We are being "monitored"

[Jamie123]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-starmer-lucy-connolly-free-speech-b2757856.html

I'm normally the last person to say "US good UK bad" (there's plenty of bad in both) but in this matter I'm right behind Trump. Starmer won the election last year on a protest vote, and he's turning our to be twice as bad as the people voters were protesting against. If Trump wants to give Starmer a "kick up the arse" that's fine by me!

I'll probably be arrested now for "incitement to kick the Prime Minister up the arse" - even though I've crossed it out already!

[zil2]

I keep hearing events in the UK that to an American (one who actually believes in really free speech¹) are terrifying: getting arrested just for saying something online; trials for said folk happening faster than trials for violent criminals; criminals being let out of jails to make room for said folk; making it a crime to pray in your own home if it's too close to an abortion clinic; and other insanity.

I do not know why the British people aren't protesting this vocally and demanding free speech protections be codified in such a way as to make them impossible to remove.  You all are letting those who hate the very foundations of your country take it over - it's terrifying.

At least, that's how it looks from over here.

¹I'm generally in favor of letting people say whatever offensive, ugly, violent, hateful thing they want, because restricting it is far worse than not.  My only exceptions are the whole "fire in a crowded theater" thing (i.e. it will cause immediate, physical harm before anyone has a chance to counter it); and pornography, which ought to be destroyed - it is, in essence a very slow-burning fire in the theater of mankind, guaranteed to destroy without doing anyone an ounce of good.

[Jamie123]

12 hours ago, zil2 said:

and pornography, which ought to be destroyed

I agree pornography ought to be destroyed, but I don't agree that the government, courts and police should be the ones to do it. It's the people "using" it (and I've been as guilty as anyone in this respect!) who need to wake up, see what damage it's doing to them, and do the destroying themselves. A tyrant who tyrranizes other people "for their own good" is still a tyrant.

12 hours ago, zil2 said:

My only exceptions are the whole "fire in a crowded theater" thing

Whatever Mr Starmer and people like him might say, that doesn't apply to Lucy. She made that comment directly after the murders and long before the riots had even started. The judges stuck their fingers in their ears and went "lalalalala" when that was pointed out. They didn't care about facts. All they cared about was having Lucy Connolly's head on a stick.

I am by no means ashamed to be British, but right now Britain has a goggly-eyed stupid-haired silly-faced problem living in No. 10 Downing Street.

Edited Tuesday at 05:23 AM by Jamie123

[LDSGator]

54 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

am by no means ashamed to be British,

I’m an ethnic Englishman as well, but thank God my grandmother took that plane across the pond and landed in the good ole US of A. 

[Jamie123]

26 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

the good ole US of A. 

The la-and of the freeeee...and the home of the...brave!

(I used to know all the words to that song, though I sometimes inserted silly words of my own. Not everyone appreciated my humour.)

[Ironhold]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

I keep hearing events in the UK that to an American (one who actually believes in really free speech¹) are terrifying: getting arrested just for saying something online; trials for said folk happening faster than trials for violent criminals; criminals being let out of jails to make room for said folk; making it a crime to pray in your own home if it's too close to an abortion clinic; and other insanity.

I do not know why the British people aren't protesting this vocally and demanding free speech protections be codified in such a way as to make them impossible to remove.  You all are letting those who hate the very foundations of your country take it over - it's terrifying.

At least, that's how it looks from over here.

¹I'm generally in favor of letting people say whatever offensive, ugly, violent, hateful thing they want, because restricting it is far worse than not.  My only exceptions are the whole "fire in a crowded theater" thing (i.e. it will cause immediate, physical harm before anyone has a chance to counter it); and pornography, which ought to be destroyed - it is, in essence a very slow-burning fire in the theater of mankind, guaranteed to destroy without doing anyone an ounce of good.

People are protesting, but the politicians who are behind everything aren't listening. 

It's easier for them to, say, declare that everyone who wants an investigation into the rape gangs hiding out in the Pakistani enclaves is a "racist" than it is to actually conduct those investigations... and no, I'm not kidding, a politician actually accused a fellow politician of racism for demanding those investigations. 

What we're seeing now is part of an effort to ensure that people can't legally protest or call for those reforms in the first place. 

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

I agree pornography ought to be destroyed, but I don't agree that the government, courts and police should be the ones to do it. It's the people "using" it (and I've been as guilty as anyone in this respect!) who need to wake up, see what damage it's doing to them, and do the destroying themselves. A tyrant who tyrranizes other people "for their own good" is still a tyrant.

I suppose if we could get rid of all the other, more useless ways in which our government is already tyrannical, and thereby force the general population to take more responsibility for their lives, then maybe I'd agree with you...  I know my stance is very unpopular, but human trafficking ought to be even more unpopular, and if pornography exists, so does human trafficking and violence.

[Jamie123]

5 minutes ago, zil2 said:

if pornography exists, so does human trafficking and violence.

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that doesn't follow. I can well imagine consenting adults making porn without being trafficked or subjected to violence. If people are being trafficked or attacked to make porn then by all means arrest the porn-makers for that, but not for the porn itself.

[LDSGator]

19 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

used to know all the words to that song, though I sometimes inserted silly words of my own. Not everyone appreciated my humour.)

I can sing the National Anthem, but if I did so in public it would cause everyone around me to immediately question their patriotism and embrace communism. 

[Jamie123]

25 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

People are protesting, but the politicians who are behind everything aren't listening. 

Oh plenty of politicians are! It's just that there aren't enough of them in Parliament to oppose Starmer-Schmarmer and his merry men, since we stupidly voted them all in. Our best hope is a rebellion in the Labour back benches. They can't all be under the Starmer spell!

Edited Monday at 07:08 PM by Jamie123

[zil2]

52 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that doesn't follow. I can well imagine consenting adults making porn without being trafficked or subjected to violence. If people are being trafficked or attacked to make porn then by all means arrest the porn-makers for that, but not for the porn itself.

When Christ comes again, and the truth is known, you're welcome to smack me upside the head with the nearest 2"x4" if I'm wrong.

[Jamie123]

17 minutes ago, zil2 said:

When Christ comes again, and the truth is known, you're welcome to smack me upside the head with the nearest 2"x4" if I'm wrong.

Like I'd ever resort to violence!

[Carborendum]

19 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Like I'd ever resort to violence!

And during the Millennium, no less.