John Mann attacks Ken Livingstone.

[Consumer dude]

Millbank attack on Ken Livingstone (source LBC)..

[ericsbrother]

only verbal though

[Consumer dude]

Saw the video and Mann was well in his face and it was reported mann used the F word..

[tobyjugg2]

I'm still waiting for IS to bring legal action against the rest of the world for persecuting them due to their religious beliefs - a protected characteristic.

 

Dont get me wrong, I utterly belive that ALL people should be treated equally, simply as people - until they define themselves otherwise.

[tobyjugg2]

Dont know what livingston said but if its as reported here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/28/zionism-and-hitler-a-guide-to-the-wild-scandal-rocking-britains-left/

 

"When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

and/or

“Hitler’s policy when he first came to power [was] to move Germany’s Jews to Israel,"

 

Then Livingston is a complete prat (well he is anyway), but not entirely incorrect although any 'supporting' was a side issue to getting rid of them

 

Stupid and offensive interpretation by him though even if that is the case.

 

See here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

[king12345]

Clear proof that freedom of speech doesn't exist.

I don't like Livingston and I don't like what he said, but I feel that everyone should be able to say what they want, however offensive.

I'm sure that the bloke shouting at Livingston is also a great supporter of freedom of speech.

[tobyjugg2]

I find it utterly astonishing that someone who is accused of an admittedly off kilter interpretation of even so horrific an event can be so demonised, and denial of that event in any way is considered a crime,

 

yet someone who claims they received the word of God on some golden Tablets, which were never actually produced, can generate a religion with all the benefits of a religion, which legally indoctrinates millions in its rationally completely unsupportable beliefs - is perfectly acceptable.

 

How strange.

[king12345]

I find it utterly astonishing that someone who is accused of an admittedly off kilter interpretation of even so horrific an event can be so demonised, and denial of that event in any way is considered a crime,

 

yet someone who claims they received the word of God on some golden Tablets, which were never actually produced, can generate a religion with all the benefits of a religion, which legally indoctrinates millions in its rationally completely unsupportable beliefs - is perfectly acceptable.

 

How strange.

 

You hit the nail in the head, and i am a practicing catholic!

[buckthorn]

Clear proof that freedom of speech doesn't exist.

I don't like Livingston and I don't like what he said, but I feel that everyone should be able to say what they want, however offensive.

I'm sure that the bloke shouting at Livingston is also a great supporter of freedom of speech.

 

 

Freedom of speech.

So you think everybody should be allowed to say whatever they wish, no matter what or

who they are talking about and no matter how offensive?

[tobyjugg2]

Freedom of speech.

So you think everybody should be allowed to say whatever they wish, no matter what or

who they are talking about and no matter how offensive?

 

I think the world would be a better place if people just ignored idiots, and errors

 

or even just didn't actively LOOK for offense

 

or even when someone did LOOK for offense, everyone else realised that the person LOOKING for offense had found what they were LOOKING for, and that those LOOKING for offense were the ones who should be demonised - or at least pitied.

 

Anyone can find offense in even the most innocuous of statements if they try hard enough.

[buckthorn]

I think you are absolutely correct, good post, I don’t agree with you on much but on this subject I concur with you.

However if what you say is correct, why on the Bear Garden are posts censored by the site team?

For example:- some time ago I put on a post in relation to one that you had posted, which I disagreed with.

[tobyjugg2]

I think you are absolutely correct, good post, I don’t agree with you on much but on this subject I concur with you.

However if what you say is correct, why on the Bear Garden are posts censored by the site team?

For example:- some time ago I put on a post in relation to one that you had posted, which I disagreed with.

 

I said I thought the world WOULD BE a better place, not that it is.

 

LOL and lets face it, it does seem to be the second worst sin in the world after any sort of critique (or even Jokes) of anything Jewish related (intended or incidental),

and I'm NOT talking about critique of cuckoos.

:-/

 

Take themselves far too seriously - Now that should be a crime.

Laughter and critique is good for the soul.

 

 

The Talmud (Shabbat 30b) explains how Raba began his classes with a series of jokes to lighten the spirits of his students. Raba believed that a light-hearted and humorous educational environment was infinitely more productive than a stern joke-free classroom.

The Talmud (Avodah Zara 3b) enigmatically reports that God Himself dedicates a specific hour of each day to laughter and joy.

 

So evidently laughter DOES have an important role to play in Judaism.

[king12345]

Freedom of speech.

So you think everybody should be allowed to say whatever they wish, no matter what or

who they are talking about and no matter how offensive?

 

My answer is a strong loud YES!

If someone told me something offensive or racist I would just accept that some people have little arguments and are ignorant.

Has happened to me several times, I didn't call the police, I didn't make a scene, I just laughed and left.

I strongly believe in freedom of speech, unfortunately a lot of people are actively looking for something that offends them or might offend someone else.

How sad!

[tobyjugg2]

My answer is a strong loud YES!

If someone told me something offensive or racist I would just accept that some people have little arguments and are ignorant.

Has happened to me several times, I didn't call the police, I didn't make a scene, I just laughed and left.

I strongly believe in freedom of speech, unfortunately a lot of people are actively looking for something that offends them or might offend someone else.

How sad!

 

I agree if the choice is between pressure group political censorship and free speech.

