The Pride of Great Britain

[FArchivist]

Ladies & Gentlemen, I present to you the pride of Great Britain. So do the stringent gun laws in Great Britain actually work as evidenced by the fact that this foul-mouth, pig-headed bigot feels entirely safe to rant like this on a crowded train full of the people she hates and does not appear to be afraid of being shot?

And look! Race Genius Ramzpaul chimes in!

[Rapscallion]

Well, first of all we have plenty of idiots over her, and the burberry cap does reveal chavishness. Secondly, I have to ask as to your preferences - why the Hades do you bring gun control into this?

I thought guns for all in the US was for the purpose of defence, not offence. How do you balance that over there with your avowed desperation for freedom of speech? Shoot people you disagree with?

I don't understand your position.

As to the second video, proof that we have no monopoly on idiots. He's wrong - we do have free speech without something saying we can have it, but some things you can say are illegal. Also, what does it matter to him?

Rapscallion

[FArchivist]

I thought guns for all in the US was for the purpose of defence, not offence.

Supposedly. We're also supposed to use them on our government if we decide they get too crusty.

How do you balance that over there with your avowed desperation for freedom of speech? Shoot people you disagree with?

If you had that same person saying those same things on MARTA here in Atlanta, GA, that woman would be shot dead before it reached the next station (or beaten to a pulp). While many people have high-falutin' ideas about freedom of speech here, in practice the high ideals lose luster.

I don't understand your position.

Watch the beginning of Die Hard 3 where Bruce Willis is dumped out in Harlem.

As to the second video, proof that we have no monopoly on idiots. He's wrong - we do have free speech without something saying we can have it, but some things you can say are illegal. Also, what does it matter to him?

Americans tend to use the UK as a perfect example of how you need freedom of speech, due to the widespread perception that your government can slap D-Notices on whatever they damn well feel like and outlaw any type of speech with an Act of Parliament. I just included him because I thought he was amusing.

[Rapscallion]

Supposedly. We're also supposed to use them on our government if we decide they get too crusty.

You might like to consider the approach we have. It's called democracy. It's where you vote out the people you don't like.

It's quite amusing to us when we hear of electoral shenanigans in the US, such as the gear in Florida and the like. We very rarely get any shit like that, and it's very minor (council elections etc) when we do. We've matured as a civilisation.

If you had that same person saying those same things on MARTA here in Atlanta, GA, that woman would be shot dead before it reached the next station (or beaten to a pulp). While many people have high-falutin' ideas about freedom of speech here, in practice the high ideals lose luster.

So, the cost of freedom of speech is capital punishment. Got it.

Watch the beginning of Die Hard 3 where Bruce Willis is dumped out in Harlem.

Never having seen any of the Die Hard movies, I have to admit my ignorance on this. Perhaps you could actually explain what you're on about?

Americans tend to use the UK as a perfect example of how you need freedom of speech, due to the widespread perception that your government can slap D-Notices on whatever they damn well feel like and outlaw any type of speech with an Act of Parliament. I just included him because I thought he was amusing.

Let me run through this.

You post a link to a youtube video of a woman in the UK spewing racist shite on a busy train. This is apparently a statement that gun control in the UK works by ... keeping the murder rate of racist idiots down?

Am I anywhere close to this? I mean, we have enough gun control threads already. I don't know why you didn't post in one of them.

Your point now seems to be that the UK needs free-er speech than it has. This also makes me scratch my head. As I tried to make clear earlier, we don't have anything enshrined like you do, but instead we therefore have anything goes barring a few restrictions on what the majority don't really want to say anyway. As per the first video you linked, the woman was arrested when the police got involved. No need for vigilantes with a gun to face the death penalty for denying someone the right to free speech.

Could you clarify the points you're trying to make or are you just trying to imagine outrage where there is none?

Rapscallion

[protege]

You might like to consider the approach we have. It's called democracy. It's where you vote out the people you don't like.

It's quite amusing to us when we hear of electoral shenanigans in the US, such as the gear in Florida and the like. We very rarely get any shit like that, and it's very minor (council elections etc) when we do. We've matured as a civilisation.

Contrary to what the media would have you believe, but election controversies are actually pretty rare here. Some of the problem in Florida, was that someone couldn't believe they lost. They saw Jeb Bush being governor at the time...meant that there was a "coverup." Votes were counted twice, IIRC.

So, the cost of freedom of speech is capital punishment. Got it.

I think what FA was referring to, is that yes, we have freedom of speech. However, that freedom doesn't protect you from someone else getting offended. Not everyone tolerates racial slurs being thrown at them, for example. Don't believe me? Go through Harlem, or Watts...and start throwing the N-word around. You'll get your ass beat promptly.

