Maybe, Kish, but given the way he talks about women generally, I'm not sure that he was trying to be funny - he comes across as a misogynistic twonk to me, I'm afraid!
It's not really about the 'thought police' though, is it? He didn't just 'think' it, he published it. Free speech doesn't mean that you can publicly say what you like about whom you like.
It really riles me that so many people abuse the concept of free speech by using it to defend the rights of those that bully and abuse individuals - especially in cases like this when it's nothing more than a really aggressive (and not to mention dimwitted) attack.
That, and I bet that Henderson Scott Recruitment are pretty pleased to have declared the story 'genius'. Wasn't the word that sprang to mind when I read the story.
I was saying more about east stand mike saying twitter should be held accountable. They shouldnt, they're just providing a service thats used in a civil manner by the majority of the population, if you hold them accountable to these idiots, where does the buck stop? Do we hold PC world accountable to selling computers to people who use them to use twitter to bully and abuse people? Just a thought. Fact of the matter is our civil rights online have been threatened recently, the likes of ACTA coming close to being passed in the EU and SOPA in the states is very frightening and quite orwellian.
It's not really about the 'thought police' though, is it? He didn't just 'think' it, he published it. Free speech doesn't mean that you can publicly say what you like about whom you like.
It really riles me that so many people abuse the concept of free speech by using it to defend the rights of those that bully and abuse individuals - especially in cases like this when it's nothing more than a really aggressive (and not to mention dimwitted) attack.
That, and I bet that Henderson Scott Recruitment are pretty pleased to have declared the story 'genius'. Wasn't the word that sprang to mind when I read the story.
I was saying more about east stand mike saying twitter should be held accountable. They shouldnt, they're just providing a service thats used in a civil manner by the majority of the population, if you hold them accountable to these idiots, where does the buck stop? Do we hold PC world accountable to selling computers to people who use them to use twitter to bully and abuse people? Just a thought. Fact of the matter is our civil rights online have been threatened recently, the likes of ACTA coming close to being passed in the EU and SOPA in the states is very frightening and quite orwellian.
I cannot agree with you there Kent.
Whilst I agree that Twitter offer the platform for which people use to express their views there surley has to be rules and guidlines. And if Leon Knight has not over stepped those they cannot be worth having.
AFKA, Lookout and the mods offer us Charlton Life as a platform to air our views on all things Charlton, be it on a smaller scale to Twitter but we have to abide by certain rules of behaviour.
I have seen things get a bit tasty and out of hand on here and it seems to be dealt with either by way of a warning or being banned from the site.
However Twitter and other similar sites seem to revel in the filth being spouted by the Leon Knights of this world, possibly even seeing it as an advertising oppotunity.
My children are grown up now and have heard and seen it all, however I have young nieces and nephews plus two grandchildren and the thought of them accessing that type of material on so called innocent sites such as Twitter does not sit well with me.
What is the point of internet companies offering parents filters so the kids cannot look at, and read about porn when they are following their heros and pop idols on Twitter and being exposed to that sort of thing.
The moderators of Twitter (if such a thing exists) need to be all over Leon Knight like a rash ensuring users do not see this type of "freedom of speech" as the norm.
I think calling twitter an 'innocent' site is wrong in the first place, in fact it always amazes me how many people let their young children use sites such as twitter and facebook (I, sadly, include my own brother), they are very easily added to parentel controls and imho should be.
For a start, as you say, it opens them up to some serious vulgar behaviour/language and more importantly, it outright dangerous, look how many youngsters have been hurt, both physically and mentally by online wrongus.
He went too far especially as she is now married with 2 kids, but god knows why O'Hara settled down with her anyway!
Perhaps because he actually knows her and didn't form an opinion based on gossip and tabloid stories?
Surley he'd form an opinion on all his colleagues who had slept with her? Perhaps I like my ladies with a little more class, not someone who half the people in our local have been through in one night stands.
I kind of see what you're saying. I definitely agree with the importance of free speech on the web, or anywhere else for that matter.
