Hate on The Street

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-14 2:26 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 11:14 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 11:03 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 10:33 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 2:34 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 9:27 AM

 

Here's another example of a Brit being offensive to a minority 8-) .........

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4975996/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Right-crusade-makes-mugs-us.html

 

I wonder when I can expect the Koran to be banned?.........As its offensive to us Kafirs :-| .........

 

 

There's a bit of a flaw in Richard Littlejohn's arguments about why the mugs she was selling depicting the Knights Templar were innocuous - ergo the observation that the mugs she was selling depicted an organisation involved in the crusades 700 years ago. The market trader claims that the council have confirmed that the complaint related to the fact that the Knights Templar killed Muslims during the Crusades but the council have not confirmed that those claims were true. "The Knights Templar" in their modern re-incarnation are notorious for being anti-Muslim and for issuing inflammatory statements about them.

If continuing to trade at this market mattered so much to her I do wonder why she ignored the first request that she remove them and continued to flout it. She removed other goods with Nazi symbols when asked previously to do so at the council’s request why not these? How dear to her was the principle that dictated she must be permitted to sell the mugs such that if ranked above her concern for her livelihood and why was it so dear to her? The information about other offensive stuff she sold in the past combined with the photo of her arms outstretched with what seems like a feigned incredulous expression speaks volumes in my book.

 

Veronica

 

"She removed other goods with Nazi symbols"...........?

 

http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/local-news/knights-templar-mugs-council-apologises-13756426

 

Oh dear Veronica .......I do hope you're not suffering from a spot of PC bias :D ......

 

I am most probably Dave. But I still smell a bit of a rat as far as her "innocent" explanation. I had previously written that I believed the council had been a bit heavy handed along with other stuff but edited it out because I thought I was going on too long. I don't possess the same talent you have for conveying an idea in one sentence ;-)

 

Veronica

 

A bit of a rat?......As in someone who is not ashamed of their countries history *-) ........

 

The Knights Templar are not history Dave nor are neo Nazis. Can't see the mugs she used to sell with Nazi symbols on the were of any use in WWII re-enactments I think it likely the old Nazis were rather fond of Meissen not cheap tat.

 

 

 

Veronica

 

http://news.sky.com/story/council-apologises-for-banning-woman-for-selling-knight-templar-mugs-11079897

... Seems they got one complaint !

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-10-14 4:56 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-14 2:26 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 11:14 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 11:03 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 10:33 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 2:34 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 9:27 AM

 

Here's another example of a Brit being offensive to a minority 8-) .........

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4975996/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Right-crusade-makes-mugs-us.html

 

I wonder when I can expect the Koran to be banned?.........As its offensive to us Kafirs :-| .........

 

 

There's a bit of a flaw in Richard Littlejohn's arguments about why the mugs she was selling depicting the Knights Templar were innocuous - ergo the observation that the mugs she was selling depicted an organisation involved in the crusades 700 years ago. The market trader claims that the council have confirmed that the complaint related to the fact that the Knights Templar killed Muslims during the Crusades but the council have not confirmed that those claims were true. "The Knights Templar" in their modern re-incarnation are notorious for being anti-Muslim and for issuing inflammatory statements about them.

If continuing to trade at this market mattered so much to her I do wonder why she ignored the first request that she remove them and continued to flout it. She removed other goods with Nazi symbols when asked previously to do so at the council’s request why not these? How dear to her was the principle that dictated she must be permitted to sell the mugs such that if ranked above her concern for her livelihood and why was it so dear to her? The information about other offensive stuff she sold in the past combined with the photo of her arms outstretched with what seems like a feigned incredulous expression speaks volumes in my book.

 

Veronica

 

"She removed other goods with Nazi symbols"...........?

 

http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/local-news/knights-templar-mugs-council-apologises-13756426

 

Oh dear Veronica .......I do hope you're not suffering from a spot of PC bias :D ......

 

I am most probably Dave. But I still smell a bit of a rat as far as her "innocent" explanation. I had previously written that I believed the council had been a bit heavy handed along with other stuff but edited it out because I thought I was going on too long. I don't possess the same talent you have for conveying an idea in one sentence ;-)

 

Veronica

 

A bit of a rat?......As in someone who is not ashamed of their countries history *-) ........

 

The Knights Templar are not history Dave nor are neo Nazis. Can't see the mugs she used to sell with Nazi symbols on the were of any use in WWII re-enactments I think it likely the old Nazis were rather fond of Meissen not cheap tat.

 

 

 

Veronica

 

http://news.sky.com/story/council-apologises-for-banning-woman-for-selling-knight-templar-mugs-11079897

... Seems they got one complaint !

 

Yeah I read a link Dave posted earlier. They chose the wrong thing to go into battle about. Most people would have no idea about any possible underlying message because they don't visit Knights Templar websites thankfully.

 

Veronica

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-14 5:51 PM

 

Yeah I read a link Dave posted earlier. They chose the wrong thing to go into battle about. Most people would have no idea about any possible underlying message because they don't visit Knights Templar websites thankfully.

 

Veronica

When types like this lot take an interest you know it means only one thing........trouble.