Never having seen any of the Die Hard movies, I have to admit my ignorance on this. Perhaps you could actually explain what you're on about?

Bruce Willis' character is forced to strip naked, and stand in Harlem with a pair of signs reading "I Hate Niggers." He is soon accosted by several thugs wanting to kick his ass as a result.

Your point now seems to be that the UK needs free-er speech than it has. This also makes me scratch my head. As I tried to make clear earlier, we don't have anything enshrined like you do, but instead we therefore have anything goes barring a few restrictions on what the majority don't really want to say anyway

Actually, we do have some restrictions on free speech. Things such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, or inciting a riot can land you in hot water.

[Hyena Dandy]

You might like to consider the approach we have. It's called democracy. It's where you vote out the people you don't like.

The idea is that, since you can't have a TRUE democracy (every citizen votes on every thing) then you must have a republic. In a republic, you can have people refusing to step down and becoming totalitarian.

That's what the whole point is.

Now, nobody here right now (except some lunatics) really thinks that we are in that situation, but that is one of the reasons it was written into the constitution. Self-protection, yeah, but also so there could be armed revolts if necessary. At least, that's my take on it. I can't read their minds any more than anyone else can. But I remember somehting about it being good for governments to fear their people.

[Gravekeeper]

Now, nobody here right now (except some lunatics) really thinks that we are in that situation, but that is one of the reasons it was written into the constitution. Self-protection, yeah, but also so there could be armed revolts if necessary. At least, that's my take on it. I can't read their minds any more than anyone else can. But I remember somehting about it being good for governments to fear their people.

The ironic thing is Americans vote on way, way more people and things then we do in Canada or the UK. You have so many elected officials in every level and department of government. Which is much of the problem to be honest. Too many people's jobs rely on convincing a large group of people instead of actually doing a good job.

[Panacea]

I thought guns for all in the US was for the purpose of defence, not offence. How do you balance that over there with your avowed desperation for freedom of speech? Shoot people you disagree with?

They are. The Second Amendment is very clear on this, and dueling was outlawed nearly two centuries ago.

Supposedly. We're also supposed to use them on our government if we decide they get too crusty.

Ah . . . no. The Second Amendment was never intended to provide a means for armed rebellion, regardless of John Locke's social contract. As evidenced by the Federal Government's quick willingness to use force to stamp out Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, Harper's Ferry, the Civil War and other armed resistors to governmental policies. The Second Amendment has never been successfully raised as a defense for using arms against the government, and people who think this is OK are living in a dreamworld.

If you had that same person saying those same things on MARTA here in Atlanta, GA, that woman would be shot dead before it reached the next station (or beaten to a pulp). While many people have high-falutin' ideas about freedom of speech here, in practice the high ideals lose luster.

Nonsense. People spew racial nonsense in public in this country all the time. People don't get bean up for being racists. The racists beat up other people.

Watch the beginning of Die Hard 3 where Bruce Willis is dumped out in Harlem. j

Which is fiction, not real life.

The ironic thing is Americans vote on way, way more people and things then we do in Canada or the UK. You have so many elected officials in every level and department of government. Which is much of the problem to be honest. Too many people's jobs rely on convincing a large group of people instead of actually doing a good job.

Agreed. We really should take a lot of issues out of the hands of elected officials and boards. However, we have a deep seated mistrust of "bureaucrats" in this country, ever since Ronald Reagan famously said "government IS the problem." Which was blatantly untrue, but hard core conservatives cling to it like a dog with a bone because that fear makes it easy for them to get the ignorant to vote for them.

Regarding British "free speech", I think I can phrase it a bit more coherently than FArchivist.

Brits have free speech until someone in the government decides they don't. A simple proclamation or piece of legislation can make a certain speech illegal. Example, U2's song "Bloody Sunday" was banned for years by the BBC and other media sources in Great Britain even though the song is AGAINST violence, not a call to arms. That would not fly in the US. Some local and state governments tried to ban songs glorifying "cop killing." The efforts were unsuccessful; the best they managed was for the industry to institute a ratings system on lyrics (a self defeating move IMHO).

When a library tries to ban a book in the US, people come out of the wordwork and the First Amendment is the single greatest tools to stop things like book bans.

I'm not saying Brits don't have free speech. They do have it. I just think yours is a bit more precarious than mine (though assaults on the First Amendment happen frequently).

Another example of that precariousness are the Libel laws, which define Libel much more broadly than in the US and basically make it possible to fine or imprison someone for saying something even if it's true. France has a similar law. Both countries make it possible to sue someone for supposed libel even if the offense didn't even occur in that country.

