|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 11, 2024 12:40:18 GMT
As regards the Covid vaccine ( previously debated to death, as pointed out ) NONE of the vaccines were 100% effective, but they were all "fairly" effective and generally did work to a large degree, and did stop millions of people from either (1) contracting the virus (2) preventing the worst or most dangerous effects if contracting the virus and (3) prevented millions of deaths. These facts are conclusive scientific facts and I will refuse to debate with anyone who disputes scientific facts, I wont debate with people who are the equivelant of Holocaust Deniers. I am unsure if it is actually "The Law" to not allow Covid Hoaxers or Vaccine Hoaxers, but what I am certain about is that such people were barred and denied access to social media platforms such as Twitter, and rightly so, the owners of any social media platform can bar who they want if they feel there posts are contrary to the good of society. Same as a pub landlord can bar who they want ( excluding on grounds of equality: gender, race, sexuality, faith etc ). They were touted as safe and effective, no ifs, no ands, no buts, safe and effective. They turned out to be very shaky on the safety aspect and very dubious on the effective aspect. As regards 1), 2) and 3) there is little evidence produced that shows that is the case and 'scientific facts' have been brought into a high level of disrepute over recent years. It was also given to groups, through extreme coercion, whose risk of suffering badly from the virus were vanishingly small but whose chance of being damaged by the vaccine were higher than most. Your comparison with Holocaust denial is par for the course of the first step which is to denigrate opposition. Social media has a different standing than pubs and now X belongs to a free speech advocate it riles the left no end and the authoritarian aspect from them comes into full play as if they do not behave how the left want they should be banned. What is the good of society and who gets to decide. Some American social media platform is not my choice for deciding that, it may be yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 11, 2024 13:18:11 GMT
As regards the Covid vaccine ( previously debated to death, as pointed out ) NONE of the vaccines were 100% effective, but they were all "fairly" effective and generally did work to a large degree, and did stop millions of people from either (1) contracting the virus (2) preventing the worst or most dangerous effects if contracting the virus and (3) prevented millions of deaths. These facts are conclusive scientific facts and I will refuse to debate with anyone who disputes scientific facts, I wont debate with people who are the equivelant of Holocaust Deniers. I am unsure if it is actually "The Law" to not allow Covid Hoaxers or Vaccine Hoaxers, but what I am certain about is that such people were barred and denied access to social media platforms such as Twitter, and rightly so, the owners of any social media platform can bar who they want if they feel there posts are contrary to the good of society. Same as a pub landlord can bar who they want ( excluding on grounds of equality: gender, race, sexuality, faith etc ). Dishonest Bollocks . A few social media platforms hold the monopoly over social media . If you want compare them with pub landlords then it follows that any social media platform should have limited members just as no single pub could accommodate a significant percentage of drinkers. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 11, 2024 13:25:42 GMT
I repeat again sid , while I may not agree with this ladies views , I defend her right to hold them and post them on social media. Except that what she posted wasn't an opinion. 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 11, 2024 13:53:45 GMT
"The Law" - Is The Law ... Its completely absurd to link enacted laws relating to Hate, Hate Speech, Incitement To Hate or Incitement To Riot with either Keir Starmer or the new government. Thjs government have not enacted any laws appertaining to any of the charges brought against anyone during the last 10 days in relation to disorder or on-line crimes. You cannot link either Keir Starmer or the government to charges brought against anyone in recent days, this is solely a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service and The Police who operate within set guidelines. The Law is not made up "on the hoof" or "Ad Hoc" As citizens we all have responsibilities, we all have a responsibility to use common sense, and we are expected to act and behave in a manner which will not put others at risk or cause harm to other people.. There has got to be a line drawn somewhere between Free Speech and Responsibilty - Telling others on-line or in a public domain that Covid is a hoax, or that the vaccine does not work IS NOT ACCEPTIBLE because it puts lives at risk. Ok then fiddles, so which law has been broken? Should be easy enough to tell us the Act & Section. Bet you can't though. Because you're talking bollocks. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 11, 2024 13:57:03 GMT
I repeat again sid , while I may not agree with this ladies views , I defend her right to hold them and post them on social media. Except that what she posted wasn't an opinion. 😉 Of course it was it was an opinion as regards the identity of the stabber. Everything is opinion of one sort or another. The riots are far right is opinion, the riots are football hooligans is opinion |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 11, 2024 14:00:36 GMT
You buy a TV or a Microwave in a pub, you ask no questions and therefore you BELIEVE you have done nothing wrong. A few days later you get a knock at the door and you are charged for "Handling Stolen Goods" ... You cannot say that you didn't know, its not a defence. You post a falsehood onto social media which gives completely the wrong information, name, description, status and religion of someone, and you BELIEVE you have done nothing wrong. If that false information then leads to riot or activity, you can then be charged with incitement.