 

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1114353/

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-14 5:51 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-10-14 4:56 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-14 2:26 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 11:14 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 11:03 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 10:33 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 2:34 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 9:27 AM

 

Here's another example of a Brit being offensive to a minority 8-) .........

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4975996/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Right-crusade-makes-mugs-us.html

 

I wonder when I can expect the Koran to be banned?.........As its offensive to us Kafirs :-| .........

 

 

There's a bit of a flaw in Richard Littlejohn's arguments about why the mugs she was selling depicting the Knights Templar were innocuous - ergo the observation that the mugs she was selling depicted an organisation involved in the crusades 700 years ago. The market trader claims that the council have confirmed that the complaint related to the fact that the Knights Templar killed Muslims during the Crusades but the council have not confirmed that those claims were true. "The Knights Templar" in their modern re-incarnation are notorious for being anti-Muslim and for issuing inflammatory statements about them.

If continuing to trade at this market mattered so much to her I do wonder why she ignored the first request that she remove them and continued to flout it. She removed other goods with Nazi symbols when asked previously to do so at the council’s request why not these? How dear to her was the principle that dictated she must be permitted to sell the mugs such that if ranked above her concern for her livelihood and why was it so dear to her? The information about other offensive stuff she sold in the past combined with the photo of her arms outstretched with what seems like a feigned incredulous expression speaks volumes in my book.

 

Veronica

 

"She removed other goods with Nazi symbols"...........?

 

http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/local-news/knights-templar-mugs-council-apologises-13756426

 

Oh dear Veronica .......I do hope you're not suffering from a spot of PC bias :D ......

 

I am most probably Dave. But I still smell a bit of a rat as far as her "innocent" explanation. I had previously written that I believed the council had been a bit heavy handed along with other stuff but edited it out because I thought I was going on too long. I don't possess the same talent you have for conveying an idea in one sentence ;-)

 

Veronica

 

A bit of a rat?......As in someone who is not ashamed of their countries history *-) ........

 

The Knights Templar are not history Dave nor are neo Nazis. Can't see the mugs she used to sell with Nazi symbols on the were of any use in WWII re-enactments I think it likely the old Nazis were rather fond of Meissen not cheap tat.

 

 

 

Veronica

 

http://news.sky.com/story/council-apologises-for-banning-woman-for-selling-knight-templar-mugs-11079897

... Seems they got one complaint !

 

Yeah I read a link Dave posted earlier. They chose the wrong thing to go into battle about. Most people would have no idea about any possible underlying message because they don't visit Knights Templar websites thankfully.

 

Veronica

 

She wasn't promoting any website Veronica

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-10-14 6:49 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-14 5:51 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-10-14 4:56 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-14 2:26 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 11:14 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 11:03 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 10:33 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 2:34 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 9:27 AM

 

Here's another example of a Brit being offensive to a minority 8-) .........

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4975996/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Right-crusade-makes-mugs-us.html

 

I wonder when I can expect the Koran to be banned?.........As its offensive to us Kafirs :-| .........

 

 

There's a bit of a flaw in Richard Littlejohn's arguments about why the mugs she was selling depicting the Knights Templar were innocuous - ergo the observation that the mugs she was selling depicted an organisation involved in the crusades 700 years ago. The market trader claims that the council have confirmed that the complaint related to the fact that the Knights Templar killed Muslims during the Crusades but the council have not confirmed that those claims were true. "The Knights Templar" in their modern re-incarnation are notorious for being anti-Muslim and for issuing inflammatory statements about them.

If continuing to trade at this market mattered so much to her I do wonder why she ignored the first request that she remove them and continued to flout it. She removed other goods with Nazi symbols when asked previously to do so at the council’s request why not these? How dear to her was the principle that dictated she must be permitted to sell the mugs such that if ranked above her concern for her livelihood and why was it so dear to her? The information about other offensive stuff she sold in the past combined with the photo of her arms outstretched with what seems like a feigned incredulous expression speaks volumes in my book.

 

Veronica

 

"She removed other goods with Nazi symbols"...........?

 

http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/local-news/knights-templar-mugs-council-apologises-13756426

 

Oh dear Veronica .......I do hope you're not suffering from a spot of PC bias :D ......

 

I am most probably Dave. But I still smell a bit of a rat as far as her "innocent" explanation. I had previously written that I believed the council had been a bit heavy handed along with other stuff but edited it out because I thought I was going on too long. I don't possess the same talent you have for conveying an idea in one sentence ;-)

 

Veronica

 

A bit of a rat?......As in someone who is not ashamed of their countries history *-) ........

 

The Knights Templar are not history Dave nor are neo Nazis. Can't see the mugs she used to sell with Nazi symbols on the were of any use in WWII re-enactments I think it likely the old Nazis were rather fond of Meissen not cheap tat.

 

 

 

Veronica

 

http://news.sky.com/story/council-apologises-for-banning-woman-for-selling-knight-templar-mugs-11079897

... Seems they got one complaint !

 

Yeah I read a link Dave posted earlier. They chose the wrong thing to go into battle about. Most people would have no idea about any possible underlying message because they don't visit Knights Templar websites thankfully.

