Mr Man wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:53 pm
Keep blowing your smoke and trying to justify your dishonesty...You chose to perpetuate that which is not true.
Oh, dear, you've spoilt it now by returning to personal abuse and attribution of motive. So you're back on short replies, so as not to waste my time.
I'm not dishonest, the barrister agrees with me, the (original) Met website and many other police practices, plus some statutes, convince me that there are thought crimes in the UK. In thinking that I'm being disingenuous or lying you are wrong.
Mr Man wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:53 pm
Keep blowing your smoke and trying to justify your dishonesty...You chose to perpetuate that which is not true.
Oh, dear, you've spoilt it now by returning to personal abuse and attribution of motive. So you're back on short replies, so as not to waste my time.
Spare me please.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:58 pm
I'm not dishonest, the barrister agrees with me, the (original) Met website and many other police practices, plus some statutes, convince me that there are thought crimes in the UK. In thinking that I'm being disingenuous or lying you are wrong.
You are lying again. The barrister does not agree with you. You said
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:37 pm
The country of Milton, Locke, and Mill has (depending on your local police force) thought crimes.
And then from the barrister
The Met’s website seems to presuppose the existence of an entirely novel type of criminal offence: a crime which requires only a guilty mind, mens rea but not actus reus. If such an offence existed then “thought-crime” would be a very good description of it. But of course it doesn’t.
It should be obvious now that whatever the Met’s gobbledegook may mean, this is nonsense. There is no offence of having an unlawful reason for doing something. Thought-crime does not exist in English law.
Can you spot the difference?
Now wriggle all you like, try and move the goal posts, blow more smoke.
Mr Man wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:31 pm
Spare me please.
Do you spare people from personalised attacks and abuse? Until such time as you do, I won't spare you from gentle reminders to desist.
If you want to discuss the issues, please state what they are without giving in to the temptation to call people liars. Until then, you are, as I say, restricted to short answers from me.
What we are seeing here is a mask coming off, a social media titan vowing that his agenda is to eliminate an entire side of the political spectrum, and Twitter finally admitting that it's an operation all about actively promoting left-wingery, as the continuous bans and shadow-bans of conservatives show. All of this calls into question whether Twitter should be as unregulated as the Silicon Valley elite insists.
Metta,
Paul.
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)
"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)
Former Zero Hedge writer Colin Lokey said that he was pressured to frame issues in a way he felt was "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft." Zero Hedge founder Daniel Ivandjiiski, in response, said that Lokey could write "anything and everything he wanted directly without anyone writing over it."[20] On leaving, Lokey said: "I can't be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It's wrong. Period. I know it gets you views now, but it will kill your brand over the long run. This isn't a revolution. It's a joke."[2]
I just brought this one excerpt because as a former writer his views might be the most credible.....there is lots of other stuff in the wikipedia article which casts serious doubts about the website and the operater's credibility.
I would avoid going to their website as this would only offer them support since the number of visits to a website is what encourages (or discourages) people in giving them money.
(Click blue bird to see full tweet and the tweet it's referencing)
Metta,
Paul.
Are you cool with threatening behaviour towards hospital staff Paul? Do you think the right to threaten should be protected? Is it similar to the right to post racist content on a Buddhist forum?
Alfie Evans: Alder Hey Hospital defends staff against abuse
Mr Man wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:28 pm
Are you cool with threatening behaviour towards hospital staff Paul? Do you think the right to threaten should be protected?
Protests are fine.
Threats of violence, incitements of violence, and actual physical violence are not.
Having and expressing an opinion different to that of the authorities should be fine...
Metta,
Paul.
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)
"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)
Mr Man wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:28 pm
Do you think the right to threaten should be protected?
The right to threaten is the right of free speech, so of course it should be protected. There is not, and should never be, any right to carry out that threat. Except by the state - the state appropriates the right of violence to itself, on the basis of its capability to carry out that violence. Which is part of what makes the state fundamentally untrustworthy.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
The job of law enforcement is to protect the populace from actual injury, not injury to their feelings.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
I believe the alphie Evans situation involved threats of violence not just someone being called a name because they happened to work at the hospital and may or may not have been involved in the care of Alphie.
I do not agree with threatening staff of the hospital. And, I also do not believe that all member of staff who recieved emails or phone calls (rude or threatening) were the people who were involved in these decisions by the hospital so I do not believe this was appropriate use of free speech. I certainly wouldn't see those who made rude communications to staff arrested, but the threats were too far and would need dealt with appropriately.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. John Stuart Mill
Breach of the peace? Just how big is this story surrounding the arrest of Tommy Robinson? It seems to have ignited something of a backlash from those concerned about their right to speak freely in the U.K..
pulga wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 11:08 am
Breach of the peace? Just how big is this story surrounding the arrest of Tommy Robinson? It seems to have ignited something of a backlash from those concerned about their right to speak freely in the U.K..
Well, a story is as big as the media make it, and most sources want to downplay this. Potentially this is very serious and raises all sorts of interesting questions about the current UK government and police activity, but unfortunately for Robinson he doesn't agree with the current narrative.
