Guest pelmetman Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 :D .......... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9358195/Number-EU-citizens-living-UK-HIGHER-Brexit.html Have the HATERS got any of their doomongering predictions right? 8-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 From the comments "Brexit seems to have been a bit of a pointless exercise as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned. More immigrants than ever, 40% down in our exports to the EU, Brexit costing 15 billion a year, nothing extra for the NHS, hassle with paperwork to travel in the EU, friction in NI, the possible break up of the union, small companies going out of business to name but a few. But it is what Brexiteers wanted and voted for so I am sure they are happy." Pretty much sums it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-13 3:20 PM From the comments "Brexit seems to have been a bit of a pointless exercise as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned. More immigrants than ever, 40% down in our exports to the EU, Brexit costing 15 billion a year, nothing extra for the NHS, hassle with paperwork to travel in the EU, friction in NI, the possible break up of the union, small companies going out of business to name but a few. But it is what Brexiteers wanted and voted for so I am sure they are happy." Pretty much sums it up Is that from a reader of your Left of Lefty Cackmag? ;-) .......... Coz obviously there's quite a few million EU citizens who prefer life in Brexit Blighty compared to the EU >:-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-13 3:20 PM From the comments "Brexit seems to have been a bit of a pointless exercise as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned. More immigrants than ever, 40% down in our exports to the EU, Brexit costing 15 billion a year, nothing extra for the NHS, hassle with paperwork to travel in the EU, friction in NI, the possible break up of the union, small companies going out of business to name but a few. But it is what Brexiteers wanted and voted for so I am sure they are happy." Pretty much sums it up LOL! Apparently also none EU migration to the UK is now at its highest since records began! (lol) All moving to Weymouth apparently. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 Can't read DM links But the thread title apparently means all the countries that Brexiteers said would leave the EU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-13 3:24 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-13 3:20 PM From the comments "Brexit seems to have been a bit of a pointless exercise as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned. More immigrants than ever, 40% down in our exports to the EU, Brexit costing 15 billion a year, nothing extra for the NHS, hassle with paperwork to travel in the EU, friction in NI, the possible break up of the union, small companies going out of business to name but a few. But it is what Brexiteers wanted and voted for so I am sure they are happy." Pretty much sums it up Is that from a reader of your Left of Lefty Cackmag? ;-) .......... Coz obviously there's quite a few million EU citizens who prefer life in Brexit Blighty compared to the EU >:-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... English comprehension 0/10. Again. It's from the comments section in the article you linked to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-14 1:56 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-13 3:24 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-13 3:20 PM From the comments "Brexit seems to have been a bit of a pointless exercise as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned. More immigrants than ever, 40% down in our exports to the EU, Brexit costing 15 billion a year, nothing extra for the NHS, hassle with paperwork to travel in the EU, friction in NI, the possible break up of the union, small companies going out of business to name but a few. But it is what Brexiteers wanted and voted for so I am sure they are happy." Pretty much sums it up Is that from a reader of your Left of Lefty Cackmag? ;-) .......... Coz obviously there's quite a few million EU citizens who prefer life in Brexit Blighty compared to the EU >:-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... English comprehension 0/10. Again. It's from the comments section in the article you linked to. 0/10 Indeed ;-) ......... I said......"Is that from a reader of your Left of Lefty Cackmag" :D ........ DM comment posters are not restricted *-) ......... Even a ranting Loony Lefty LOSER Huck/Cackmag reader and IRA supporter like you can comment >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-14 3:24 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-14 1:56 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-13 3:24 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-13 3:20 PM From the comments "Brexit seems to have been a bit of a pointless exercise as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned. More immigrants than ever, 40% down in our exports to the EU, Brexit costing 15 billion a year, nothing extra for the NHS, hassle with paperwork to travel in the EU, friction in NI, the possible break up of the union, small companies going out of business to name but a few. But it is what Brexiteers wanted and voted for so I am sure they are happy." Pretty much sums it up Is that from a reader of your Left of Lefty Cackmag? ;-) .......... Coz obviously there's quite a few million EU citizens who prefer life in Brexit Blighty compared to the EU >:-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... English comprehension 0/10. Again. It's from the comments section in the article you linked to. 0/10 Indeed ;-) ......... I said......"Is that from a reader of your Left of Lefty Cackmag" :D ........ DM comment posters are not restricted *-) ......... Even a ranting Loony Lefty LOSER Huck/Cackmag reader and IRA supporter like you can comment >:-) ......... Oh yes they are! Or they were. Time after time my comments would get deleted on there. Even under a different login and IP during the Brexit wars. Anything anti Brexit got removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brugge Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-14 4:24 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-14 1:56 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-13 3:24 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-13 3:20 PM From the comments "Brexit seems to have been a bit of a pointless exercise as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned. More immigrants than ever, 40% down in our exports to the EU, Brexit costing 15 billion a year, nothing extra for the NHS, hassle with paperwork to travel in the EU, friction in NI, the possible break up of the union, small companies going out of business to name but a few. But it is what Brexiteers wanted and voted for so I am sure they are happy." Pretty much sums it up Is that from a reader of your Left of Lefty Cackmag? ;-) .......... Coz obviously there's quite a few million EU citizens who prefer life in Brexit Blighty compared to the EU >:-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... English comprehension 0/10. Again. It's from the comments section in the article you linked to. 0/10 Indeed ;-) ......... I said......"Is that from a reader of your Left of Lefty Cackmag" :D ........ DM comment posters are not restricted *-) ......... Even a ranting Loony Lefty LOSER Huck/Cackmag reader and IRA supporter like you can comment >:-) ......... I seem to remember it was you pelmetman that was leaving? Leaving for 23 days wasn't long? was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 brugge - 2021-03-14 4:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-14 4:24 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-14 1:56 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-13 3:24 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-13 3:20 PM From the comments "Brexit seems to have been a bit of a pointless exercise as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned. More immigrants than ever, 40% down in our exports to the EU, Brexit costing 15 billion a year, nothing extra for the NHS, hassle with paperwork to travel in the EU, friction in NI, the possible break up of the union, small companies going out of business to name but a few. But it is what Brexiteers wanted and voted for so I am sure they are happy." Pretty much sums it up Is that from a reader of your Left of Lefty Cackmag? ;-) .......... Coz obviously there's quite a few million EU citizens who prefer life in Brexit Blighty compared to the EU >:-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... English comprehension 0/10. Again. It's from the comments section in the article you linked to. 0/10 Indeed ;-) ......... I said......"Is that from a reader of your Left of Lefty Cackmag" :D ........ DM comment posters are not restricted *-) ......... Even a ranting Loony Lefty LOSER Huck/Cackmag reader and IRA supporter like you can comment >:-) ......... I seem to remember it was you pelmetman that was leaving? Leaving for 23 days wasn't long? was it? Indeed I was ;-) ......... It was the bullying of another member by lefty LOSERS that made me return :D ......... So the forums LOSERS only have themselves to blame for my return >:-) ........ (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-14 4:29 PM......................................... It was the bullying of another member by lefty LOSERS that made me return :D ................ Bullying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D Biter got bit, more like! (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-14 6:15 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-14 4:29 PM......................................... It was the bullying of another member by lefty LOSERS that made me return :D ................ Bullying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D Biter got bit, more like! (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Incorrect You LOSERS Lost the argument and got him banned ;-) ......... How very WOKE (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-15 9:14 AM..............................Incorrect You LOSERS Lost the argument and got him banned ;-) .........How very WOKE (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Lost what argument, FGS? I can't remember any argument ever having been put forward. Just a series of disconnected links to bits of Facebook or whatever, accompanied by a hail of innuendo and insult for anyone who dared object. BTW, calling those you don't agree with "Woke" for supporting the victim, having just accused them of being bullies, is hardly consistent. Surely, the "unwoke" are the well 'ard, unafraid, give back 10 times what they got, strong minded, "you lookin'at me", types, innit? Doesn't sit well alongside "Please Miss, he's been bullying me", does it? Those who claim to be bullied have to accept that they lack the resources to stand up to the bully, don't they? That the contest is unfairly one sided, and they are being picked on by others who are stronger and just pick on the weakest. How very "Woke"! I'm telling Teacher, my Mum, my Dad, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Who was that bloke who used to reply to complaints that he was persistently rude to, and personally insulting to, others by saying "Grow some". "Woke"! "Bullied"! Oh dear! (lol) How about "do as you would be done by", or "live by the sword, die by the