 

Veronica

 

She wasn't promoting any website Veronica

 

I know Antony. I just question to what tastes she was pandering. Doubtless the possible import of this stuff would pass the ordinary Joe by but it would have significance to those of Islamophobic bent or their opposition. It was way too subtle an activity to cause wide offence unlike Nazi symbols.

[RogerC]

Just another demonstration of an individual assuming offence on behalf of others, and a council appearing to be so bloody PC it acts because of the damn race card.

Oh by the way if someone knows and understands the significance of the quotation on the mugs why should it be offensive?

Likewise why do people take offence at a Swastika?  It was (strangely enough like the word 'gay') hijacked by a group that turned it into something it was never intended to represent.  So why is the original intent permitted to buried and something innocent turned into a source of hate or indeed sexual gender?

[RogerC]

RogerC - 2017-10-14 8:08 PMJust another demonstration of an individual assuming offence on behalf of others, and a council appearing to be so bloody PC it acts because of the damn race/religion card.

A busy body with no knowledge of history one would guess.

Oh by the way if someone knows and understands the significance of the quotation on the mugs why should it be offensive?

Likewise why do people take offence at a Swastika?  It was (strangely enough like the word 'gay') hijacked by a group that turned it into something it was never intended to represent.  So why is the original intent permitted to buried and something innocent turned into a source of hate or indeed sexual gender?

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-14 7:38 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-10-14 6:49 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-14 5:51 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-10-14 4:56 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-14 2:26 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 11:14 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 11:03 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 10:33 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-10-13 2:34 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-10-13 9:27 AM

 

Here's another example of a Brit being offensive to a minority 8-) .........

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4975996/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Right-crusade-makes-mugs-us.html

 

I wonder when I can expect the Koran to be banned?.........As its offensive to us Kafirs :-| .........

 

 

There's a bit of a flaw in Richard Littlejohn's arguments about why the mugs she was selling depicting the Knights Templar were innocuous - ergo the observation that the mugs she was selling depicted an organisation involved in the crusades 700 years ago. The market trader claims that the council have confirmed that the complaint related to the fact that the Knights Templar killed Muslims during the Crusades but the council have not confirmed that those claims were true. "The Knights Templar" in their modern re-incarnation are notorious for being anti-Muslim and for issuing inflammatory statements about them.

If continuing to trade at this market mattered so much to her I do wonder why she ignored the first request that she remove them and continued to flout it. She removed other goods with Nazi symbols when asked previously to do so at the council’s request why not these? How dear to her was the principle that dictated she must be permitted to sell the mugs such that if ranked above her concern for her livelihood and why was it so dear to her? The information about other offensive stuff she sold in the past combined with the photo of her arms outstretched with what seems like a feigned incredulous expression speaks volumes in my book.

 

Veronica

 

"She removed other goods with Nazi symbols"...........?

 

http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/local-news/knights-templar-mugs-council-apologises-13756426

 

Oh dear Veronica .......I do hope you're not suffering from a spot of PC bias :D ......

 

I am most probably Dave. But I still smell a bit of a rat as far as her "innocent" explanation. I had previously written that I believed the council had been a bit heavy handed along with other stuff but edited it out because I thought I was going on too long. I don't possess the same talent you have for conveying an idea in one sentence ;-)

 

Veronica

 

A bit of a rat?......As in someone who is not ashamed of their countries history *-) ........

 

The Knights Templar are not history Dave nor are neo Nazis. Can't see the mugs she used to sell with Nazi symbols on the were of any use in WWII re-enactments I think it likely the old Nazis were rather fond of Meissen not cheap tat.

 

 

 

Veronica

 

http://news.sky.com/story/council-apologises-for-banning-woman-for-selling-knight-templar-mugs-11079897

... Seems they got one complaint !

 

Yeah I read a link Dave posted earlier. They chose the wrong thing to go into battle about. Most people would have no idea about any possible underlying message because they don't visit Knights Templar websites thankfully.

 

Veronica

 

She wasn't promoting any website Veronica

 

I know Antony. I just question to what tastes she was pandering. Doubtless the possible import of this stuff would pass the ordinary Joe by but it would have significance to those of Islamophobic bent or their opposition. It was way too subtle an activity to cause wide offence unlike Nazi symbols.

 

If you know I don't honestly see the link then Veronica ... Any Knights Templar internet site has nothing to do with this lady or her mugs ... The old Soviet flag can be purchased on many things but I don't see protests for the millions who died because of that flag and Che Guevaras face is one of the most popular still to this day on posters and t-shirts but his attitude towards gays has to be questioned ... Selective whinging

[antony1969]

Seems as its gone a bit squiffy this thread ... Austrians take to the polls today and it looks like the result will see a coalition between a far right party and a Conservative Party thats taken on much of the far rights policies ... Islam and immigration along with EU resentment are all major issues ... Looks like Austrias got it right , hopefully

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-14 5:51 PM

 

 

Yeah I read a link Dave posted earlier. They chose the wrong thing to go into battle about. Most people would have no idea about any possible underlying message because they don't visit Knights Templar websites thankfully.