I just don't think any argument about free speech is in any way relevant here.
I also think that online content providers do need to be held accountable for the content that they provide. In exactly the same way that a TV broadcaster has to. ITV couldn't have just set up their cameras in Leon Knight's house, broadcast this and claimed 'we just provided the broadcast, content wasn't ours', so why should Twitter be able to? It's unrealistic to expect them to catch all of this before it goes out but there should be a clear code of conduct and procedure for limitation and remedial action.
And I know I risk sounding like a massive prude here.....but funny? Really? If there was some wit and humour hidden in there somewhere then I completely missed it. A girl slept with some people, so it's funny to abuse her in vulgar terms. Very forward thinking.
I kind of see what you're saying. I definitely agree with the importance of free speech on the web, or anywhere else for that matter.
I just don't think any argument about free speech is in any way relevant here.
I also think that online content providers do need to be held accountable for the content that they provide. In exactly the same way that a TV broadcaster has to. ITV couldn't have just set up their cameras in Leon Knight's house, broadcast this and claimed 'we just provided the broadcast, content wasn't ours', so why should Twitter be able to? It's unrealistic to expect them to catch all of this before it goes out but there should be a clear code of conduct and procedure for limitation and remedial action.
And I know I risk sounding like a massive prude here.....but funny? Really? If there was some wit and humour hidden in there somewhere then I completely missed it. A girl slept with some people, so it's funny to abuse her in vulgar terms. Very forward thinking.
The problem is unless you have total freedom of speech then where do you draw a line for the code of conduct? It's dangerous waters.
Admittedly no one wants to read this. But I'm pretty sure Gadaffi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt didn't want to see protestors and dissenters organizing themselves via twitter during the revolutions in respected countries. If twitter were to draw a code of conduct it would be open to manipulation from their corporate sponsors, partners and, of course, the government.
He went too far especially as she is now married with 2 kids, but god knows why O'Hara settled down with her anyway!
Perhaps because he actually knows her and didn't form an opinion based on gossip and tabloid stories?
Surley he'd form an opinion on all his colleagues who had slept with her? Perhaps I like my ladies with a little more class, not someone who half the people in our local have been through in one night stands.
If in fact the stories about her sleeping with all of his colleagues were true of course..... but lets not let gossip and tabloid stories get in the way of a good old slagging off of a woman....!
I'm sure your mrs (if you are lucky enough to have found someone to meet your expectations) would prefer you to judge people based on what they are really like rather than what you have heard.
actually just re-read that and you put ladies (plural) - so its okay for you to have multiple women but not for a woman to have had relationships with multiple men in the past and now be married with 2 children and still get abused? rightio.
actually just re-read that and you put ladies (plural) - so its okay for you to have multiple women but not for a woman to have had relationships with multiple men in the past and now be married with 2 children and still get abused? rightio.
You're trying to hard Suzi. I said I like ladies with more class. Didn't say I have slept with multiple ladies or lust after multiple ladies did I. It applies equally to female friends & females I may date.
& did I say it was ok for men to go around shagging anything they like? Don't think that's ok either, works both ways. I was going to say that nobody has commented on the behaviour of the footballers who are happy to line up and sleep with any girl willing to open their legs. Don't like their behaviour either.
I kind of see what you're saying. I definitely agree with the importance of free speech on the web, or anywhere else for that matter.
I just don't think any argument about free speech is in any way relevant here.
I also think that online content providers do need to be held accountable for the content that they provide. In exactly the same way that a TV broadcaster has to. ITV couldn't have just set up their cameras in Leon Knight's house, broadcast this and claimed 'we just provided the broadcast, content wasn't ours', so why should Twitter be able to? It's unrealistic to expect them to catch all of this before it goes out but there should be a clear code of conduct and procedure for limitation and remedial action.
And I know I risk sounding like a massive prude here.....but funny? Really? If there was some wit and humour hidden in there somewhere then I completely missed it. A girl slept with some people, so it's funny to abuse her in vulgar terms. Very forward thinking.
