that they are going to kill a load of people? I can also tell you their punishment almost everytime is to go on a monitor list. No heavy prison sentences, despite inciting violence/terrorism."
How is that person inciting anything if they say they are going to kill people? They are not suggesting anyone else does it, they are not suggesting doing it on a social media platform they know is going to be read by a few hundred thousand accolytes who are then going to pass it on to others. They are not tweeting in the name of a terrorist organisation. Not a good example I am afraid.
I didn't see the reply.
I don't think she is innocent, but cause of how I've seen how much our prisons struggle and the backlog of work, I feel the sentence wasn't necessary personally and there were other ways of punishment. I think the prison sentence fuelled groups of UK citizens that were already on edge, it strengthened their arguments (at the very least in their minds) and caused more of a divide between the police and a lot of ordinary UK citizens.
I have seen people sentenced for less for far worse crimes. Like I said before, the UK has more pressing issues than a tweet.
As for the last paragraph it can be rather cryptic on what counts as incitement and what doesn't. The people I am referring to are sometimes with people or in a public space. When these people are shouting in public lines like "I am going to kill officers, I am not going to take it, people should be more angry" or words to that effect, it falls into similar territory to asking someone personally to do something. It is still a form of encouragement, and it can cause a stir by definition.
There seems to be a very odd reluctance to accept that a racist breaking the law should face the consequences of doing so. Weird, really.
Not really as I am talking in circumstances. If there wasn't sex offenders, knife/weapon wielders, abusers, monitored terrorists etc out on parole, I wouldn't care.
There are priorities in the UK and I am of the view tweets are at the very bottom of the pile. Fine her, suspended sentence, community service, racism awareness course etc. Let me ask you, you agree that racists should be put away, why wasn't Sam Kerr convicted of racially aggravated harassment? What would be a suitable punishment for her. She is a person of mass influence, far bigger profile than Lucy, she was openly racist, yet she still has her career, no one cares anymore.
Of course encouraging people to burn hotels is a different threat level, but do you see how the justice system picks and chooses?
The prison sentence stirred up a group of people, when she gets out she will be seen as a heroine in a lot of people's eyes, that is the truth. Who knows what kind of movements start when she is released or have already happened as a result.
I am not saying I like her, I don't agree with what she said, so please don't try and spin it orherwise. I just firmly believe there are priorities in the UK, until then, I think people spouting shit online should be punished in a different manner.
I can't make it any clearer than this. I think the only way the world can truly operate without controversy, is a lawless world, or a completely controlled society, otherwise there will always be an imbalance.
I don't really care what happens to racists, but I do believe in a pecking order in crimes committed. A person who is racist can be rehibilated, or can more likely become a functioning member of society, more so than the more heinous criminals like sex offenders, abusers, arsonists, terrorists, murderers etc.
Here is the harsh reality of the UK justice system, in the same week I was aware of someone being in prison for a long time for piracy, I saw a woman in McDonalds sitting near kids who I know for a fact was involved in co-ordinating the rape of a young teenage girl in an exchange for drugs, but was released from custody while under investigation.
Priorities. That is my point here. If prisons are full, and prisoners were being released early due to overcrowding, where is the sense in putting people in who could potentially be rehibilated.
There seems to be a very odd reluctance to accept that a racist breaking the law should face the consequences of doing so. Weird, really.
Not really as I am talking in circumstances. If there wasn't sex offenders, knife wielders, abusers, monitored terrorists etc out on parole, I wouldn't care.
There are priorities in the UK and I am of the view tweets are at the very bottom of the pile. Fine her, suspended sentence, community service, racism awareness course etc. Let me ask you, you agree that racists should be put away, why wasn't Sam Kerr convicted of racially aggravated harassment? What would be a suitable punishment for her. She is a person of mass influence, far bigger profile than Lucy, she was openly racist.
The prison sentence stirred up a group of people, when she gets out she will be seen as a heroine in a lot of people's eyes, that is the truth.
I am not saying I like her, I don't agree with what she said, so please don't try and spin it orherwise. I just firmly believe there are priorities in the UK, until then, I think people spouting shit online should be punished in a different manner.
No, I don't think "racists should be put away". Everyone has the right to be a racist. And I have every right to think that those who are, are pitiful, pathetic and sad. But that is not the same as thinking that all racists should be imprisoned.