 

Veronica

 

So when can we expect the sale and supply of the Koran to be banned? ;-) .........

 

As its deffo offensive to us Kafirs :-| .........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2017-10-14 2:12 PM

 

I can't be arsed continually knocking on the door of an empty house.

 

It's not empty, we're just avoiding the forum's JW :D ........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or should that be AW.....Allah's Witness (lol) .......

 

 

[Violet1956]

RogerC - 2017-10-14 8:08 PMJust another demonstration of an individual assuming offence on behalf of others, and a council appearing to be so bloody PC it acts because of the damn race card.

Oh by the way if someone knows and understands the significance of the quotation on the mugs why should it be offensive?

Likewise why do people take offence at a Swastika?  It was (strangely enough like the word 'gay') hijacked by a group that turned it into something it was never intended to represent.  So why is the original intent permitted to buried and something innocent turned into a source of hate or indeed sexual gender?

I’m not an expert etymologist but I think that doesn’t disqualify me from observing that the usage and meanings of words or symbols has always changed over time to the extent that their historical use becomes irrelevant not least because, like me, most people only understand their current usage or most recent association once that usage reaches critical mass. I also don’t see why it is perceived as good or necessary for a word or symbol’s meaning to remain static. If they are not protected by copyright they are not owned by anyone and in that sense words or symbols cannot be misappropriated. It does present a bit of a minefield when such symbols or words have an association that hasn't reached critical mass. That is where the council and the person who reported it got it wrong in this instance. It may also be a bit of an own goal in that people may have become more curious about what could possibly be wrong with Knights Templar symbolism in the present day, potentially handing over the "ownership" of such symbolism to extremist elements in its modern incarnation. People who protest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this symbolism do so through either a state of blissful and welcome ignorance or disingenuity and I think it likely that Mr Littlejohn falls into the latter category.Veronica

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 11:54 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-14 8:08 PMJust another demonstration of an individual assuming offence on behalf of others, and a council appearing to be so bloody PC it acts because of the damn race card.

Oh by the way if someone knows and understands the significance of the quotation on the mugs why should it be offensive?

Likewise why do people take offence at a Swastika?  It was (strangely enough like the word 'gay') hijacked by a group that turned it into something it was never intended to represent.  So why is the original intent permitted to buried and something innocent turned into a source of hate or indeed sexual gender?

I’m not an expert etymologist but I think that doesn’t disqualify me from observing that the usage and meanings of words or symbols has always changed over time to the extent that their historical use becomes irrelevant not least because, like me, most people only understand their current usage or most recent association once that usage reaches critical mass. I also don’t see why it is perceived as good or necessary for a word or symbol’s meaning to remain static. If they are not protected by copyright they are not owned by anyone and in that sense words or symbols cannot be misappropriated. It does present a bit of a minefield when such symbols or words have an association that hasn't reached critical mass. That is where the council and the person who reported it got it wrong in this instance. It may also be a bit of an own goal in that people may have become more curious about what could possibly be wrong with Knights Templar symbolism in the present day, potentially handing over the "ownership" of such symbolism to extremist elements in its modern incarnation. People who protest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this symbolism do so through either a state of blissful and welcome ignorance or disingenuity and I think it likely that Mr Littlejohn falls into the latter category.Veronica

Some find the Union Flag offensive

[Guest pelmetman]

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 12:39 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 11:54 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-14 8:08 PMJust another demonstration of an individual assuming offence on behalf of others, and a council appearing to be so bloody PC it acts because of the damn race card.

Oh by the way if someone knows and understands the significance of the quotation on the mugs why should it be offensive?

Likewise why do people take offence at a Swastika?  It was (strangely enough like the word 'gay') hijacked by a group that turned it into something it was never intended to represent.  So why is the original intent permitted to buried and something innocent turned into a source of hate or indeed sexual gender?

I’m not an expert etymologist but I think that doesn’t disqualify me from observing that the usage and meanings of words or symbols has always changed over time to the extent that their historical use becomes irrelevant not least because, like me, most people only understand their current usage or most recent association once that usage reaches critical mass. I also don’t see why it is perceived as good or necessary for a word or symbol’s meaning to remain static. If they are not protected by copyright they are not owned by anyone and in that sense words or symbols cannot be misappropriated. It does present a bit of a minefield when such symbols or words have an association that hasn't reached critical mass. That is where the council and the person who reported it got it wrong in this instance. It may also be a bit of an own goal in that people may have become more curious about what could possibly be wrong with Knights Templar symbolism in the present day, potentially handing over the "ownership" of such symbolism to extremist elements in its modern incarnation. People who protest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this symbolism do so through either a state of blissful and welcome ignorance or disingenuity and I think it likely that Mr Littlejohn falls into the latter category.Veronica

Some find the Union Flag offensive

......not to mention the George cross *-) .......

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 12:39 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 11:54 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-14 8:08 PMJust another demonstration of an individual assuming offence on behalf of others, and a council appearing to be so bloody PC it acts because of the damn race card.

Oh by the way if someone knows and understands the significance of the quotation on the mugs why should it be offensive?

