Reply to: Do soldiers have a 'right to life'?

[Incognito]

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.

Great comeback, certainly amongst those all time favourites such as "your mum".

[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.

[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.

[GreenLabel]

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

Well, that must be it then.

[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]

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.

[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]

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[shaunbhoy]

the law of the land allows for peaceful protest that is not intended to inflame tension or designed to deliberately cause offense.

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

[Incognito]

... I believe it is a fundamental right of a human being to be able to demonstrate, to protest. The difference is, the subjest is further from the current front line, and people don't get their knickers in a twist about it.

You should always have a right to protest, regardless who gets their nose bent out of shape.

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.

[GreenLabel]

They are all the same retard.

FTFY

[Old Hack]

My opinion that your opinion was bollocks was only subjective so don't worry, I still respect your opinion.

Burning a book you know to be sensitive to them is offensive. If you want to burn it by all means go home and burn it in front of your friends or even burn it in a church, you won't get arrested for that. However taking recordings / images and distributing them with the knowledge that it is going to cause offence takes you back into the realm of committing a criminal offence.

Using the example of the gay marriage / no god analogy, you are expressing your opinion in a manner that is not intended to cause offence. The chances are in reality you'd be moved along to prevent causing a breach of the peace. People would see this as a restriction on their right to protest, however it isn't. It is attempting to prevent an escalation and even though it may be your right to protest, it would be easier for the police to move you to a different location to continue your protest.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree; I see no differences with protesting, outside a mosque, values which are anti islamic, than burning a book to state you do not believe its contents. I feel if you were to burn a bible in public, not too many people would be rankled by it.

Genuinely, if you have a right to protest, you have a right to protest, even if that offends. The examples we are using are extreme ends of it, but the premise is the same. If we were told we would be unable to protest against <insert anything> as it offended someone, we'd be, ultimately, unable to protest against anything.

Anti gay? That would offend. Pro gay? That would offend. Anti-migrant? That offends. Pro Migrant? That offends. I personally am against Abortion, not for any religious rights, or anything. However, pro abortionists display shocking images designed solely to offend, to shock. Would I ever refuse them the right to do this? Never, for I believe it is a fundamental right of a human being to be able to demonstrate, to protest. The difference is, the subjest is further from the current front line, and people don't get their knickers in a twist about it.

You should always have a right to protest, regardless who gets their nose bent out of shape.