People that commit crimes - like the one this horrible person did - should be "put away".
The starting point for her offence is three years' imprisonment. I'm baffled why anyone should be upset that she got 31 months, with 40% to be served in prison.
The law is, of course, the law. Break it and, I'm afraid, you have to face the consequences.
Anyone thinking that she's a heroine is an absolute, undiluted idiot. But there's no law against that, so they're perfectly entitled to demonstrate their complete idiocy. Good luck to them: they'll need it.
There seems to be a very odd reluctance to accept that a racist breaking the law should face the consequences of doing so. Weird, really.
Not really as I am talking in circumstances. If there wasn't sex offenders, knife/weapon wielders, abusers, monitored terrorists etc out on parole, I wouldn't care.
There are priorities in the UK and I am of the view tweets are at the very bottom of the pile. Fine her, suspended sentence, community service, racism awareness course etc. Let me ask you, you agree that racists should be put away, why wasn't Sam Kerr convicted of racially aggravated harassment? What would be a suitable punishment for her. She is a person of mass influence, far bigger profile than Lucy, she was openly racist, yet she still has her career, no one cares anymore.
Of course encouraging people to burn hotels is a different threat level, but do you see how the justice system picks and chooses?
The prison sentence stirred up a group of people, when she gets out she will be seen as a heroine in a lot of people's eyes, that is the truth. Who knows what kind of movements start when she is released or have already happened as a result.
I am not saying I like her, I don't agree with what she said, so please don't try and spin it orherwise. I just firmly believe there are priorities in the UK, until then, I think people spouting shit online should be punished in a different manner.
Sam Kerr was found not guilty by a court
Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty in a court.
Not sure how you can compare the 2 cases based on these outcomes
There seems to be a very odd reluctance to accept that a racist breaking the law should face the consequences of doing so. Weird, really.
Not really as I am talking in circumstances. If there wasn't sex offenders, knife/weapon wielders, abusers, monitored terrorists etc out on parole, I wouldn't care.
There are priorities in the UK and I am of the view tweets are at the very bottom of the pile. Fine her, suspended sentence, community service, racism awareness course etc. Let me ask you, you agree that racists should be put away, why wasn't Sam Kerr convicted of racially aggravated harassment? What would be a suitable punishment for her. She is a person of mass influence, far bigger profile than Lucy, she was openly racist, yet she still has her career, no one cares anymore.
Of course encouraging people to burn hotels is a different threat level, but do you see how the justice system picks and chooses?
The prison sentence stirred up a group of people, when she gets out she will be seen as a heroine in a lot of people's eyes, that is the truth. Who knows what kind of movements start when she is released or have already happened as a result.
I am not saying I like her, I don't agree with what she said, so please don't try and spin it orherwise. I just firmly believe there are priorities in the UK, until then, I think people spouting shit online should be punished in a different manner.
What are you implying by bringing up Sam Kerr? That white people in the UK are prejudiced against in the British justice system? That ethnic minorities can say what they want but only white people get prosecuted for it? I fully understand what you are saying in that there should be priorities, however a sex offender wasn't let off the hook because Connolly was arrested. It's also completely laughable that people are bringing up free speech to defend a horrible racist rather than the actual issue with free speech in this country, successive governements going further to criminalise the right to protest.
There seems to be a very odd reluctance to accept that a racist breaking the law should face the consequences of doing so. Weird, really.
Not really as I am talking in circumstances. If there wasn't sex offenders, knife wielders, abusers, monitored terrorists etc out on parole, I wouldn't care.
There are priorities in the UK and I am of the view tweets are at the very bottom of the pile. Fine her, suspended sentence, community service, racism awareness course etc. Let me ask you, you agree that racists should be put away, why wasn't Sam Kerr convicted of racially aggravated harassment? What would be a suitable punishment for her. She is a person of mass influence, far bigger profile than Lucy, she was openly racist.
The prison sentence stirred up a group of people, when she gets out she will be seen as a heroine in a lot of people's eyes, that is the truth.
I am not saying I like her, I don't agree with what she said, so please don't try and spin it orherwise. I just firmly believe there are priorities in the UK, until then, I think people spouting shit online should be punished in a different manner.
