|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 25, 2023 20:00:40 GMT
Statutes are often vague. 'Discretion' is left to the jury. That's unavoidable. For example, any statute dealing with treason can't possibly hope to list the entire set of circumstances in which an individual's behaviour will be harmful to the state's security. Whether an act is harmful in that way will be left for the jury to decide. The 'law lacks specificity' for good reason. You seem to have misunderstood. Go back and take a look at the post i'm replying to - I was asked for a specific (specified) example. Great, billowing, potentially all encompassing law is not entirely unprecedented and I didn't say it was. It's interesting that you mention the well known, baggy 'catch all' of treason (betrayal). The laws in question are similar in nature except it isn't the nation that is betrayed and an illegal betrayal can be criticism (ie it is more a parallel to the Soviet Union's version of treason). I didn't have any particular definition of treason in mind. I just used words I assumed might be present in such legislation to make the point. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 25, 2023 21:25:33 GMT
So we can all work to have his statue taken down or even better we can get a mob of like minded people to drag it through the streets daubing it with paint and throw it in the Serpentine. That seems to be both workable and legal. A mob ran through the streets of Dublin recently. I'm sure we all suppose you condemn that, but it's always nice to have confirmation. Over to you. Indeed they did and looting and burning is certainly not my cup of tea I did not like it when anyone does it as I think I have said on several occasions now as regards Mandela's statue over to you. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 25, 2023 22:24:29 GMT
When there is a binary question then it is a decision to be made as regards a direction of travel as in a referendum. A General election is a selection of those to represent the people in a constituency and as the left have frequently pointed out that is all people in the constituency. That is exactly what was said when the BNP won two EU seats. You seem to wish to have it both ways as suits which is very much a left leaning attribute. Ours is a parliamentary democracy, none of the other winning parliamentary candidates flew the flag for losing candidates, why should an exception be made for the BNP? Mostly as I have outlined and the fact that Hodge, who won for Labour, actually told the BNP to get out of Barking and Dagenham because they were not wanted there despite 16% of her voters saying that is exactly what they wanted. "The role of a Member of Parliament (MP) is to represent his/her constituents, including those who did not vote for them or did not vote at all" That does not mean they represent the views of those constituents just that they have to represent those constituents. It is not ' flying the flag' it is accepting a viewpoint irrespective of how much you may wish it not to be there. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 26, 2023 6:25:33 GMT
What about people being de-banked for holding the "wrong" political views? Has that not happened either? A private company choosing not to do business with someone isn't silencing them. Yes, you keep pretending that cancel culture is non-existent and doesn't happen to people with certain political views. The rest of us will carry on with the reality of events, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2023 8:10:15 GMT
What about people being de-banked for holding the "wrong" political views? Has that not happened either? A private company choosing not to do business with someone isn't silencing them. It is if they are doing it in an illegal way. Regulation 18 of the Payments Accounts Regulations makes it illegal to de-bank individuals based on their religion, race or any other ground referred to in Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 26, 2023 9:31:15 GMT
A private company choosing not to do business with someone isn't silencing them. It is if they are doing it in an illegal way. Regulation 18 of the Payments Accounts Regulations makes it illegal to de-bank individuals based on their religion, race or any other ground referred to in Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. And the investigation showed that this wasn't the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2023 11:27:35 GMT
It is if they are doing it in an illegal way. Regulation 18 of the Payments Accounts Regulations makes it illegal to de-bank individuals based on their religion, race or any other ground referred to in Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. And the investigation showed that this wasn't the case. We have not had the Court Case yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 26, 2023 12:51:28 GMT
What about people being de-banked for holding the "wrong" political views? Has that not happened either? A private company choosing not to do business with someone isn't silencing them. Yes it’s perfectly OK for a private company to choose not to do business with a individual ….as long as that individual is not a homosexual requiring a gay pride theme cake 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 26, 2023 14:15:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 26, 2023 14:23:05 GMT
A private company choosing not to do business with someone isn't silencing them. Yes, you keep pretending that cancel culture is non-existent and doesn't happen to people with certain political views. The rest of us will carry on with the reality of events, thanks. I don't say it is non-existant, I do believe it is exaggerated and coming from both ends of the political spectrum. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 26, 2023 14:23:34 GMT
A private company choosing not to do business with someone isn't silencing them. Yes it’s perfectly OK for a private company to choose not to do business with a individual ….as long as that individual is not a homosexual requiring a gay pride theme cake 👍 Well obviously it has to be within the bounds of the law. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 26, 2023 14:32:10 GMT
Yes it’s perfectly OK for a private company to choose not to do business with a individual ….as long as that individual is not a homosexual requiring a gay pride theme cake 👍 Well obviously it has to be within the bounds of the law. Belief is a protected characteristic. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 26, 2023 15:11:56 GMT
Yes it’s perfectly OK for a private company to choose not to do business with a individual ….as long as that individual is not a homosexual requiring a gay pride theme cake 👍 Well obviously it has to be within the bounds of the law. Ok so as long as an act is “ within the law “then it’s fine . Got it 👍 Before the law against homophobia , homophobia was ok… |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2023 17:41:00 GMT
you make it sound like a Black Lives Matter protest.. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 27, 2023 6:19:56 GMT
Well obviously it has to be within the bounds of the law. Ok so as long as an act is “ within the law “then it’s fine . Got it 👍 Before the law against homophobia , homophobia was ok… I never said that, if you feel a law is unjust protest and campaign peacefully to change it. Do you think people should just ignore any law they don't agree with? |
|