There was a book reviewer who wrote an unflattering review of a scholar's book. She didn't like the review and demanded a retraction. The publisher refused. So she went to France and sued for libel. The court threw the claim out, but the fact that someone could actually file such a claim and have it heard in a court should give one pause. http://chronicle.com/article/NYU-Pro...s-Libel/64370/

[Ginger Tea]

Brits have free speech until someone in the government decides they don't. A simple proclamation or piece of legislation can make a certain speech illegal. Example, U2's song "Bloody Sunday" was banned for years by the BBC and other media sources in Great Britain even though the song is AGAINST violence, not a call to arms. That would not fly in the US. Some local and state governments tried to ban songs glorifying "cop killing." The efforts were unsuccessful; the best they managed was for the industry to institute a ratings system on lyrics (a self defeating move IMHO).

TBH I would be too young to remember, but I don't know if it was genuinly banned from the airwaves or if the BBC being the BBC decided not to play it, they have in the past refused to play songs even if they made it to number one and were avidly against Cliff Richard's Christmas song one year that Radio one would not play it nor would some of the DJ's on the other BBC radio stations that might have an older audience.

Ice Tea's cop killer track was removed from UK pressings and the ones with the track still on it sold for way more than the album would normally do.

[Panacea]

TBH I would be too young to remember, but I don't know if it was genuinly banned from the airwaves or if the BBC being the BBC decided not to play it, they have in the past refused to play songs even if they made it to number one and were avidly against Cliff Richard's Christmas song one year that Radio one would not play it nor would some of the DJ's on the other BBC radio stations that might have an older audience.

Ice Tea's cop killer track was removed from UK pressings and the ones with the track still on it sold for way more than the album would normally do.

The BBC is a government agency; for the longest time it had no competition at all, certainly not when Bloody Sunday was banned.

Not quite the same as some corporation deciding a particular song should not be played for what ever reason.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

If you had that same person saying those same things on MARTA here in Atlanta, GA, that woman would be shot dead before it reached the next station (or beaten to a pulp). While many people have high-falutin' ideas about freedom of speech here, in practice the high ideals lose luster.

Funny, Fred Phelps (Leader of the much hated and despised Westboro Baptist Church) has said and *done* things as hate filled and hurtful as what you linked us to in the article.

Yet for some reason no one has shot and killed him yet.

Or what about the KKK. They hold their little rallies, they have had their little rant and hate filled gatherings in public places like the boardwalk of Ocean City Maryland.

And you never hear about how someone shot them.

Just because we have guns in this country doesn't mean that we are going to use them on someone just because we disagree with them.

And please do not use a Bruce Willis movie as an example of how we think and act in this country. What hollyweird pulls out of their asses is nothing like life in the real world is. Fuck, look at how they portray the English in their movies. Everyone who is a villain has a British Accent. Look at the Empire in Star Wars: A New Hope.

But even with that I'm not going to jump up and scream "Oh my god! He has a posh upper class accent! He must be EVIL!"

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I would submit to you that a regular joe who otherwise appeared normal dropping the enn word in casual conversation is much more likely that this woman to get beaten up on, say, the MARTA.

He's still UNLIKELY to get beaten up, but I'd say his chances were greater.

The reason is that this woman is so far over the top that I feel pretty certain most of the folks on the train sense that she's nuts. People are less likely to try to "correct" someone if they think that person is in the thoes of something beyond their control...in this case, likely mental issues.

The fact that she had a baby on her lap likely further protects her. The reason people are offended is because most of them are most likely decent people. Decent people aren't going to attack a woman with a baby, no matter how offensive she's being. The one woman who engaged her seemed almost more offended that she was using that language in front of the child than she was at being insulted.

[Rageaholic]

So a racist bigot spews shit, no one shoots her, and that's a bad thing?

I don't have strong opinions on gun control, but this is actually a better arguement for it than against it.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

A crowd of angry people do not need a gun to harm an outnumbered, unarmed idiot.

Gun control is not the reason she was unharmed. The restraint of the folks around her is the reason she was unharmed.

Saying she didn't get shot because gun control works is like saying she didn't get struck by lightning because there is no God.

She didn't get stabbed, slapped, maced, or kicked, either, and I'm pretty sure...correct me if I'm wrong here... there is no "fist and Doc Marten control" in the UK.

[Beckpatton]

back on topic.... She's charged with a racially aggravated public order offence. Not knowing the exact laws, (did London bring in new ones dealing with hate speech?) my thoughts are that she created a public disturbance using hate speech, therefore was arrested.

It's not like there is no freedom of speech, but you need to be less of a twat when expressing your opinions! (which I know in itself is a hypocritical statement) If she wasn't so aggressive about it, there probably wouldn't be a problem.. not a legal one anyway.

New article.. Cow is spending Christmas behing bars for her own protection.. Ner Ner!!


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-23614592/