No, I don't think "racists should be put away". Everyone has the right to be a racist. And I have every right to think that those who are, are pitiful, pathetic and sad. But that is not the same as thinking that all racists should be imprisoned.
People that commit crimes - like the one this horrible person did - should be "put away".
The starting point for her offence is three years' imprisonment. I'm baffled why anyone should be upset that she got 31 months, with 40% to be served in prison.
The law is, of course, the law. Break it and, I'm afraid, you have to face the consequences.
Anyone thinking that she's a heroine is an absolute, undiluted idiot. But there's no law against that, so they're perfectly entitled to demonstrate their complete idiocy. Good luck to them: they'll need it.
There is nothing I really disagree with in your first 4 paragraphs so there isn't much replying to them being blunt.
On the last bit, heroine might be strong, but she will at the very least be used as an example and is now a person of interest, positively or negatively.
When she gets out she will probably have a bigger platform and will be a victim in the eyes of a lot of people I will guess. Can already see her on podcasts and talking of her experience. You can empower certain people by imprisoning them ironically.
There seems to be a very odd reluctance to accept that a racist breaking the law should face the consequences of doing so. Weird, really.
Not really as I am talking in circumstances. If there wasn't sex offenders, knife/weapon wielders, abusers, monitored terrorists etc out on parole, I wouldn't care.
There are priorities in the UK and I am of the view tweets are at the very bottom of the pile. Fine her, suspended sentence, community service, racism awareness course etc. Let me ask you, you agree that racists should be put away, why wasn't Sam Kerr convicted of racially aggravated harassment? What would be a suitable punishment for her. She is a person of mass influence, far bigger profile than Lucy, she was openly racist, yet she still has her career, no one cares anymore.
Of course encouraging people to burn hotels is a different threat level, but do you see how the justice system picks and chooses?
The prison sentence stirred up a group of people, when she gets out she will be seen as a heroine in a lot of people's eyes, that is the truth. Who knows what kind of movements start when she is released or have already happened as a result.
I am not saying I like her, I don't agree with what she said, so please don't try and spin it orherwise. I just firmly believe there are priorities in the UK, until then, I think people spouting shit online should be punished in a different manner.
What are you implying by bringing up Sam Kerr? That white people in the UK are prejudiced against in the British justice system? That ethnic minorities can say what they want but only white people get prosecuted for it? I fully understand what you are saying in that there should be priorities, however a sex offender wasn't let off the hook because Connolly was arrested. It's also completely laughable that people are bringing up free speech to defend a horrible racist rather than the actual issue with free speech in this country, successive governements going further to criminalise the right to protest.
No, I believe you have implied that now yourself?
I was using two very recent examples that done the rounds on social media who are both female. Once again race mentioned when I am highlighting financial profile/social status, i.e wife of a councillor vs a footballer. Why are people so comfortable bringing up race on here unprompted? Feel you have also tried to put words in my texts here that don't belong.
Agree regarding laws around protesting, unfortunately it's far deeper and malicious than most people realise.
There seems to be a very odd reluctance to accept that a racist breaking the law should face the consequences of doing so. Weird, really.
Not really as I am talking in circumstances. If there wasn't sex offenders, knife/weapon wielders, abusers, monitored terrorists etc out on parole, I wouldn't care.
There are priorities in the UK and I am of the view tweets are at the very bottom of the pile. Fine her, suspended sentence, community service, racism awareness course etc. Let me ask you, you agree that racists should be put away, why wasn't Sam Kerr convicted of racially aggravated harassment? What would be a suitable punishment for her. She is a person of mass influence, far bigger profile than Lucy, she was openly racist, yet she still has her career, no one cares anymore.
Of course encouraging people to burn hotels is a different threat level, but do you see how the justice system picks and chooses?
The prison sentence stirred up a group of people, when she gets out she will be seen as a heroine in a lot of people's eyes, that is the truth. Who knows what kind of movements start when she is released or have already happened as a result.
I am not saying I like her, I don't agree with what she said, so please don't try and spin it orherwise. I just firmly believe there are priorities in the UK, until then, I think people spouting shit online should be punished in a different manner.
Sam Kerr was found not guilty by a court
Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty in a court.
Not sure how you can compare the 2 cases based on these outcomes
You have missed the point. I am asking someone a question for the discussion.
