Brian Kirby Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 There is a continuing, and very tedious, argument taking place across string after string, where a few extreme libertarians are taking the stance that one has a right to free speech, and hence freedom of expression, in whatever form they choose to use, whether it is the ideas expressed that cause disagreement and dissent, or the way in which they are expressed. In other words, that absolutely anything should be tolerated, personal insult, innuendo, name calling, threats, slurs, derogative comments, libel, defamation, spite, etc. etc.. Others have challenged this as unacceptable, not because of objections to controversial views being expressed, but because the "anything goes" way in which these ideas are often advanced results in pages of uninformative tit for tat trading of insults etc. in place of discussion, or debate, of the idea itself. Intended or otherwise, the inevitable result is the equivalent of a continual brawl between two drunks. So, how about a reset? This is a direct quote from the Equalities and Human Right Commission's summary of the right to free expression under Section 10 of the 1998 Human Rights Act: "Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights." Can we try to bear in mind that "duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights" when posting, and responding to posts? It would be a considerable benefit to all if we could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 You see wouldnt that have been a much better and simpler idea rather than Stuarts trolling and bullying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 Who is he calling an "extreme libertarian" thats what I wanna know! B-) I think Ive spent too long running Motorhome Fruitcakes. Maybe thats the problem. I dont know whats acceptable in polite society anymore. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 20, 2021 Author Share Posted January 20, 2021 Barryd999 - 2021-01-19 10:25 PM Who is he calling an "extreme libertarian" thats what I wanna know! B-) ............................. Anonymity first Barry, anonymity first! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Being serious for a minute I think we all have enjoyed proper debate on here, learned a fair bit perhaps and hopefully contributed some useful stuff in amongst all the tripe. Its good to have a bit of colour though as long as its not over the top and maybe the odd bit of exaggeration or "extremism" and wind up. I have been on forums that are heavily moderated and its all serious. They are dull as dishwater. Digital Spy has an excellent Politics forum. Its huge, there are proper political gurus on there and I suspect one or two politicians, media types and you can learn a lot on there. The Presidential election thread was electrifying and people literally stayed up all night for days. Its a bit dull though as far as humour goes or getting to know each other as its so vast and the turnover of posts is often too rapid to keep up with. January is the silly season on social media. There are always spats. This year its magnified by the Lock Down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Banter can be amusing and fun But when its the same old ad hominem on every thread You must be wrong because you use a camping toilet in your van, live alone etc it just becomes tedious and boring And it restricts what everyone can say because they can't say anything personal that Anthony or Pelmetman will troll out against them every time they are losing an argument. Something that has been happening with increasing regularity as Trump, Johnson & his Brexit are exposed. Can't see whats amusing about calling men 'sweet cheeks' 'princess' or whatever .. especially when its trolled out on every thread :-S Its a poor substitute for reasoned argument or wit. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brugge Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 " Can't see whats amusing about calling men "sweet cheeks' princess' or whatever' , it might be if your gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 If someone called me sweetcheeks to my face i’d probably deck him. It’s easy to see why Birdbrain has to have lots of security at his house . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 It seems to me that quite a bit,perhaps most, of the abuse of freedom of speech we get on Chatterbox arises because the perpetrators can rely on doing it anonymously. In our society we allow anonymity which has consequences for other people's comfort or safety, for example we allow convicted offenders to maintain privacy about their criminal records, even when doing so eposes victims and other to additional risk. This is considered necessary because we want them to have a real chance to avoid reoffending and so we impose risk on others in order to give them this chance - which of course many of them fail to take and continue to be habitual offenders right up to the age when they lose the physical capacity to continue (i.e. they retire) or they die as a result of their own lifestyle risks somewhere along the way. There's a balance of risk to be struck between giving offenders another chance and imposing extra burdens on the victims of crime but these balancing decisions (by our magistrates and judges) are also allowed to be influenced by pressures from Government to minimise sentences of confinement for purely economic reasons - they don't want any more people sent to jail when that would otherwise be the sensible thing to do. We got burgled a few years ago and by happy accident the police caught the buglar at another nearby property he was breaking into within 30 minutes; it was impressive stuff. He had been released