Margaret Thatcher

[Dauphin]

I do find it amusing - "Do not call Mohammed a violent terrorist or Islam a religion of hate, or we will kill you all and commit more acts of terrorism!".


It does mean that the police can get ID's on trouble makers and track their network. I'm sure they now have a bounty of leads. They can't act on them if they are in jail though.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


That was 3 days late, and only because he breached his bail conditions.

He was still arrested. The reason is ultimately irrelevent.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


And, as usual, the litmus test of any individual or opinion: does Mobius disagree?

Well the OT's ****ed then - either they have to agree with me, or they have to agree with you.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

As for the b1tch's 'miracle' economy, you are talking out of your arse as usual. Anyone with half a brain knows that what saved our economy wasn't the b1tch and her cronies, but North Sea oil which only really started contributing huge revenues after she won in 1979 - we were the World's 5th largest oil producer in 1985!

That and wholesale privatisation of public assets such as BT and British Rail (aren't you the tw@t always complaining about the massive cost of travelling by rail in this country!!?) etc at giveaway prices so the rich could line their pockets at the expense of everyone else...

As for winning three general elections, perhaps the cynical bribery of huge tax cuts using privatisation money just before general elections might have helped...

Come back when you know what you're talking about PA - i.e. never!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Witness the lack of arrests recently of dressed-up suicide bombers and terrorist-congratulators

Did anyone think they were going to actually blow someone up (ie, did anyone think they had live bombs)? If not, why restrict their freedom of speech because you don't agree with it?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by MOBIUS




As for the b1tch's 'miracle' economy, you are talking out of your arse as usual. Anyone with half a brain knows that what saved our economy wasn't the b1tch and her cronies, but North Sea oil which only really started contributing huge revenues after she won in 1979 - we were the World's 5th largest oil producer in 1985!

That and wholesale privatisation of public assets such as BT and British Rail (aren't you the tw@t always complaining about the massive cost of travelling by rail in this country!!?) etc at giveaway prices so the rich could line their pockets at the expense of everyone else...

As for winning three general elections, perhaps the cynical bribery of huge tax cuts using privatisation money just before general elections might have helped...

Bang on the money!

[Dauphin]

Is it free speech to demand the murder by decapitation of those who drew the cartoons? I think there is a strong argumet to be made that its not free speech.

Similarly, the fake suicide bomber is advocating the murder of others. Should that be a restriction-free expression of viewpoint? Is it not incitement?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Is it free speech to demand the murder by decapitation of those who drew the cartoons? I think there is a strong argumet to be made that its not free speech.

Similarly, the fake suicide bomber is advocating the murder of others. Should that be a restriction-free expression of viewpoint? Is it not incitement?

Yes, those are integral parts of freedom of speech. It is not incitement, unless there is some imminent violence that is going to happen as a result of such goading.

Are you going to start arresting all those who say "Kill Osama" for incitement to violence?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Britain did need reforms after the socialist (old Labor) leadership of the 1970's however she did a piss poor job of doing it

Again, your libertarian tendencies lead you astray. When will you ever learn? Britain's industry was nationalized much early than the 70s, mainly because it was already terriblly inefficient. The nationalizations were done not to protect the industry and workers, but to protect the industrialists and investors. Britain paid the owners of those industries far more than they were worth. It also bought social stablity at a time when capitalism was in retreat across the globe.

What brought Maggie in were the insane taxation policies and the Irish Troubles.

[Dauphin]

I personally don't believe that demanding that those who have commited no crime should be killed is acceptable behaviour under the exercise of free speech. I wouldn't necessarily do anything about it is because of other reasons. For example arresting the protesters would have served no useful purpose in my opinion, and would be counter-productive.

However, if a lone man was walking the streets of London shouting "Kill all the *insert blank*" I think it would get a few people riled up for a fight, as too, the protesters were riling up a lot of the local population. If there were no police presence there would have been a fight - does the presence of police remove the incitement? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I just believe a case can be made that there is incitement to cause conflict. Especially when invoking the memory of a recent attack that killed many innocent people in the city where the protest was being made.

[chequita guevara]

Just because something isn't acceptable behavior doesn't mean it should be illegal.

[Dauphin]

And sometimes unacceptable behaviour should be illegal. For example murder is unacceptable and should be illegal.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, I just have strong doubts over whether free speech covers the right to demand the deaths of innocents.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I just have strong doubts over whether free speech covers the right to demand the deaths of innocents.

Of course it does. It is a political position (for example supporting Hamas... or HELL, Communists calling for the deaths of capitalist 'oppressors') and as long as you don't act on it or it doesn't immediately cause people to go out and beat up or kill others.

If there were no police presence there would have been a fight

If there was no police presence there would be a whole Hell of a lot more physical fights, anywhere you'd turn.

I just believe a case can be made that there is incitement to cause conflict.

Yeah... I don't.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dauphin

He was still arrested. The reason is ultimately irrelevent.

That's pretty weak, and I'm not sure I even disagree with your main point.

[Dauphin]

I'm saying that I believe it was an excuse, and not a reason, to invoke his parole conditions. I reckon he was ultimately arrested for his action of dressing up as a suicide bomber, but that is not the reason given.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I'm saying that I believe it was an excuse, and not a reason, to invoke his parole conditions. I reckon he was ultimately arrested for his action of dressing up as a suicide bomber, but that is not the reason given.

Ok, that makes sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.