I am gonna tell you something as well, being found not guilty in court, doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. Or are you saying what Kerr said was ok if we are going down the route of putting words in mouths?
Again, I have seen people wield knives not be found guilty in court because of a lack of evidence. Doesn't mean they wasn't flashing a knife about.
If you think the two scenarios aren't comparable then that's that. No need to have a conversation. They are in my mind, they aren't in yours.
It goes back to what I originally said, free speech does exist for select people (people with power/influence or money before someone else mentions race) and their consequences are less severe than people without. I don't even believe that is an argument tbh.
There seems to be a very odd reluctance to accept that a racist breaking the law should face the consequences of doing so. Weird, really.
Not really as I am talking in circumstances. If there wasn't sex offenders, knife wielders, abusers, monitored terrorists etc out on parole, I wouldn't care.
There are priorities in the UK and I am of the view tweets are at the very bottom of the pile. Fine her, suspended sentence, community service, racism awareness course etc. Let me ask you, you agree that racists should be put away, why wasn't Sam Kerr convicted of racially aggravated harassment? What would be a suitable punishment for her. She is a person of mass influence, far bigger profile than Lucy, she was openly racist.
The prison sentence stirred up a group of people, when she gets out she will be seen as a heroine in a lot of people's eyes, that is the truth.
I am not saying I like her, I don't agree with what she said, so please don't try and spin it orherwise. I just firmly believe there are priorities in the UK, until then, I think people spouting shit online should be punished in a different manner.
No, I don't think "racists should be put away". Everyone has the right to be a racist. And I have every right to think that those who are, are pitiful, pathetic and sad. But that is not the same as thinking that all racists should be imprisoned.
People that commit crimes - like the one this horrible person did - should be "put away".
The starting point for her offence is three years' imprisonment. I'm baffled why anyone should be upset that she got 31 months, with 40% to be served in prison.
The law is, of course, the law. Break it and, I'm afraid, you have to face the consequences.
Anyone thinking that she's a heroine is an absolute, undiluted idiot. But there's no law against that, so they're perfectly entitled to demonstrate their complete idiocy. Good luck to them: they'll need it.
There is nothing I really disagree with in your first 4 paragraphs so there isn't much replying to them being blunt.
On the last bit, heroine might be strong, but she will at the very least be used as an example and is now a person of interest, positively or negatively.
When she gets out she will probably have a bigger platform and will be a victim in the eyes of a lot of people I will guess. Can already see her on podcasts and talking of her experience. You can empower certain people by imprisoning them ironically.
Anyway that's a bit off subject. I've said my bit
Anyone paying her to appear on a podcast isn't breaking the law, as long as the content of the podcast remains within the law. You're making a really important point within the topic of freedom of speech. She shouldn't be denied the right to share her views, as long as she's able to air them lawfully.
I hope a few years in jail give her the time and opportunity to work out what's lawful and what isn't and that when she completes her sentence she can contribute to society in a lawful manner.
If that happens, then she becomes a perfect example of imprisonment working well.
And if she fails to learn the lessons she so obviously needs, and repeats her offence, then back inside she deserves to go, pronto.
And in either of those cases, a prison sentence is clearly appropriate.
As always this is an impossible conversation. There are two types of free speech. 1. The right to say anything you want. 2. Free speech as outlined in article 10 of the human rights act. They are not the same thing but are regularly confused.
There seems to be a very odd reluctance to accept that a racist breaking the law should face the consequences of doing so. Weird, really.
Not really as I am talking in circumstances. If there wasn't sex offenders, knife wielders, abusers, monitored terrorists etc out on parole, I wouldn't care.
There are priorities in the UK and I am of the view tweets are at the very bottom of the pile. Fine her, suspended sentence, community service, racism awareness course etc. Let me ask you, you agree that racists should be put away, why wasn't Sam Kerr convicted of racially aggravated harassment? What would be a suitable punishment for her. She is a person of mass influence, far bigger profile than Lucy, she was openly racist.
The prison sentence stirred up a group of people, when she gets out she will be seen as a heroine in a lot of people's eyes, that is the truth.
I am not saying I like her, I don't agree with what she said, so please don't try and spin it orherwise. I just firmly believe there are priorities in the UK, until then, I think people spouting shit online should be punished in a different manner.