from prison (early) only a short time before and so the police were confident that the magistrates wouls send him straight back - and certainly not give him bail. He was 36 years old and had 39 previous convictions. In court the following day his solicitor gave the address of a bail hostel he would be agreeing to move into so the magistrates did give him bail. The police knew he would almost certainly abscond so they checked up on him that evening, found he had broken the conditions of his bail already and found him and arrested him again. I lost track of the story after that but I would guess he would be given further "second chances" and continue with his drug-driven lifestyle indefinitely. I would hate to see us expanding our prison system into the brutal system which the US uses to handle their offenders but we are not really dealing with our criminal classes and protecting the innocent successfully so we do need to find a reliable way to deal with offenders and at the same time protect the public from undue risk - especially of course the victims of crime. I think the way we allow bad behaviour to be facilitated, indeed encouraged, by allowing wild and anti-social talk in public, eg on social media, feeds this problem. I remember Douglas Heards, when he was Home Secretary years and years ago, revealing that 30% of males over the age of 30 have a conviction on indictment - which means for what we would regard as proper criminal activity, not just parking tickets and the like. Goodness knows what the total of known criminals would be if those "known to police" were also included. There are therefore far more lifestyle criminals whom we encounter in the course of our ordinary lives than we imagine - including of course some of the contributors to Chatterbox. Those who spout outspoken and extreme arrogance and opinion on here are perhaps prime suspects, even if that is a pure guess. So as a step in the right direction I would make all social media postings accountable to their identifiable authors. Maybe the audit trail would only be identifiable to the police or to litigants pursuing remedy throug the courts but nevertheless I would deny those who want to express free speech on a public form the right to do so anonymously, in the way they are free to do so currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Anonymity is good if its not abused because it enables people to speak truth to power without fear of repercussions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 StuartO - 2021-01-21 9:43 AM It seems to me that quite a bit,perhaps most, of the abuse of freedom of speech we get on Chatterbox arises because the perpetrators can rely on doing it anonymously. In our society we allow anonymity which has consequences for other people's comfort or safety, for example we allow convicted offenders to maintain privacy about their criminal records, even when doing so eposes victims and other to additional risk. This is considered necessary because we want them to have a real chance to avoid reoffending and so we impose risk on others in order to give them this chance - which of course many of them fail to take and continue to be habitual offenders right up to the age when they lose the physical capacity to continue (i.e. they retire) or they die as a result of their own lifestyle risks somewhere along the way. There's a balance of risk to be struck between giving offenders another chance and imposing extra burdens on the victims of crime but these balancing decisions (by our magistrates and judges) are also allowed to be influenced by pressures from Government to minimise sentences of confinement for purely economic reasons - they don't want any more people sent to jail when that would otherwise be the sensible thing to do. We got burgled a few years ago and by happy accident the police caught the buglar at another nearby property he was breaking into within 30 minutes; it was impressive stuff. He had been released from prison (early) only a short time before and so the police were confident that the magistrates wouls send him straight back - and certainly not give him bail. He was 36 years old and had 39 previous convictions. In court the following day his solicitor gave the address of a bail hostel he would be agreeing to move into so the magistrates did give him bail. The police knew he would almost certainly abscond so they checked up on him that evening, found he had broken the conditions of his bail already and found him and arrested him again. I lost track of the story after that but I would guess he would be given further "second chances" and continue with his drug-driven lifestyle indefinitely. I would hate to see us expanding our prison system into the brutal system which the US uses to handle their offenders but we are not really dealing with our criminal classes and protecting the innocent successfully so we do need to find a reliable way to deal with offenders and at the same time protect the public from undue risk - especially of course the victims of crime. I think the way we allow bad behaviour to be facilitated, indeed encouraged, by allowing wild and anti-social talk in public, eg on social media, feeds this problem. I remember Douglas Heards, when he was Home Secretary years and years ago, revealing that 30% of males over the age of 30 have a conviction on indictment - which means for what we would regard as proper criminal activity, not just parking tickets and the like. Goodness knows what the total of known criminals would be if those "known to police" were also included. There are therefore far more lifestyle criminals whom we encounter in the course of our ordinary lives than we imagine - including of course some of the contributors