sword". If you poke a stick down a hornets' nest, you tend to get stung. Is that because hornets are "bullies", or are they "Woke" because they go to the aid of the hornets who were poked, or is is it you own stupid fault because you've just poked a stick into a hornet's nest? (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-15 3:10 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-15 9:14 AM..............................Incorrect You LOSERS Lost the argument and got him banned ;-) .........How very WOKE (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Lost what argument, FGS? I can't remember any argument ever having been put forward. Just a series of disconnected links to bits of Facebook or whatever, accompanied by a hail of innuendo and insult for anyone who dared object. BTW, calling those you don't agree with "Woke" for supporting the victim, having just accused them of being bullies, is hardly consistent. Surely, the "unwoke" are the well 'ard, unafraid, give back 10 times what they got, strong minded, "you lookin'at me", types, innit? Doesn't sit well alongside "Please Miss, he's been bullying me", does it? Those who claim to be bullied have to accept that they lack the resources to stand up to the bully, don't they? That the contest is unfairly one sided, and they are being picked on by others who are stronger and just pick on the weakest. How very "Woke"! I'm telling Teacher, my Mum, my Dad, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Who was that bloke who used to reply to complaints that he was persistently rude to, and personally insulting to, others by saying "Grow some". "Woke"! "Bullied"! Oh dear! (lol) How about "do as you would be done by", or "live by the sword, die by the sword". If you poke a stick down a hornets' nest, you tend to get stung. Is that because hornets are "bullies", or are they "Woke" because they go to the aid of the hornets who were poked, or is is it you own stupid fault because you've just poked a stick into a hornet's nest? (lol) (lol) (lol) You forget Birdy was banned *-) ........ He didn't do that himself did he? :-| .......... It seems some of you LOSER hornets are a bit whimpy >:-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-15 3:51 PM......................... 1 You forget Birdy was banned *-) ........ 2 He didn't do that himself did he? :-| .......... 1 As I understand it he was merely "suspended" not banned - which he has been able to come back. 2 Ambiguous question! If you mean "he didn't ban himself did he?" then no, he didn't, as I understand it, ban himself. If you mean were his posts responsible for his suspension, then I assume they must have been, because I can't think of any other reason why he might have been suspended. The decision on banning or suspend a forum member is not made by other members, or by the moderators; it is made by Warners staff/management (the "administrator"), based on their perception of whether the member has a record of breaking forum rules, or otherwise represents an undesirable presence. If you want chapter and verse you'll have to ask Antony, or contact the administrator to see what they are prepared to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-15 4:33 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-15 3:51 PM......................... 1 You forget Birdy was banned *-) ........ 2 He didn't do that himself did he? :-| .......... 1 As I understand it he was merely "suspended" not banned - which he has been able to come back. 2 Ambiguous question! If you mean "he didn't ban himself did he?" then no, he didn't, as I understand it, ban himself. If you mean were his posts responsible for his suspension, then I assume they must have been, because I can't think of any other reason why he might have been suspended. The decision on banning or suspend a forum member is not made by other members, or by the moderators; it is made by Warners staff/management (the "administrator"), based on their perception of whether the member has a record of breaking forum rules, or otherwise represents an undesirable presence. If you want chapter and verse you'll have to ask Antony, or contact the administrator to see what they are prepared to say. Suspension or banned ;-) ........... It was one of your Wokerati who flung their toys out of their LOSER pram *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-15 4:39 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-15 4:33 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-15 3:51 PM......................... 1 You forget Birdy was banned *-) ........ 2 He didn't do that himself did he? :-| .......... 1 As I understand it he was merely "suspended" not banned - which he has been able to come back. 2 Ambiguous question! If you mean "he didn't ban himself did he?" then no, he didn't, as I understand it, ban himself. If you mean were his posts responsible for his suspension, then I assume they must have been, because I can't think of any other reason why he might have been suspended. The decision on banning or suspend a forum member is not made by other members, or by the moderators; it is made by Warners staff/management (the "administrator"), based on their perception of whether the member has a record of breaking forum rules, or otherwise represents an undesirable presence. If you want chapter and verse you'll have to ask Antony, or contact the administrator to see what they are prepared to say. Suspension or banned ;-) ........... It was one of your Wokerati who flung their toys out of their LOSER pram *-) ......... I think it probably happened while you were "otherwise engaged" in your greenhouse. You know, that self-imposed sabbatical you adopted? From various posts at that time it seems at least possible that several members may have complained to the