No, I don't think "racists should be put away". Everyone has the right to be a racist. And I have every right to think that those who are, are pitiful, pathetic and sad. But that is not the same as thinking that all racists should be imprisoned.
People that commit crimes - like the one this horrible person did - should be "put away".
The starting point for her offence is three years' imprisonment. I'm baffled why anyone should be upset that she got 31 months, with 40% to be served in prison.
The law is, of course, the law. Break it and, I'm afraid, you have to face the consequences.
Anyone thinking that she's a heroine is an absolute, undiluted idiot. But there's no law against that, so they're perfectly entitled to demonstrate their complete idiocy. Good luck to them: they'll need it.
There is nothing I really disagree with in your first 4 paragraphs so there isn't much replying to them being blunt.
On the last bit, heroine might be strong, but she will at the very least be used as an example and is now a person of interest, positively or negatively.
When she gets out she will probably have a bigger platform and will be a victim in the eyes of a lot of people I will guess. Can already see her on podcasts and talking of her experience. You can empower certain people by imprisoning them ironically.
Anyway that's a bit off subject. I've said my bit
Anyone paying her to appear on a podcast isn't breaking the law, as long as the content of the podcast remains within the law. You're making a really important point within the topic of freedom of speech. She shouldn't be denied the right to share her views, as long as she's able to air them lawfully.
I hope a few years in jail give her the time and opportunity to work out what's lawful and what isn't and that when she completes her sentence she can contribute to society in a lawful manner.
If that happens, then she becomes a perfect example of imprisonment working well.
And if she fails to learn the lessons she so obviously needs, and repeats her offence, then back inside she deserves to go, pronto.
And in either of those cases, a prison sentence is clearly appropriate.
Fair enough, I agree with pretty much all of this.
I still think certain crimes are punished incorrectly in comparison to others, but this is a thread about freedom of speech, not how crap our justice system is at times.
It's being reported that a Norwegian tourist has been barred from entering the USA after ICE agents found a meme of JD Vance on his phone.
The land of the free (speech)...
Well he should have deleted it then. I would bar him for being fucking thick.
If speech is free in the USA, it wouldn't matter if the person had a meme on his phone, assuming it is not inciting violence. Unfortunately I've heard of many instances of people prevented from entering the USA or being arrested for having comments criticising the Government there.
I gave up debating online a long while ago - not because I’m narcissistic enough to think my opinion is always right (I’m pretty sure it's probably not, or I don’t know enough to comment), but because there's far too many people who think they are right and are far too quick to resort to vitriol and personal abuse when someone disagrees. Just my opinion.
Yeah it turns into an absolute pile on here if you dare post something that isn't far left
Do you have any examples of the far left ideologies that are demanded on Comrade Charlton Life?
I can't make it any clearer than this. I think the only way the world can truly operate without controversy, is a lawless world, or a completely controlled society, otherwise there will always be an imbalance.
I can't make it any clearer than this. I think the only way the world can truly operate without controversy, is a lawless world, or a completely controlled society, otherwise there will always be an imbalance.
I think you've lost the plot completely.
I genuinely don't understand why you quote me. You have 0 interest in actually talking with me, we clearly don't get along, you have made this clear on multiple ocassions.
I could understand if you were actually trying to have a conversation, but it is constant throwaway comments with not much substance behind them.
You will never find me quote you unprompted just to have a dig. You are of course free to do so, as it is an open platform etc, but I just can't get my head around it.
I gave up debating online a long while ago - not because I’m narcissistic enough to think my opinion is always right (I’m pretty sure it's probably not, or I don’t know enough to comment), but because there's far too many people who think they are right and are far too quick to resort to vitriol and personal abuse when someone disagrees. Just my opinion.
Yeah it turns into an absolute pile on here if you dare post something that isn't far left
Do you have any examples of the far left ideologies that are demanded on Comrade Charlton Life?
Somebody on page 2 suggested that the Chinese system of having government regulating social media and going after dissidents was a better system, and got absolutely no pushback on here
I gave up debating online a long while ago - not because I’m narcissistic enough to think my opinion is always right (I’m pretty sure it's probably not, or I don’t know enough to comment), but because there's far too many people who think they are right and are far too quick to resort to vitriol and personal abuse when someone disagrees. Just my opinion.