The problem is unless you have total freedom of speech then where do you draw a line for the code of conduct? It's dangerous waters.
Admittedly no one wants to read this. But I'm pretty sure Gadaffi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt didn't want to see protestors and dissenters organizing themselves via twitter during the revolutions in respected countries. If twitter were to draw a code of conduct it would be open to manipulation from their corporate sponsors, partners and, of course, the government.
Again, I take your point. I don't want to get too drawn on this, it's not really something I've given a great deal of thought to previously - I'm not a censorship crusader!
The key difference is that I'm not trying to deny someone having the right to say what they want, I'm saying that a content provider, especially one as influential as Twitter, should not have the right to provide whatever content they want. In exactly the same way that a TV station can't broadcast exactly what it likes.
There's a balance to be found, I don't think that it's all or nothing and a responsible provider should want to take a responsible stance.
Danielle Lloyd could barely even be considered a public figure and no-one can argue that Leon Knight's views on the inefficiency of her hygiene regime is of any interest to the public whatsoever! We're not talking about denying anti-war campaigners a voice or the press the ability to criticise politicians, I'm not even looking to deny Leon Knight the right to his malicious views, just the platform to serve it to millions of people, many of them children. It's irresponsible.
I kind of see what you're saying. I definitely agree with the importance of free speech on the web, or anywhere else for that matter.
I just don't think any argument about free speech is in any way relevant here.
I also think that online content providers do need to be held accountable for the content that they provide. In exactly the same way that a TV broadcaster has to. ITV couldn't have just set up their cameras in Leon Knight's house, broadcast this and claimed 'we just provided the broadcast, content wasn't ours', so why should Twitter be able to? It's unrealistic to expect them to catch all of this before it goes out but there should be a clear code of conduct and procedure for limitation and remedial action.
And I know I risk sounding like a massive prude here.....but funny? Really? If there was some wit and humour hidden in there somewhere then I completely missed it. A girl slept with some people, so it's funny to abuse her in vulgar terms. Very forward thinking.
The problem is unless you have total freedom of speech then where do you draw a line for the code of conduct? It's dangerous waters.
Admittedly no one wants to read this. But I'm pretty sure Gadaffi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt didn't want to see protestors and dissenters organizing themselves via twitter during the revolutions in respected countries. If twitter were to draw a code of conduct it would be open to manipulation from their corporate sponsors, partners and, of course, the government.
Again, I take your point. I don't want to get too drawn on this, it's not really something I've given a great deal of thought to previously - I'm not a censorship crusader!
The key difference is that I'm not trying to deny someone having the right to say what they want, I'm saying that a content provider, especially one as influential as Twitter, should not have the right to provide whatever content they want. In exactly the same way that a TV station can't broadcast exactly what it likes.
There's a balance to be found, I don't think that it's all or nothing and a responsible provider should want to take a responsible stance.
Danielle Lloyd could barely even be considered a public figure and no-one can argue that Leon Knight's views on the inefficiency of her hygiene regime is of any interest to the public whatsoever! We're not talking about denying anti-war campaigners a voice or the press the ability to criticise politicians, I'm not even looking to deny Leon Knight the right to his malicious views, just the platform to serve it to millions of people, many of them children. It's irresponsible.
Just to say welcome back Pass It to Leaburn.
I used to enjoy your contributions even if we disagreed from time to time!
actually just re-read that and you put ladies (plural) - so its okay for you to have multiple women but not for a woman to have had relationships with multiple men in the past and now be married with 2 children and still get abused? rightio.
You're trying to hard Suzi. I said I like ladies with more class. Didn't say I have slept with multiple ladies or lust after multiple ladies did I. It applies equally to female friends & females I may date.
& did I say it was ok for men to go around shagging anything they like? Don't think that's ok either, works both ways. I was going to say that nobody has commented on the behaviour of the footballers who are happy to line up and sleep with any girl willing to open their legs. Don't like their behaviour either.
Treat women with respect not as pieces of meat.