administrator about your "mate's" posts. They were definitely complaining on the forum that, in a number of ways, he was going too far with his insult and innuendo. Free speech is not an absolute right that gives anyone the facility to provoke dissent, to throw insults around, to insinuate personal flaws, to denigrate, etc. etc. Such behaviour would, at one time, have resulted in a challenge being issued. Now, if done in public, it can lead to a charge of "behaviour liable to result in a breach of the peace". This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. People remain free to express their views - providing they do so reasonably and with respect for others. The line tends to be drawn when when the view is expressed in intentionally offensive terms or becomes personally insulting to the person addressed. It isn't complicated. Seeking to pass off the objectors as the "wokerati" misses the point. Those insulted and abused are not obliged to endlessly put up with the insults and abuse. They are entitled to, and so far as I can remember, did, call for the abuser to desist. Then, when the abuser refuses, they are entitled to refer his insults and abuses elsewhere for judgement. That is clear in the forum rules. It seems that in your mate's case this must have happened, and the administrator, having reviewed the complaint/s, agreed with the abused that the abuse had gone too far. To allow it to continue unabated would have been to surrender the forum to the person with the lowest standard of discourse - to the disadvantage of other forum users. So, the abuser was sanctioned. Why was that unreasonable? There is nothing that cannot be expressed, or discussed, in reasonable, respectful terms. Do you want to hand over the whole concept of freedom of speech to the person with the loudest voice, or the person who hurls the most injurious insults, merely so that you can watch and laugh from the sidelines? Is the forum only for the gladiators, who then permit no-one else space by shouting them down, not with reason, but simply with offensive commentary? Who then "wins", and what have they won? The cock that crows from the tallest dung-heap crows loudest? If people are to be free to exchange views to the benefit of all, they have to constrain how that express their views. Otherwise that freedom is lost. The imposition of order is then necessary to regain the freedom. It is how societies of all kinds anywhere in the world are able to function. Those who refuse to accept the limitations of these minimal rules are liable to be sanctioned. If they then think the rules have been unfairly applied in their case, they can appeal by arguing their case. What is wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teflon2 Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-16 12:12 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-15 4:39 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-15 4:33 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-15 3:51 PM......................... 1 You forget Birdy was banned *-) ........ 2 He didn't do that himself did he? :-| .......... 1 As I understand it he was merely "suspended" not banned - which he has been able to come back. 2 Ambiguous question! If you mean "he didn't ban himself did he?" then no, he didn't, as I understand it, ban himself. If you mean were his posts responsible for his suspension, then I assume they must have been, because I can't think of any other reason why he might have been suspended. The decision on banning or suspend a forum member is not made by other members, or by the moderators; it is made by Warners staff/management (the "administrator"), based on their perception of whether the member has a record of breaking forum rules, or otherwise represents an undesirable presence. If you want chapter and verse you'll have to ask Antony, or contact the administrator to see what they are prepared to say. Suspension or banned ;-) ........... It was one of your Wokerati who flung their toys out of their LOSER pram *-) ......... I think it probably happened while you were "otherwise engaged" in your greenhouse. You know, that self-imposed sabbatical you adopted? From various posts at that time it seems at least possible that several members may have complained to the administrator about your "mate's" posts. They were definitely complaining on the forum that, in a number of ways, he was going too far with his insult and innuendo. Free speech is not an absolute right that gives anyone the facility to provoke dissent, to throw insults around, to insinuate personal flaws, to denigrate, etc. etc. Such behaviour would, at one time, have resulted in a challenge being issued. Now, if done in public, it can lead to a charge of "behaviour liable to result in a breach of the peace". This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. People remain free to express their views - providing they do so reasonably and with respect for others. The line tends to be drawn when when the view is expressed in intentionally offensive terms or becomes personally insulting to the person addressed. It isn't complicated. Seeking to pass off the objectors as the "wokerati" misses the point. Those insulted and abused are not obliged to endlessly put up with the insults and abuse. They are entitled to, and so far as I can remember, did, call for the abuser to desist. Then, when the abuser refuses, they are entitled to refer his insults and abuses elsewhere for judgement. That is clear in the forum rules. It seems that in your mate's case this must have happened, and the administrator, having reviewed the complaint/s, agreed with the abused that the abuse had gone too far. To allow it to continue unabated would have been to surrender the forum to the person with the lowest