 

Promoting hate or violence is a different matter - no matter how much some try to claim that their personal sensibilities, lifestyle or beliefs being offended is a hate crime.

[unclebulgaria67]

My answer is a strong loud YES!

If someone told me something offensive or racist I would just accept that some people have little arguments and are ignorant.

Has happened to me several times, I didn't call the police, I didn't make a scene, I just laughed and left.

I strongly believe in freedom of speech, unfortunately a lot of people are actively looking for something that offends them or might offend someone else.

How sad!

 

I agree. Only when the law is broken should people not turn a blind eye.

 

I have always though that some use tricky race issues for their own purposes. For example many black musicians and comedians use the 'N' word. But if the same 'N' word was used by one of their white colleagues it would suddenly cause offence. Why should certain words be owned by one ethnic group. If the word is said deliberately to cause offence, then that is wrong, but to tell someone they cannot use it in any circumstance that is limiting freedom of speech.

[king12345]

I agree if the choice is between pressure group political censorship and free speech.

 

Promoting hate or violence is a different matter - no matter how much some try to claim that their personal sensibilities, lifestyle or beliefs being offended is a hate crime.

 

If anyone is at risk of being imprisoned for saying something, the freedom of speech doesn't exist, it's only an unreachable ideal.

[Consumer dude]

Let people say what they want and just don't take them seriously when they don't support what they are saying with facts..

[Filcin]

Pensioner Convicted After Telling Hijab-wearing Mother: 'british Women Don't Cover Up'

 

Barbara Blauvelt, 77, confronted the Muslim woman who was with her children at a Sainsbury store in Bexhill, East Sussex, in January.

 

Blauvelt told British-born Ritha Ahmed: "Women in Britain don't cover up. You should not cover up. “You look like you’re about to bomb the place".

 

"If you are going to live in Britain, you should live by British rules. "

 

During the police investigation, Ms Ahmed, 35, told officers Blauvelt had hurled similar abuse at her outside a local GPs' surgery in September last year.

 

Blauvelt had pleaded not guilty to two charges of religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress, but magistrates in Eastbourne found her guilty.

 

The pensioner was given a conditional discharge with £620 costs and a victim surcharge of £15.

 

Reported in 'all' national daily's

 

 

 

So is that an affront to freedom or not ?

Edited May 4, 2016 by Conniff
edit

[Consumer dude]

The thing about alarm or distress is an interesting one as I could be alarmed or distressed at not being able to see a persons face as I feel it is an important part of human interaction..

[king12345]

Pensioner Convicted After Telling Hijab-wearing Mother: 'british Women Don't Cover Up'

 

Barbara Blauvelt, 77, confronted the Muslim woman who was with her children at a Sainsbury store in Bexhill, East Sussex, in January.

 

Blauvelt told British-born Ritha Ahmed: "Women in Britain don't cover up. You should not cover up.

 

"If you are going to live in Britain, you should live by British rules."

 

During the police investigation, Ms Ahmed, 35, told officers Blauvelt had hurled similar abuse at her outside a local GPs' surgery in September last year.

 

Blauvelt had pleaded not guilty to two charges of religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress, but magistrates in Eastbourne found her guilty.

 

The pensioner was given a conditional discharge with £620 costs and a victim surcharge of £15.

 

So is that an affront to freedom or not ?

 

Yes, it is.

The ignorant bigot had already paved her way to be known as a mad woman.

That's punishment enough.

However in this case I would support a charge of harassment because she did it before (allegedly)

Please note, not for what she said, but for making a scene in a public place causing alarm and distress, without the religious and racist bit.

[tobyjugg2]

Yes, it is.

The ignorant bigot had already paved her way to be known as a mad woman.

That's punishment enough.

However in this case I would support a charge of harassment because she did it before (allegedly)

 

Please note, not for what she said, but for making a scene in a public place causing alarm and distress, without the religious and racist bit.

 

Exactly - Just as it would be for someone doing something similar to a couple of well behaved young folk in 'punk' getup with ripped jeans and green hair.

[tobyjugg2]

In fact, when you watch it, it seems to me far more that John Mann committed genuine threatening and offensive behavior criminal offenses here.

 

Why hasn't he been suspended?

 

Livingston being a bit of a clueless self opinionated prat actually isnt a criminal offense, else parliament would be decimated.

[Consumer dude]

In fact, when you watch it, it seems to me far more that John Mann committed genuine threatening and offensive behavior criminal offenses here.

 

Why hasn't he been suspended?

 

Livingston being a bit of a clueless self opinionated prat actually isnt a criminal offense, else parliament would be decimated.

 

Exactly, in my opinion Livingstone was set up, it was reported that he ( Livingstone) had to hide in the disabled toilet..

[Consumer dude]

Mann, perhaps a true Tory in disguise and all about one week before London mayoral election. You decide..

[tobyjugg2]

I wonder how Solomon would judge this

Would he find that Livingstone misrepresenting the truth was the greater crime?

 

or would he find that taking offense at something other than the great crime of distorting history (which belongs to all mankind) was the greater crime

 

whichever way he judged on the two primary participants, I'm quite sure he would judge harshly on the weakness of a faith that could be so offended by a few ill chosen words - as demonstrated by so many others.