My point is, you dont know anything about her, only what you have read in tabloid newspapers/gossip columns and she's had a couple of high profile footballer boyfriends, so what. She doesn't deserve what he has written nor your comment regarding your surprise that he married her in the first place.
Comments
Whilst I agree that Twitter offer the platform for which people use to express their views there surley has to be rules and guidlines. And if Leon Knight has not over stepped those they cannot be worth having.
AFKA, Lookout and the mods offer us Charlton Life as a platform to air our views on all things Charlton, be it on a smaller scale to Twitter but we have to abide by certain rules of behaviour.
I have seen things get a bit tasty and out of hand on here and it seems to be dealt with either by way of a warning or being banned from the site.
However Twitter and other similar sites seem to revel in the filth being spouted by the Leon Knights of this world, possibly even seeing it as an advertising oppotunity.
My children are grown up now and have heard and seen it all, however I have young nieces and nephews plus two grandchildren and the thought of them accessing that type of material on so called innocent sites such as Twitter does not sit well with me.
What is the point of internet companies offering parents filters so the kids cannot look at, and read about porn when they are following their heros and pop idols on Twitter and being exposed to that sort of thing.
The moderators of Twitter (if such a thing exists) need to be all over Leon Knight like a rash ensuring users do not see this type of "freedom of speech" as the norm.
For a start, as you say, it opens them up to some serious vulgar behaviour/language and more importantly, it outright dangerous, look how many youngsters have been hurt, both physically and mentally by online wrongus.
I kind of see what you're saying. I definitely agree with the importance of free speech on the web, or anywhere else for that matter.
I just don't think any argument about free speech is in any way relevant here.
I also think that online content providers do need to be held accountable for the content that they provide. In exactly the same way that a TV broadcaster has to. ITV couldn't have just set up their cameras in Leon Knight's house, broadcast this and claimed 'we just provided the broadcast, content wasn't ours', so why should Twitter be able to? It's unrealistic to expect them to catch all of this before it goes out but there should be a clear code of conduct and procedure for limitation and remedial action.
Not @kentaddick!
And I know I risk sounding like a massive prude here.....but funny? Really? If there was some wit and humour hidden in there somewhere then I completely missed it. A girl slept with some people, so it's funny to abuse her in vulgar terms. Very forward thinking.
Admittedly no one wants to read this. But I'm pretty sure Gadaffi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt didn't want to see protestors and dissenters organizing themselves via twitter during the revolutions in respected countries. If twitter were to draw a code of conduct it would be open to manipulation from their corporate sponsors, partners and, of course, the government.
I'm sure your mrs (if you are lucky enough to have found someone to meet your expectations) would prefer you to judge people based on what they are really like rather than what you have heard.
agreed, just because she has spent half her life with a @#@#@#@#@###edited@#@$@%@$@$@ doesnt mean people can have a pop at her.
& did I say it was ok for men to go around shagging anything they like? Don't think that's ok either, works both ways. I was going to say that nobody has commented on the behaviour of the footballers who are happy to line up and sleep with any girl willing to open their legs. Don't like their behaviour either.
Treat women with respect not as pieces of meat.
The key difference is that I'm not trying to deny someone having the right to say what they want, I'm saying that a content provider, especially one as influential as Twitter, should not have the right to provide whatever content they want. In exactly the same way that a TV station can't broadcast exactly what it likes.
There's a balance to be found, I don't think that it's all or nothing and a responsible provider should want to take a responsible stance.
Danielle Lloyd could barely even be considered a public figure and no-one can argue that Leon Knight's views on the inefficiency of her hygiene regime is of any interest to the public whatsoever! We're not talking about denying anti-war campaigners a voice or the press the ability to criticise politicians, I'm not even looking to deny Leon Knight the right to his malicious views, just the platform to serve it to millions of people, many of them children. It's irresponsible.
I used to enjoy your contributions even if we disagreed from time to time!
Thanks Len, very nice of you to say! I don't really remember us disagreeing but I would guess it was over Curbishley's departure if we did!