Likewise why do people take offence at a Swastika?  It was (strangely enough like the word 'gay') hijacked by a group that turned it into something it was never intended to represent.  So why is the original intent permitted to buried and something innocent turned into a source of hate or indeed sexual gender?

I’m not an expert etymologist but I think that doesn’t disqualify me from observing that the usage and meanings of words or symbols has always changed over time to the extent that their historical use becomes irrelevant not least because, like me, most people only understand their current usage or most recent association once that usage reaches critical mass. I also don’t see why it is perceived as good or necessary for a word or symbol’s meaning to remain static. If they are not protected by copyright they are not owned by anyone and in that sense words or symbols cannot be misappropriated. It does present a bit of a minefield when such symbols or words have an association that hasn't reached critical mass. That is where the council and the person who reported it got it wrong in this instance. It may also be a bit of an own goal in that people may have become more curious about what could possibly be wrong with Knights Templar symbolism in the present day, potentially handing over the "ownership" of such symbolism to extremist elements in its modern incarnation. People who protest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this symbolism do so through either a state of blissful and welcome ignorance or disingenuity and I think it likely that Mr Littlejohn falls into the latter category.Veronica

Some find the Union Flag offensive

Exactly Antony and illustrative of the point I am making thank you. The Union Flag is not, nor ever likely to be widely considered to be offensive so long as we don’t allow far right groups to use it in a manner which is inimical to the values of the majority of Brits who are rightly proud to display it as a symbol of those values.

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 1:13 PM

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 12:39 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 11:54 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-14 8:08 PMJust another demonstration of an individual assuming offence on behalf of others, and a council appearing to be so bloody PC it acts because of the damn race card.

Oh by the way if someone knows and understands the significance of the quotation on the mugs why should it be offensive?

Likewise why do people take offence at a Swastika?  It was (strangely enough like the word 'gay') hijacked by a group that turned it into something it was never intended to represent.  So why is the original intent permitted to buried and something innocent turned into a source of hate or indeed sexual gender?

I’m not an expert etymologist but I think that doesn’t disqualify me from observing that the usage and meanings of words or symbols has always changed over time to the extent that their historical use becomes irrelevant not least because, like me, most people only understand their current usage or most recent association once that usage reaches critical mass. I also don’t see why it is perceived as good or necessary for a word or symbol’s meaning to remain static. If they are not protected by copyright they are not owned by anyone and in that sense words or symbols cannot be misappropriated. It does present a bit of a minefield when such symbols or words have an association that hasn't reached critical mass. That is where the council and the person who reported it got it wrong in this instance. It may also be a bit of an own goal in that people may have become more curious about what could possibly be wrong with Knights Templar symbolism in the present day, potentially handing over the "ownership" of such symbolism to extremist elements in its modern incarnation. People who protest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this symbolism do so through either a state of blissful and welcome ignorance or disingenuity and I think it likely that Mr Littlejohn falls into the latter category.Veronica

Some find the Union Flag offensive

Exactly Antony and illustrative of the point I am making thank you. The Union Flag is not, nor ever likely to be widely considered to be offensive so long as we don’t allow far right groups to use it in a manner which is inimical to the values of the majority of Brits who are rightly proud to display it as a symbol of those values.

What makes your values regarding The Union Flag more considered and more valid than someones who's politics are more to the right ???

[RogerC]

Using the premise that it is usually minority groups which hijack that which 'main stream' (not PC but .....)society considers inoffensive or uses in it's original context I would ask why does 'main stream' society not act to prevent this from happening? 

Union flag hijacked by right wing extremists....

Gay..meaning happy and carefree hijacked by homosexuals.....

Knights Templar.......

Swastika.....

It is interesting that we permit this to happen and then take to task those who use the terms/images in their original non offensive context. Take a look at the examples above and not one of them, in it's original form or meaning, can, does or did convey anything one could be offended by.

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 2:13 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 1:13 PM

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 12:39 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 11:54 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-14 8:08 PMJust another demonstration of an individual assuming offence on behalf of others, and a council appearing to be so bloody PC it acts because of the damn race card.

Oh by the way if someone knows and understands the significance of the quotation on the mugs why should it be offensive?

Likewise why do people take offence at a Swastika?  It was (strangely enough like the word 'gay') hijacked by a group that turned it into something it was never intended to represent.  So why is the original intent permitted to buried and something innocent turned into a source of hate or indeed sexual gender?

I’m not an expert etymologist but I think that doesn’t disqualify me from observing that the usage and meanings of words or symbols has always changed over time to the extent that their historical use becomes irrelevant not least because, like me, most people only understand their current usage or most recent association once that usage reaches critical mass. I also don’t see why it is perceived as good or necessary for a word or symbol’s meaning to remain static. If they are not protected by copyright they are not owned by anyone and in that sense words or symbols cannot be misappropriated. It does present a bit of a minefield when such symbols or words have an association that hasn't reached critical mass. That is where the council and the person who reported it got it wrong in this instance. It may also be a bit of an own goal in that people may have become more curious about what could possibly be wrong with Knights Templar symbolism in the present day, potentially handing over the "ownership" of such symbolism to extremist elements in its modern incarnation. People who protest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this symbolism do so through either a state of blissful and welcome ignorance or disingenuity and I think it likely that Mr Littlejohn falls into the latter category.Veronica

Some find the Union Flag offensive

Exactly Antony and illustrative of the point I am making thank you. The Union Flag is not, nor ever likely to be widely considered to be offensive so long as we don’t allow far right groups to use it in a manner which is inimical to the values of the majority of Brits who are rightly proud to display it as a symbol of those values.