Yeah it turns into an absolute pile on here if you dare post something that isn't far left
Do you have any examples of the far left ideologies that are demanded on Comrade Charlton Life?
Somebody on page 2 suggested that the Chinese system of having government regulating social media and going after dissidents was a better system, and got absolutely no pushback on here
No one suggested regulating the internet, although that absolutely happens in the west, to a much lesser extent, the suggestion was having total anonymity removed from authorities.
I can't make it any clearer than this. I think the only way the world can truly operate without controversy, is a lawless world, or a completely controlled society, otherwise there will always be an imbalance.
I think you've lost the plot completely.
I genuinely don't understand why you quote me. You have 0 interest in actually talking with me, we clearly don't get along, you have made this clear on multiple ocassions.
I could understand if you were actually trying to have a conversation, but it is constant throwaway comments with not much substance behind them.
You will never find me quote you unprompted just to have a dig. You are of course free to do so, as it is an open platform etc, but I just can't get my head around it.
You can't have a one sided sensible conversation, so there's no point in engaging, sorry.
I can't make it any clearer than this. I think the only way the world can truly operate without controversy, is a lawless world, or a completely controlled society, otherwise there will always be an imbalance.
I don't really care what happens to racists, but I do believe in a pecking order in crimes committed. A person who is racist can be rehibilated, or can more likely become a functioning member of society, more so than the more heinous criminals like sex offenders, abusers, arsonists, terrorists, murderers etc.
Here is the harsh reality of the UK justice system, in the same week I was aware of someone being in prison for a long time for piracy, I saw a woman in McDonalds sitting near kids who I know for a fact was involved in co-ordinating the rape of a young teenage girl in an exchange for drugs, but was released from custody while under investigation.
Priorities. That is my point here. If prisons are full, and prisoners were being released early due to overcrowding, where is the sense in putting people in who could potentially be rehibilated.
I'll talk to you
Controversy: a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views
Why do we need a world without controversy?
How could anyone either want a lawless world where people can do whatever they like, or a completely controlled society where dissent is outlawed? Surely we all want a world where differences can be aired within a framework of respect - and if that respect is absent to the extent that one or more laws are broken then the antagonist should face the consequences. What those consequences are is for debate, I agree - and I also agree that the sentencing quidelines in this country do not always make sense in terms of proportionality.
I gave up debating online a long while ago - not because I’m narcissistic enough to think my opinion is always right (I’m pretty sure it's probably not, or I don’t know enough to comment), but because there's far too many people who think they are right and are far too quick to resort to vitriol and personal abuse when someone disagrees. Just my opinion.
Yeah it turns into an absolute pile on here if you dare post something that isn't far left
Do you have any examples of the far left ideologies that are demanded on Comrade Charlton Life?
Somebody on page 2 suggested that the Chinese system of having government regulating social media and going after dissidents was a better system, and got absolutely no pushback on here
Twisting my words there, dude. Bit disingenuous!
All I pointed out was that social media posts there are traceable to a person I.e. The system doesnt allow a veil on anonymity for people to post hateful crap that causes "harm" to others
I think there should always be the opportunity for social media accounts to be anonymous. There is a risk, of course, of harmful comments being made via anonymous accounts; but that risk should be weighed against the many benefits of being able to post with anonymity.
I gave up debating online a long while ago - not because I’m narcissistic enough to think my opinion is always right (I’m pretty sure it's probably not, or I don’t know enough to comment), but because there's far too many people who think they are right and are far too quick to resort to vitriol and personal abuse when someone disagrees. Just my opinion.
Yeah it turns into an absolute pile on here if you dare post something that isn't far left
Do you have any examples of the far left ideologies that are demanded on Comrade Charlton Life?
Somebody on page 2 suggested that the Chinese system of having government regulating social media and going after dissidents was a better system, and got absolutely no pushback on here
Didn't it get quite a lot of pushback from Leroy Ambrose? There's three pages of them arguing about it that you seem to have missed. Also, I'd say state monitoring is textbook Fascism rather than a far left ideology, though there's an argument that the far left and the far right aren't really that dissimilar in some areas
I think there should always be the opportunity for social media accounts to be anonymous. There is a risk, of course, of harmful comments being made via anonymous accounts; but that risk should be weighed against the many benefits of being able to post with anonymity.