to Chatterbox. Those who spout outspoken and extreme arrogance and opinion on here are perhaps prime suspects, even if that is a pure guess. So as a step in the right direction I would make all social media postings accountable to their identifiable authors. Maybe the audit trail would only be identifiable to the police or to litigants pursuing remedy throug the courts but nevertheless I would deny those who want to express free speech on a public form the right to do so anonymously, in the way they are free to do so currently. Well I am sure the police could find me from my posts because I have made no serious effort to remain anonymous i.e VPNs etc. Because I'm retired, so have no worries about my posts affecting employment, offending customers, or whatever. Regarding burglars etc.. Wherever you have a big gap between rich and poor you have a high crime rate. The evidence is overwhelming, but the Government has its fingers in its ears because it doesn't suit its agenda. Crucially, you have to give folk a chance of going straight when they leave jail. Problem is you can't make it easier for ex cons than law abiding folk - who are already in dire straights. Same as the £20 Universal Credit uplift - you can't make the unemployed better off than those in work - many of whom can't make ends meet :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 John52 - 2021-01-21 11:03 AM StuartO - 2021-01-21 9:43 AM We got burgled a few years ago and by happy accident the police caught the buglar at another nearby property he was breaking into within 30 minutes; it was impressive stuff. He had been released from prison (early) only a short time before and so the police were confident that the magistrates wouls send him straight back - and certainly not give him bail. He was 36 years old and had 39 previous convictions. In court the following day his solicitor gave the address of a bail hostel he would be agreeing to move into so the magistrates did give him bail. The police knew he would almost certainly abscond so they checked up on him that evening, found he had broken the conditions of his bail already and found him and arrested him again. I lost track of the story after that but I would guess he would be given further "second chances" and continue with his drug-driven lifestyle indefinitely. . Regarding burglars etc.. Wherever you have a big gap between rich and poor you have a high crime rate. The evidence is overwhelming, but the Government has its fingers in its ears because it doesn't suit its agenda. Crucially, you have to give folk a chance of going straight when they leave jail. Problem is you can't make it easier for ex cons than law abiding folk - who are already in dire straights. Sounds like Stuarts' burglar would be a lot better off if he hadn't decided to spend a lot on drugs. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 John52 2021-01-21 11:21 AM Well I am sure the police could find me from my posts because I have made no serious effort to remain anonymous i.e VPNs etc. Because I'm retired, so have no worries about my posts affecting employment, offending customers, or whatever. Regarding burglars etc.. Wherever you have a big gap between rich and poor you have a high crime rate. The evidence is overwhelming, but the Government has its fingers in its ears because it doesn't suit its agenda. Crucially, you have to give folk a chance of going straight when they leave jail. Problem is you can't make it easier for ex cons than law abiding folk - who are already in dire straights. Same as the £20 Universal Credit uplift - you can't make the unemployed better off than those in work - many of whom can't make ends meet I understand the "freedom to speak truth to power" argument because our whistleblower protection laws are far from perfect, but two wrongs don't make a right and our failure to give full and perfect protection to whistleblowers so far does not justify allowing "fake news" perpetrators (like Donald Trump) indulging their untruthful mischief and damaging society in such a big way. I doubt there is much credible argument available to support what Birdbrain gets up to on here as being worthy of whistleblower protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 malc d - 2021-01-21 11:18 AM Sounds like Stuarts' burglar would be a lot better off if he hadn't decided to spend a lot on drugs. :-| Thats not unrelated to deprivation either. I remember the mining villages when the Government was still recruiting young men. Nobody really wanted to go down the pit, but those who did had money ... cars .. girls etc Now its not coal - its drugs .. and people whose lives are so crap they want to take them for escapism :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 John52 - 2021-01-21 11:29 AM malc d - 2021-01-21 11:18 AM Sounds like Stuarts' burglar would be a lot better off if he hadn't decided to spend a lot on drugs. :-| Thats not unrelated to deprivation either. I remember the mining villages when the Government was still recruiting young men. Nobody really wanted to go down the pit, but those who did had money ... cars .. girls etc Now its not coal - its drugs .. and people whose lives are so crap they want to take them for escapism :-( The burglar was 36 years old and had 39 previous convictions and had probably served several periods in jail - yet he was still being let out early to offend again. He was clearly a habitual criminal and would inevitable continue to be so indefinitely. Rehabilitation must have been tried many times and failed. It is always possible to see failure by other people (and the "system") in the track record of someone like that but are you really saying that we should excuse people like that (eg because they probably