What makes your values regarding The Union Flag more considered and more valid than someones who's politics are more to the right ???

I equate extreme right views with intolerance and discriminatory behaviour Antony. I’m not a fan of extremist views whether it be at the right or left of the spectrum. I think your average Brit doesn’t subscribe to either extreme because they are more than cognisant of the destruction such extremism can cause. That’s why I am proud to be a Brit. Veronica

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 3:11 PM

 

 

I equate extreme right views with intolerance and discriminatory behaviour Antony. I’m not a fan of extremist views whether it be at the right or left of the spectrum. I think your average Brit doesn’t subscribe to either extreme because they are more than cognisant of the destruction such extremism can cause. That’s why I am proud to be a Brit.

 

Veronica

 

Sadly in todays world our tolerance is now a weakness and is used against us by the intolerant :-| ........

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Violet1956]

RogerC - 2017-10-15 2:35 PMUsing the premise that it is usually minority groups which hijack that which 'main stream' (not PC but .....)society considers inoffensive or uses in it's original context I would ask why does 'main stream' society not act to prevent this from happening? 

Union flag hijacked by right wing extremists....

Gay..meaning happy and carefree hijacked by homosexuals.....

Knights Templar.......

Swastika.....

It is interesting that we permit this to happen and then take to task those who use the terms/images in their original non offensive context. Take a look at the examples above and not one of them, in it's original form or meaning, can, does or did convey anything one could be offended by.

You make a very good point Roger. The meanings we attach to certain symbols or words only changes when the people who adopt them as their own are allowed to monopolise them. We need to pay more attention to that phenomenon when a symbol that is benign is hijacked by dark forces at work in our society for their nefarious ends. Veronica

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 3:11 PM

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 2:13 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 1:13 PM

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 12:39 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 11:54 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-14 8:08 PMJust another demonstration of an individual assuming offence on behalf of others, and a council appearing to be so bloody PC it acts because of the damn race card.

Oh by the way if someone knows and understands the significance of the quotation on the mugs why should it be offensive?

Likewise why do people take offence at a Swastika?  It was (strangely enough like the word 'gay') hijacked by a group that turned it into something it was never intended to represent.  So why is the original intent permitted to buried and something innocent turned into a source of hate or indeed sexual gender?

I’m not an expert etymologist but I think that doesn’t disqualify me from observing that the usage and meanings of words or symbols has always changed over time to the extent that their historical use becomes irrelevant not least because, like me, most people only understand their current usage or most recent association once that usage reaches critical mass. I also don’t see why it is perceived as good or necessary for a word or symbol’s meaning to remain static. If they are not protected by copyright they are not owned by anyone and in that sense words or symbols cannot be misappropriated. It does present a bit of a minefield when such symbols or words have an association that hasn't reached critical mass. That is where the council and the person who reported it got it wrong in this instance. It may also be a bit of an own goal in that people may have become more curious about what could possibly be wrong with Knights Templar symbolism in the present day, potentially handing over the "ownership" of such symbolism to extremist elements in its modern incarnation. People who protest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this symbolism do so through either a state of blissful and welcome ignorance or disingenuity and I think it likely that Mr Littlejohn falls into the latter category.Veronica

Some find the Union Flag offensive

Exactly Antony and illustrative of the point I am making thank you. The Union Flag is not, nor ever likely to be widely considered to be offensive so long as we don’t allow far right groups to use it in a manner which is inimical to the values of the majority of Brits who are rightly proud to display it as a symbol of those values.

What makes your values regarding The Union Flag more considered and more valid than someones who's politics are more to the right ???

I equate extreme right views with intolerance and discriminatory behaviour Antony. I’m not a fan of extremist views whether it be at the right or left of the spectrum. I think your average Brit doesn’t subscribe to either extreme because they are more than cognisant of the destruction such extremism can cause. That’s why I am proud to be a Brit. Veronica

But you showed your intolerance against a "poor little rich kid" and her "Daddy" the other day , hence your choice of words to describe them and you showed great resentment towards their financial status ... So it begs the question when is it intolerance OK and when is it not ???

[Bulletguy]

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 8:03 AM

 

Seems as its gone a bit squiffy this thread ...

Hardly.....as your post illustrates the desire to whip up the flame of hatred, so, still in keeping with the thread topic. Just a different country.

 

 

Austrians take to the polls today and it looks like the result will see a coalition between a far right party and a Conservative Party thats taken on much of the far rights policies ... Islam and immigration along with EU resentment are all major issues ... Looks like Austrias got it right , hopefully

Mention Austria and most people go misty eyed at the vision of a cute Julie Andrews running across the pastures in the Sound of Music. In fact that's still their major tourist attraction pulling in € millions from SoM touristy tat. Everyone visits Salzburg...it's a very beautiful city. But, thanks to the Nazis, Austria has a dark past in history most Austrians would prefer to forget and though it's not actually hidden, it's certainly not as open as in Germany (who find it impossible to ignore or airbrush out anyway).