There seems to be a very odd reluctance to accept that a racist breaking the law should face the consequences of doing so. Weird, really.
Not really as I am talking in circumstances. If there wasn't sex offenders, knife/weapon wielders, abusers, monitored terrorists etc out on parole, I wouldn't care.
There are priorities in the UK and I am of the view tweets are at the very bottom of the pile. Fine her, suspended sentence, community service, racism awareness course etc. Let me ask you, you agree that racists should be put away, why wasn't Sam Kerr convicted of racially aggravated harassment? What would be a suitable punishment for her. She is a person of mass influence, far bigger profile than Lucy, she was openly racist, yet she still has her career, no one cares anymore.
Of course encouraging people to burn hotels is a different threat level, but do you see how the justice system picks and chooses?
The prison sentence stirred up a group of people, when she gets out she will be seen as a heroine in a lot of people's eyes, that is the truth. Who knows what kind of movements start when she is released or have already happened as a result.
I am not saying I like her, I don't agree with what she said, so please don't try and spin it orherwise. I just firmly believe there are priorities in the UK, until then, I think people spouting shit online should be punished in a different manner.
What are you implying by bringing up Sam Kerr? That white people in the UK are prejudiced against in the British justice system? That ethnic minorities can say what they want but only white people get prosecuted for it? I fully understand what you are saying in that there should be priorities, however a sex offender wasn't let off the hook because Connolly was arrested. It's also completely laughable that people are bringing up free speech to defend a horrible racist rather than the actual issue with free speech in this country, successive governements going further to criminalise the right to protest.
No, I believe you have implied that now yourself?
I was using two very recent examples that done the rounds on social media who are both female. Once again race mentioned when I am highlighting financial profile/social status, i.e wife of a councillor vs a footballer. Why are people so comfortable bringing up race on here unprompted? Feel you have also tried to put words in my texts here that don't belong.
Agree regarding laws around protesting, unfortunately it's far deeper and malicious than most people realise.
didn't mean to imply that with you - just it's a common thing you hear from a lot of people these days "can't say you're english without getting thrown in jail." Just complete hyperbole and obviously completely incorrect.
I think there should always be the opportunity for social media accounts to be anonymous. There is a risk, of course, of harmful comments being made via anonymous accounts; but that risk should be weighed against the many benefits of being able to post with anonymity.
What benefit is there to authorities not being able to trace illegal posts back to their author?
I gave up debating online a long while ago - not because I’m narcissistic enough to think my opinion is always right (I’m pretty sure it's probably not, or I don’t know enough to comment), but because there's far too many people who think they are right and are far too quick to resort to vitriol and personal abuse when someone disagrees. Just my opinion.
Yeah it turns into an absolute pile on here if you dare post something that isn't far left
Comments
The problem with social media is that it's publication (the social media companies argue (unconvincingly IMHO) that they are not publishers, and thus not subject to legislation that affects newspapers, TV, radio, etc. It's something that I expect will end up in court sooner rather than later, but people are knowingly publishing ever more unhinged shite via social media sites (often under the influence of America's Wild West internet).
No-one could post what she did and not expect to suffer the legal consequences.
Which means that I hope that Gordon Lyons MLA gets it in the neck for publishing on social media that terrified people, fleeing racist rioting in Ballymena, were being sheltered in Larne Leisure Centre, which was then, itself, the target of a racist mob.
I don't think she is innocent, but cause of how I've seen how much our prisons struggle and the backlog of work, I feel the sentence wasn't necessary personally and there were other ways of punishment. I think the prison sentence fuelled groups of UK citizens that were already on edge, it strengthened their arguments (at the very least in their minds) and caused more of a divide between the police and a lot of ordinary UK citizens.
I have seen people sentenced for less for far worse crimes. Like I said before, the UK has more pressing issues than a tweet.
As for the last paragraph it can be rather cryptic on what counts as incitement and what doesn't. The people I am referring to are sometimes with people or in a public space. When these people are shouting in public lines like "I am going to kill officers, I am not going to take it, people should be more angry" or words to that effect, it falls into similar territory to asking someone personally to do something. It is still a form of encouragement, and it can cause a stir by definition.