standard of discourse - to the disadvantage of other forum users. So, the abuser was sanctioned. Why was that unreasonable? There is nothing that cannot be expressed, or discussed, in reasonable, respectful terms. Do you want to hand over the whole concept of freedom of speech to the person with the loudest voice, or the person who hurls the most injurious insults, merely so that you can watch and laugh from the sidelines? Is the forum only for the gladiators, who then permit no-one else space by shouting them down, not with reason, but simply with offensive commentary? Who then "wins", and what have they won? The cock that crows from the tallest dung-heap crows loudest? If people are to be free to exchange views to the benefit of all, they have to constrain how that express their views. Otherwise that freedom is lost. The imposition of order is then necessary to regain the freedom. It is how societies of all kinds anywhere in the world are able to function. Those who refuse to accept the limitations of these minimal rules are liable to be sanctioned. If they then think the rules have been unfairly applied in their case, they can appeal by arguing their case. What is wrong with that? Not quite so Brian the whole furore began when one person kept posting DON'T RESPOND TO HIM (meaning birdy) which started an avalanche of spiteful posts against birdbrain I was so disgusted that I had to post in support of him and yet it was he ? who was suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 teflon2 - 2021-03-16 7:06 PM Not quite so Brian the whole furore began when one person kept posting DON'T RESPOND TO HIM (meaning birdy) which started an avalanche of spiteful posts against birdbrain I was so disgusted that I had to post in support of him and yet it was he ? who was suspended. Taken in isolation, 'one person kept posting DON'T RESPOND TO HIM' would look objectionable I agree. What you are missing is the provocation that led up to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted March 17, 2021 Share Posted March 17, 2021 teflon2 - 2021-03-16 7:06 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-16 12:12 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-15 4:39 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-15 4:33 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-15 3:51 PM......................... 1 You forget Birdy was banned *-) ........ 2 He didn't do that himself did he? :-| .......... 1 As I understand it he was merely "suspended" not banned - which he has been able to come back. 2 Ambiguous question! If you mean "he didn't ban himself did he?" then no, he didn't, as I understand it, ban himself. If you mean were his posts responsible for his suspension, then I assume they must have been, because I can't think of any other reason why he might have been suspended. The decision on banning or suspend a forum member is not made by other members, or by the moderators; it is made by Warners staff/management (the "administrator"), based on their perception of whether the member has a record of breaking forum rules, or otherwise represents an undesirable presence. If you want chapter and verse you'll have to ask Antony, or contact the administrator to see what they are prepared to say. Suspension or banned ;-) ........... It was one of your Wokerati who flung their toys out of their LOSER pram *-) ......... I think it probably happened while you were "otherwise engaged" in your greenhouse. You know, that self-imposed sabbatical you adopted? From various posts at that time it seems at least possible that several members may have complained to the administrator about your "mate's" posts. They were definitely complaining on the forum that, in a number of ways, he was going too far with his insult and innuendo. Free speech is not an absolute right that gives anyone the facility to provoke dissent, to throw insults around, to insinuate personal flaws, to denigrate, etc. etc. Such behaviour would, at one time, have resulted in a challenge being issued. Now, if done in public, it can lead to a charge of "behaviour liable to result in a breach of the peace". This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. People remain free to express their views - providing they do so reasonably and with respect for others. The line tends to be drawn when when the view is expressed in intentionally offensive terms or becomes personally insulting to the person addressed. It isn't complicated. Seeking to pass off the objectors as the "wokerati" misses the point. Those insulted and abused are not obliged to endlessly put up with the insults and abuse. They are entitled to, and so far as I can remember, did, call for the abuser to desist. Then, when the abuser refuses, they are entitled to refer his insults and abuses elsewhere for judgement. That is clear in the forum rules. It seems that in your mate's case this must have happened, and the administrator, having reviewed the complaint/s, agreed with the abused that the abuse had gone too far. To allow it to continue unabated would have been to surrender the forum to the person with the lowest standard of discourse - to the disadvantage of other forum users. So, the abuser was sanctioned. Why was that unreasonable? There is nothing that cannot be expressed, or discussed, in reasonable, respectful terms. Do you want to hand over the whole concept of freedom of speech to the person with the loudest voice, or the person who hurls the most injurious insults, merely so that you can watch and laugh from the sidelines? Is the forum only for the gladiators, who then permit no-one else space by shouting them down, not with reason, but simply with offensive commentary? Who then "wins", and what have they won? The cock that crows from the tallest dung-heap crows