 

Schloss Hartheim at Alkoven near Linz was used for the care of mental and physically disabled people.Many of the patients were children and young people.At the time it was known as a 'Facility for the Feebleminded, Imbecile, Idiotic and Cretinous'.....today we know better and would call it a mental health care home. It was funded and run with the best of intent by the Roman Catholic church. In 1938 this all changed with the Anschluss when Germany annexed Austria.

 

Hartheim became the birthplace of Hitlers 'Final Solution' where the T4 Euthanasia progamme was developed. He needed somewhere secure and well away from prying eyes to 'experiment' so what better than Schloss Hartheim with it's plentiful supply of human guinea pigs. That many were children didn't matter. But the early killings were crude using vans with the exhaust pipe fed inside. Typical of the Nazi mindset all this was timed and carefully logged. It was too slow and ineffective. Something better and more efficient had to be found to enable production line genocide.

 

Hartheim was where Franz Stangl, a fairly insignificant Austrian policeman, first learnt his 'craft'. Stangl went on to become the feared Camp Commandant of Treblinka and Sobibor, two of Germany's six Extermination camps. Stangl survived the war and imprisoned by the US but had concealed his true identity. He managed to escape and with the aid of the Vatican network who helped former SS members, made it to Brazil in 1951 where he settled and worked at the Volkswagen factory, amazingly using his own name.

 

Simon Wiesenthal tracked him down and an arrest warrant was issued in 1961 but it took another six years before Brazilian police finally arrested and extradited him to Germany where in 1970 he was put on trial for the deaths of 900,000 people. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

 

Austrian authour Gitta Sereny was the last person to interview him alive. The book she wrote "Into That Darkness: From Mercy Killing to Mass Murder" makes chilling reading and one of the most horrendous accounts i've read regarding ww2 history. Typical of all Nazi's attempting to excuse their actions Stangl trotted out the well worn line, "my conscience is clear about what I did, i was doing my duty".

 

Unfortunately Stangl didn't rot in prison but died from heart failure just hours after Sereny had concluded her final interview with him.

 

You should visit Schloss Hartheim http://www.schloss-hartheim.at/index.php/en/

 

Also Mauthausen concentration camp which is not that far from Schloss Hartheim https://www.mauthausen-memorial.org/en

 

Lets have a look at what an Austrian citizen says, who unlike right wing fanatical mere youngsters Kurz or Strache, Holzer actually lived through those years of insanity;

 

For Erich Holzer, Sunday's election in Austria brings back disturbing memories of his childhood under the Nazis.

 

“I remember the woman who lived opposite us,” the 80-year-old says. “She told us she’d been happy when Hitler took over Austria. She wasn’t a Nazi, but Hitler made so many promises.

 

“There’d been this economic crisis, and he said he’d fix it and deal with unemployment, and she believed him. And I remember her at the end of the war, when she realised the mistake she’d made. I worry sometimes we may be heading back in that direction.”

 

Still think Austria has "got it right"?

 

You want another Kristallnacht, another Stangl, another T4 programme?

 

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 3:42 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 3:11 PM

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 2:13 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 1:13 PM

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 12:39 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-10-15 11:54 AM

RogerC - 2017-10-14 8:08 PMJust another demonstration of an individual assuming offence on behalf of others, and a council appearing to be so bloody PC it acts because of the damn race card.

Oh by the way if someone knows and understands the significance of the quotation on the mugs why should it be offensive?

Likewise why do people take offence at a Swastika?  It was (strangely enough like the word 'gay') hijacked by a group that turned it into something it was never intended to represent.  So why is the original intent permitted to buried and something innocent turned into a source of hate or indeed sexual gender?

I’m not an expert etymologist but I think that doesn’t disqualify me from observing that the usage and meanings of words or symbols has always changed over time to the extent that their historical use becomes irrelevant not least because, like me, most people only understand their current usage or most recent association once that usage reaches critical mass. I also don’t see why it is perceived as good or necessary for a word or symbol’s meaning to remain static. If they are not protected by copyright they are not owned by anyone and in that sense words or symbols cannot be misappropriated. It does present a bit of a minefield when such symbols or words have an association that hasn't reached critical mass. That is where the council and the person who reported it got it wrong in this instance. It may also be a bit of an own goal in that people may have become more curious about what could possibly be wrong with Knights Templar symbolism in the present day, potentially handing over the "ownership" of such symbolism to extremist elements in its modern incarnation. People who protest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this symbolism do so through either a state of blissful and welcome ignorance or disingenuity and I think it likely that Mr Littlejohn falls into the latter category.Veronica

Some find the Union Flag offensive

Exactly Antony and illustrative of the point I am making thank you. The Union Flag is not, nor ever likely to be widely considered to be offensive so long as we don’t allow far right groups to use it in a manner which is inimical to the values of the majority of Brits who are rightly proud to display it as a symbol of those values.