There are priorities in the UK and I am of the view tweets are at the very bottom of the pile. Fine her, suspended sentence, community service, racism awareness course etc. Let me ask you, you agree that racists should be put away, why wasn't Sam Kerr convicted of racially aggravated harassment? What would be a suitable punishment for her. She is a person of mass influence, far bigger profile than Lucy, she was openly racist, yet she still has her career, no one cares anymore.
Of course encouraging people to burn hotels is a different threat level, but do you see how the justice system picks and chooses?
The prison sentence stirred up a group of people, when she gets out she will be seen as a heroine in a lot of people's eyes, that is the truth. Who knows what kind of movements start when she is released or have already happened as a result.
I am not saying I like her, I don't agree with what she said, so please don't try and spin it orherwise. I just firmly believe there are priorities in the UK, until then, I think people spouting shit online should be punished in a different manner.
I don't really care what happens to racists, but I do believe in a pecking order in crimes committed. A person who is racist can be rehibilated, or can more likely become a functioning member of society, more so than the more heinous criminals like sex offenders, abusers, arsonists, terrorists, murderers etc.
Here is the harsh reality of the UK justice system, in the same week I was aware of someone being in prison for a long time for piracy, I saw a woman in McDonalds sitting near kids who I know for a fact was involved in co-ordinating the rape of a young teenage girl in an exchange for drugs, but was released from custody while under investigation.
Priorities. That is my point here. If prisons are full, and prisoners were being released early due to overcrowding, where is the sense in putting people in who could potentially be rehibilated.
People that commit crimes - like the one this horrible person did - should be "put away".
The starting point for her offence is three years' imprisonment. I'm baffled why anyone should be upset that she got 31 months, with 40% to be served in prison.
The law is, of course, the law. Break it and, I'm afraid, you have to face the consequences.
Anyone thinking that she's a heroine is an absolute, undiluted idiot. But there's no law against that, so they're perfectly entitled to demonstrate their complete idiocy. Good luck to them: they'll need it.
Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty in a court.
Not sure how you can compare the 2 cases based on these outcomes
On the last bit, heroine might be strong, but she will at the very least be used as an example and is now a person of interest, positively or negatively.
When she gets out she will probably have a bigger platform and will be a victim in the eyes of a lot of people I will guess. Can already see her on podcasts and talking of her experience. You can empower certain people by imprisoning them ironically.
Anyway that's a bit off subject. I've said my bit
I was using two very recent examples that done the rounds on social media who are both female. Once again race mentioned when I am highlighting financial profile/social status, i.e wife of a councillor vs a footballer. Why are people so comfortable bringing up race on here unprompted? Feel you have also tried to put words in my texts here that don't belong.
Agree regarding laws around protesting, unfortunately it's far deeper and malicious than most people realise.
I am gonna tell you something as well, being found not guilty in court, doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. Or are you saying what Kerr said was ok if we are going down the route of putting words in mouths?
Again, I have seen people wield knives not be found guilty in court because of a lack of evidence. Doesn't mean they wasn't flashing a knife about.
If you think the two scenarios aren't comparable then that's that. No need to have a conversation. They are in my mind, they aren't in yours.
It goes back to what I originally said, free speech does exist for select people (people with power/influence or money before someone else mentions race) and their consequences are less severe than people without. I don't even believe that is an argument tbh.
I hope a few years in jail give her the time and opportunity to work out what's lawful and what isn't and that when she completes her sentence she can contribute to society in a lawful manner.
If that happens, then she becomes a perfect example of imprisonment working well.
And if she fails to learn the lessons she so obviously needs, and repeats her offence, then back inside she deserves to go, pronto.
And in either of those cases, a prison sentence is clearly appropriate.
1. The right to say anything you want.
2. Free speech as outlined in article 10 of the human rights act.
They are not the same thing but are regularly confused.
I still think certain crimes are punished incorrectly in comparison to others, but this is a thread about freedom of speech, not how crap our justice system is at times.
He was denied for his drug use
I could understand if you were actually trying to have a conversation, but it is constant throwaway comments with not much substance behind them.
You will never find me quote you unprompted just to have a dig. You are of course free to do so, as it is an open platform etc, but I just can't get my head around it.
Bit disingenuous!
All I pointed out was that social media posts there are traceable to a person I.e. The system doesnt allow a veil on anonymity for people to post hateful crap that causes "harm" to others