had a poor childhood) rather than lock them up indefinitly to protect the public? Surely there must come a point when public safety overrides do-gooder assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 This video posted on Fruitcakes recently kind of sums up social media. You might have to click the view button to see it. https://twitter.com/i/status/1351867029737844736 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 StuartO - 2021-01-21 11:36 AM John52 - 2021-01-21 11:29 AM malc d - 2021-01-21 11:18 AM Sounds like Stuarts' burglar would be a lot better off if he hadn't decided to spend a lot on drugs. :-| Thats not unrelated to deprivation either. I remember the mining villages when the Government was still recruiting young men. Nobody really wanted to go down the pit, but those who did had money ... cars .. girls etc Now its not coal - its drugs .. and people whose lives are so crap they want to take them for escapism :-( The burglar was 36 years old and had 39 previous convictions and had probably served several periods in jail - yet he was still being let out early to offend again. He was clearly a habitual criminal and would inevitable continue to be so indefinitely. Rehabilitation must have been tried many times and failed. It is always possible to see failure by other people (and the "system") in the track record of someone like that but are you really saying that we should excuse people like that (eg because they probably had a poor childhood) rather than lock them up indefinitly to protect the public? Surely there must come a point when public safety overrides do-gooder assumption. But UK already has a greater percentage of its population in jail than any other country in Europe. Norwegian jails are like holiday camps compared to ours, yet the percentage of the population in them is far less than UK because Norway is a more egalitarian country. The only other free country with a bigger percentage of its population in jail is USA where inequality is even greater than UK. Shouldn't we be asking why jail isn't working rather than just calling for more of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 John52 - 2021-01-22 12:49 PM StuartO - 2021-01-21 11:36 AM John52 - 2021-01-21 11:29 AM malc d - 2021-01-21 11:18 AM Sounds like Stuarts' burglar would be a lot better off if he hadn't decided to spend a lot on drugs. :-| Thats not unrelated to deprivation either. I remember the mining villages when the Government was still recruiting young men. Nobody really wanted to go down the pit, but those who did had money ... cars .. girls etc Now its not coal - its drugs .. and people whose lives are so crap they want to take them for escapism :-( The burglar was 36 years old and had 39 previous convictions and had probably served several periods in jail - yet he was still being let out early to offend again. He was clearly a habitual criminal and would inevitable continue to be so indefinitely. Rehabilitation must have been tried many times and failed. It is always possible to see failure by other people (and the "system") in the track record of someone like that but are you really saying that we should excuse people like that (eg because they probably had a poor childhood) rather than lock them up indefinitly to protect the public? Surely there must come a point when public safety overrides do-gooder assumption. But UK already has a greater percentage of its population in jail than any other country in Europe. Norwegian jails are like holiday camps compared to ours, yet the percentage of the population in them is far less than UK because Norway is a more egalitarian country. The only other free country with a bigger percentage of its population in jail is USA where inequality is even greater than UK. Shouldn't we be asking why jail isn't working rather than just calling for more of it? Yeh and most of them are foreigners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-01-22 12:54 PM John52 - 2021-01-22 12:49 PM StuartO - 2021-01-21 11:36 AM John52 - 2021-01-21 11:29 AM malc d - 2021-01-21 11:18 AM Sounds like Stuarts' burglar would be a lot better off if he hadn't decided to spend a lot on drugs. :-| Thats not unrelated to deprivation either. I remember the mining villages when the Government was still recruiting young men. Nobody really wanted to go down the pit, but those who did had money ... cars .. girls etc Now its not coal - its drugs .. and people whose lives are so crap they want to take them for escapism :-( The burglar was 36 years old and had 39 previous convictions and had probably served several periods in jail - yet he was still being let out early to offend again. He was clearly a habitual criminal and would inevitable continue to be so indefinitely. Rehabilitation must have been tried many times and failed. It is always possible to see failure by other people (and the "system") in the track record of someone like that but are you really saying that we should excuse people like that (eg because they probably had a poor childhood) rather than lock them up indefinitly to protect the public? Surely there must come a point when public safety overrides do-gooder assumption. But UK already has a greater percentage of its population in jail than any other country in Europe. Norwegian jails are like holiday camps compared to ours, yet the percentage of the population in them is far less than UK because Norway is a more egalitarian country. The only other free country with a bigger percentage of its population in jail is USA where inequality is even greater than UK. Shouldn't we be asking why jail isn't working rather than just calling for more of it? Yeh and most of them are foreigners. Nope 90% British, 10% foreigners