Do soldiers have a 'right to life'?

[Incognito]

I'm with you Incog. Ban the DOBs from marching altogether, in NI OR in the West of Scotland!! Set of inflammatory bassas!!

Is that you Minestrone?

[Old Hack]

I'll use as an example the Orange Order marches in Northern Ireland. They argue that they've marched the same streets for a century and should be allowed to keep tramping them. However the areas they now march through is Catholic and rightly so the Order is restricted on what they can play and how many people can go down that area as the Catholic community finds it offensive.

I agree with you it is a fundamental right that you are allowed to protest, however that does not mean that it is open house on what, how and where you protest. You must still respect the law of the land, the law of the land allows for peaceful protest that is not intended to inflame tension or designed to deliberately cause offense.

I have always found it difficult to get my head around the fact that people are stopped from doing something in case other get mardy and kick off. It's quite strange, no, to stop what is notionally a peaceful event (not in your case), in case it offends people so much, it causes them to start committing crimes.

Moving away from religion. Looking at my scenario, do you think it ok for either side of the abortion debate to show offensive images?

Anyway, it's cool to disagree.

[d000hg]

If it wasn't for the participation of some members of my family in WWII you'd either never have been born or be speaking German.

Cretin.

You're claiming your family won the war? Are you a descendant of Churchill? Or Turing perhaps?

[Incognito]

I have always found it difficult to get my head around the fact that people are stopped from doing something in case other get mardy and kick off. It's quite strange, no, to stop what is notionally a peaceful event (not in your case), in case it offends people so much, it causes them to start committing crimes.

The police will always take the easiest option to defuse a situation before it escalates.

Moving away from religion. Looking at my scenario, do you think it ok for either side of the abortion debate to show offensive images?

Anyway, it's cool to disagree.

Hmm tough one. I take it you're on about images of aborted fetuses. Are they intended to offend though or to shock. Intention is quite important here.

Might be easier to talk about vivisection, you'll have organisations on the high street displaying pictures of animal testing, it's not intended to offend. It's a shock factor. However if those same groups then take camp outside of a scientist's house and scream, shout and holler at all hours then this clearly isn't a form of protest, it's a form of harassment.

[shaunbhoy]

You're claiming your family won the war?

[Monty Python Mode]

My family won the war too............and so did my wife's!!

[/Monty Python Mode]

[GreenLabel]

You're claiming your family won the war? Are you a descendant of Churchill? Or Turing perhaps?

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what he meant.

[d000hg]

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what he meant.

He implied if his family members hadn't fought, we'd have lost.

[GreenLabel]

He implied if his family members hadn't fought, we'd have lost.

Well, that must be it then.

[Old Hack]

The police will always take the easiest option to defuse a situation before it escalates.



Hmm tough one. I take it you're on about images of aborted fetuses. Are they intended to offend though or to shock. Intention is quite important here.

Might be easier to talk about vivisection, you'll have organisations on the high street displaying pictures of animal testing, it's not intended to offend. It's a shock factor. However if those same groups then take camp outside of a scientist's house and scream, shout and holler at all hours then this clearly isn't a form of protest, it's a form of harassment.

Some images used are clearly intended to shock, and offend, in my opinion. Showing an animal being effectively savaged by dogs is intended to offend, for it's the nature of offense, that gets people outraged, and leads to support, or the other.

Anyway, as I said, good to debate these things, but I feel slowly, since Labour got in, our rights are ironically being eroded. The people walking around burning poppies, demeaing our troops have a right to do it, as much as we have a right to depict Mohammed as a homosexual sheep botherer. It's all, effectively words, thats all, not sticks and stones. I don't understand the constant offended state all people in this country are.

But, we don't have this ability anymore.

[JaybeeInCUK]

No I'm not that thick, I am coming at it with a far superior understanding of the law than you do. Of course you can rebut this presumption and demonstrate your experience in the last four years in studying, analysing and then applying the law, however I'm pretty confident you're a tw@t.

HTH BIDI.

Your confidence is as sorely unfounded as your alleged knowledge of the law. If you think intent is proven as lightly as you claim, I can very confidently state that your 4 years of studies were in vain, and you are in for a world of painful, ungainful unemployment.

That said, it was a good idea in theory to go into law, I know some of them make in a day what we make in a week. Beg your pardon, sunshine, but you're not going to cut it.

Don't worry though, I'm sure a server cabinet somewhere is in need of dusting.