loudest? If people are to be free to exchange views to the benefit of all, they have to constrain how that express their views. Otherwise that freedom is lost. The imposition of order is then necessary to regain the freedom. It is how societies of all kinds anywhere in the world are able to function. Those who refuse to accept the limitations of these minimal rules are liable to be sanctioned. If they then think the rules have been unfairly applied in their case, they can appeal by arguing their case. What is wrong with that? Not quite so Brian the whole furore began when one person kept posting DON'T RESPOND TO HIM (meaning birdy) which started an avalanche of spiteful posts against birdbrain I was so disgusted that I had to post in support of him and yet it was he ? who was suspended. Absolutely and thanks ... I have been informed I am being discussed here on the 'fun forum' ... Just for clarity the hate campaign towards me started when I dared to not fall in line with the squad over the POTUS Trump incitement to riot rubbish, something POTUS Trump was later cleared of n'all I might add ... My view was not well received by those in the know ... Glad to see hypocrisy lives strong here, arguments, swearing, insults, blah blah blah ... The high and mighty not so high and mighty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 17, 2021 Share Posted March 17, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-16 12:12 PM If people are to be free to exchange views to the benefit of all, they have to constrain how that express their views. Otherwise that freedom is lost. Seems to me our freedom of expression is being sacrificed to the ego's of our resident Wokerati *-) ........ If folk dont like my opinions.....DONT F*CKING READ THEM >:-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 17, 2021 Share Posted March 17, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-17 7:59 AM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-16 12:12 PM If people are to be free to exchange views to the benefit of all, they have to constrain how that express their views. Otherwise that freedom is lost. Seems to me our freedom of expression is being sacrificed to the ego's of our resident Wokerati *-) ........ If folk dont like my opinions.....DONT F*CKING READ THEM >:-) .......... Just two things on that. First, if they don't read them, how would they possibly know? :-D Second, it is not the opinions people were complaining about, it was the deliberately offensive innuendo and insults that were included within them. If people don't want to be criticised for being offensive, they only have to stop hurling insults and insinuations at others. Is it that hard? You seem to manage to avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-17 12:08 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-17 7:59 AM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-16 12:12 PM If people are to be free to exchange views to the benefit of all, they have to constrain how that express their views. Otherwise that freedom is lost. Seems to me our freedom of expression is being sacrificed to the ego's of our resident Wokerati *-) ........ If folk dont like my opinions.....DONT F*CKING READ THEM >:-) .......... Just two things on that. First, if they don't read them, how would they possibly know? :-D Second, it is not the opinions people were complaining about, it was the deliberately offensive innuendo and insults that were included within them. If people don't want to be criticised for being offensive, they only have to stop hurling insults and insinuations at others. Is it that hard? You seem to manage to avoid it. 1.........I reckon most people know my views by now ;-) ......... 2.........It's not against the law to be offensive B-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-18 8:48 AM 1.........I reckon most people know my views by now ;-) ...... Yep. Sure do. It's the same as 964,825 other people. ( I've seen that reported as the daily circulation of the Daily Mail ). ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-18 8:48 AM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-17 12:08 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-17 7:59 AM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-16 12:12 PM If people are to be free to exchange views to the benefit of all, they have to constrain how that express their views. Otherwise that freedom is lost. Seems to me our freedom of expression is being sacrificed to the ego's of our resident Wokerati *-) ........ If folk dont like my opinions.....DONT F*CKING READ THEM >:-) .......... Just two things on that. First, if they don't read them, how would they possibly know? :-D Second, it is not the opinions people were complaining about, it was the deliberately offensive innuendo and insults that were included within them. If people don't want to be criticised for being offensive, they only have to stop hurling insults and insinuations at others. Is it that hard? You seem to manage to avoid it. 1.........I reckon most people know my views by now ;-) ......... 2.........It's not against the law to be offensive B-) .......... 1 Probably, so what do you gain by them not reading your views? 2 In general, no, but it can be if so judged by the police. However that is irrelevant on here, because the forum "rules" have precedence. If you want to plead you are innocent before the law take your case to court. If you want to plead your case to Warners, you are free to do so. However, I'm not aware anyone has complained that your posts are offensive. Most complaints seem to relate to whether your posts make sense, which may explain why there are no claims that they are offensive - because no one can work out if they are!! (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.