https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04334/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-01-22 1:41 PM jumpstart - 2021-01-22 12:54 PM John52 - 2021-01-22 12:49 PM StuartO - 2021-01-21 11:36 AM John52 - 2021-01-21 11:29 AM malc d - 2021-01-21 11:18 AM Sounds like Stuarts' burglar would be a lot better off if he hadn't decided to spend a lot on drugs. :-| Thats not unrelated to deprivation either. I remember the mining villages when the Government was still recruiting young men. Nobody really wanted to go down the pit, but those who did had money ... cars .. girls etc Now its not coal - its drugs .. and people whose lives are so crap they want to take them for escapism :-( The burglar was 36 years old and had 39 previous convictions and had probably served several periods in jail - yet he was still being let out early to offend again. He was clearly a habitual criminal and would inevitable continue to be so indefinitely. Rehabilitation must have been tried many times and failed. It is always possible to see failure by other people (and the "system") in the track record of someone like that but are you really saying that we should excuse people like that (eg because they probably had a poor childhood) rather than lock them up indefinitly to protect the public? Surely there must come a point when public safety overrides do-gooder assumption. But UK already has a greater percentage of its population in jail than any other country in Europe. Norwegian jails are like holiday camps compared to ours, yet the percentage of the population in them is far less than UK because Norway is a more egalitarian country. The only other free country with a bigger percentage of its population in jail is USA where inequality is even greater than UK. Shouldn't we be asking why jail isn't working rather than just calling for more of it? Yeh and most of them are foreigners. Nope 90% British, 10% foreigners https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04334/ An elderly local once asked me if i was local. Yes i said i’ve lived here 10 years. Nah, you’re a foreigner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-01-22 2:39 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-01-22 1:41 PM jumpstart - 2021-01-22 12:54 PM John52 - 2021-01-22 12:49 PM StuartO - 2021-01-21 11:36 AM John52 - 2021-01-21 11:29 AM malc d - 2021-01-21 11:18 AM Sounds like Stuarts' burglar would be a lot better off if he hadn't decided to spend a lot on drugs. :-| Thats not unrelated to deprivation either. I remember the mining villages when the Government was still recruiting young men. Nobody really wanted to go down the pit, but those who did had money ... cars .. girls etc Now its not coal - its drugs .. and people whose lives are so crap they want to take them for escapism :-( The burglar was 36 years old and had 39 previous convictions and had probably served several periods in jail - yet he was still being let out early to offend again. He was clearly a habitual criminal and would inevitable continue to be so indefinitely. Rehabilitation must have been tried many times and failed. It is always possible to see failure by other people (and the "system") in the track record of someone like that but are you really saying that we should excuse people like that (eg because they probably had a poor childhood) rather than lock them up indefinitly to protect the public? Surely there must come a point when public safety overrides do-gooder assumption. But UK already has a greater percentage of its population in jail than any other country in Europe. Norwegian jails are like holiday camps compared to ours, yet the percentage of the population in them is far less than UK because Norway is a more egalitarian country. The only other free country with a bigger percentage of its population in jail is USA where inequality is even greater than UK. Shouldn't we be asking why jail isn't working rather than just calling for more of it? Yeh and most of them are foreigners. Nope 90% British, 10% foreigners https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04334/ An elderly local once asked me if i was local. Yes i said i’ve lived here 10 years. Nah, you’re a foreigner. If your accent isn't local some folk deem you 'a foreigner' which is probably what she meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 22, 2021 Author Share Posted January 22, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-01-21 9:04 AM If someone called me sweetcheeks to my face i’d probably deck him. It’s easy to see why Birdbrain has to have lots of security at his house . Which reminded me of this: when in my 20's three friends and I tipped into a pub for a drink or two. We realised after a few minutes that it was a "gay" pub (this was years before gay was an accepted term for homosexual). After a quick conflab we decided to stay, as it was comfortable, not crowded, convenient, and the beer was OK. So we settled in and each bought our rounds - as you do - until it was the turn of the last man, who was tallish, very flair, and not much giver to facial hair. Up he bobbed to that bar and placed his order, during which there was a brief conversation with one of the other customers, following which he turned bright scarlet and hurried back to the table with the beers looking uncomfortable. He was quizzed as to the conversation, and clammed up. Scenting scandal, the rest of us unmercifully hounded him for what had been said. Eventually, still bright scarlet, he opened up. The other customer had greeted him by saying "hello fluffy". We then made our escapes! Getting down the stairs while corpsed by laughter, and after several pints, was, actually, quite difficult! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.