What makes your values regarding The Union Flag more considered and more valid than someones who's politics are more to the right ???

I equate extreme right views with intolerance and discriminatory behaviour Antony. I’m not a fan of extremist views whether it be at the right or left of the spectrum. I think your average Brit doesn’t subscribe to either extreme because they are more than cognisant of the destruction such extremism can cause. That’s why I am proud to be a Brit. Veronica

But you showed your intolerance against a "poor little rich kid" and her "Daddy" the other day , hence your choice of words to describe them and you showed great resentment towards their financial status ... So it begs the question when is it intolerance OK and when is it not ???

My resentment was aimed at the system that created such inequality Antony not the people who were able to benefit from it. Veronica

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2017-10-15 4:31 PM

antony1969 - 2017-10-15 8:03 AMSeems as its gone a bit squiffy this thread ...

Hardly.....as your post illustrates the desire to whip up the flame of hatred, so, still in keeping with the thread topic. Just a different country.

Austrians take to the polls today and it looks like the result will see a coalition between a far right party and a Conservative Party thats taken on much of the far rights policies ... Islam and immigration along with EU resentment are all major issues ... Looks like Austrias got it right , hopefully

Mention Austria and most people go misty eyed at the vision of a cute Julie Andrews running across the pastures in the Sound of Music. In fact that's still their major tourist attraction pulling in € millions from SoM touristy tat. Everyone visits Salzburg...it's a very beautiful city. But, thanks to the Nazis, Austria has a dark past in history most Austrians would prefer to forget and though it's not actually hidden, it's certainly not as open as in Germany (who find it impossible to ignore or airbrush out anyway).Schloss Hartheim at Alkoven near Linz was used for the care of mental and physically disabled people.Many of the patients were children and young people.At the time it was known as a 'Facility for the Feebleminded, Imbecile, Idiotic and Cretinous'.....today we know better and would call it a mental health care home. It was funded and run with the best of intent by the Roman Catholic church. In 1938 this all changed with the Anschluss when Germany annexed Austria.Hartheim became the birthplace of Hitlers 'Final Solution' where the T4 Euthanasia progamme was developed. He needed somewhere secure and well away from prying eyes to 'experiment' so what better than Schloss Hartheim with it's plentiful supply of human guinea pigs. That many were children didn't matter. But the early killings were crude using vans with the exhaust pipe fed inside. Typical of the Nazi mindset all this was timed and carefully logged. It was too slow and ineffective. Something better and more efficient had to be found to enable production line genocide.Hartheim was where Franz Stangl, a fairly insignificant Austrian policeman, first learnt his 'craft'. Stangl went on to become the feared Camp Commandant of Treblinka and Sobibor, two of Germany's six Extermination camps. Stangl survived the war and imprisoned by the US but had concealed his true identity. He managed to escape and with the aid of the Vatican network who helped former SS members, made it to Brazil in 1951 where he settled and worked at the Volkswagen factory, amazingly using his own name.Simon Wiesenthal tracked him down and an arrest warrant was issued in 1961 but it took another six years before Brazilian police finally arrested and extradited him to Germany where in 1970 he was put on trial for the deaths of 900,000 people. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.Austrian authour Gitta Sereny was the last person to interview him alive. The book she wrote "Into That Darkness: From Mercy Killing to Mass Murder" makes chilling reading and one of the most horrendous accounts i've read regarding ww2 history. Typical of all Nazi's attempting to excuse their actions Stangl trotted out the well worn line, "my conscience is clear about what I did, i was doing my duty".Unfortunately Stangl didn't rot in prison but died from heart failure just hours after Sereny had concluded her final interview with him. You should visit Schloss Hartheim http://www.schloss-hartheim.at/index.php/en/Also Mauthausen concentration camp which is not that far from Schloss Hartheim https://www.mauthausen-memorial.org/enLets have a look at what an Austrian citizen says, who unlike right wing fanatical mere youngsters Kurz or Strache, Holzer actually lived through those years of insanity;For Erich Holzer, Sunday's election in Austria brings back disturbing memories of his childhood under the Nazis.“I remember the woman who lived opposite us,” the 80-year-old says. “She told us she’d been happy when Hitler took over Austria. She wasn’t a Nazi, but Hitler made so many promises. “There’d been this economic crisis, and he said he’d fix it and deal with unemployment, and she believed him. And I remember her at the end of the war, when she realised the mistake she’d made. I worry sometimes we may be heading back in that direction.”Still think Austria has "got it right"? You want another Kristallnacht, another Stangl, another T4 programme?

But there are those who maintain it is the EU that has delivered peace in Europe over the decades so does it really matter who/which outfit gets into office in Austria because the EU will stop the rise of any extreme right organisation commencing anything coming close to the Nazi experiments.........won't it?

[Violet1956]

But there are those who maintain it is the EU that has delivered peace in Europe over the decades so does it really matter who/which outfit gets into office in Austria because the EU will stop the rise of any extreme right organisation commencing anything coming close to the Nazi experiments.........won't it?

I remain confident that it will. From my perspective it is a great pity that the UK, with all we have to offer in terms of our values, will no longer be a part of that force for good. :-( Veronica