Claiming that "you didn't know" is not a defence, neither should it beThe key word here is RESPONSIBILITY, the onus is on the individual, and I hope this woman becomes an example for others. Really fiddles?
That's entirely dependent on the offence alleged.
And you've yet to tell us what offence you believe has been committed.
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Aug 11, 2024 14:57:04 GMT
"The Law" - Is The Law ... Its completely absurd to link enacted laws relating to Hate, Hate Speech, Incitement To Hate or Incitement To Riot with either Keir Starmer or the new government. Thjs government have not enacted any laws appertaining to any of the charges brought against anyone during the last 10 days in relation to disorder or on-line crimes. You cannot link either Keir Starmer or the government to charges brought against anyone in recent days, this is solely a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service and The Police who operate within set guidelines. The Law is not made up "on the hoof" or "Ad Hoc" As citizens we all have responsibilities, we all have a responsibility to use common sense, and we are expected to act and behave in a manner which will not put others at risk or cause harm to other people.. There has got to be a line drawn somewhere between Free Speech and Responsibilty - Telling others on-line or in a public domain that Covid is a hoax, or that the vaccine does not work IS NOT ACCEPTIBLE because it puts lives at risk. Ok then fiddles, so which law has been broken? Should be easy enough to tell us the Act & Section. Bet you can't though. Because you're talking bollocks. As far as I am aware this lady has not been charged with anything yet She was arrested upon "Suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred, and false communication" Contained within The Criminal Justice Act (1986) >> www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III/crossheading/acts-intended-or-likely-to-stir-up-racial-hatred |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 11, 2024 15:10:10 GMT
Ok, so you've quoted the The Criminal Justice Act but linked to the Public Order Act.
But anyways, can you tell us which Act & Section you believe she's contravened and how?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 11, 2024 16:07:04 GMT
Except that what she posted wasn't an opinion. 😉 Of course it was it was an opinion as regards the identity of the stabber. Everything is opinion of one sort or another. The riots are far right is opinion, the riots are football hooligans is opinion Not true. There's a difference between a fact and an opinion. "I bet the perp is a Muslim Asylum Seeker who came on a dinghy" is an opinion. "The perp is a Muslim Asylum Seeker who came on a dinghy" is presented as a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Aug 11, 2024 16:19:59 GMT
And you would be one of the first to be in Jail. What would the charges be? The point I answered was "If we were to charge and jail everyone who ever spread misinformation" so you have asked your question out of context. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 11, 2024 16:27:28 GMT
Of course it was it was an opinion as regards the identity of the stabber. Everything is opinion of one sort or another. The riots are far right is opinion, the riots are football hooligans is opinion Not true. There's a difference between a fact and an opinion. "I bet the perp is a Muslim Asylum Seeker who came on a dinghy" is an opinion. "The perp is a Muslim Asylum Seeker who came on a dinghy" is presented as a fact. She actually said 'If this is true' about the supposed ID of the guy. So not actually claiming it as a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Aug 11, 2024 16:29:48 GMT
Of course it was it was an opinion as regards the identity of the stabber. Everything is opinion of one sort or another. The riots are far right is opinion, the riots are football hooligans is opinion Not true. There's a difference between a fact and an opinion. "I bet the perp is a Muslim Asylum Seeker who came on a dinghy" is an opinion. "The perp is a Muslim Asylum Seeker who came on a dinghy" is presented as a fact. The Left presented people who spoke out over the widespread racially motivated child grooming as a racist spreading racist propaganda for years. This was pushed as fact. When it came out as lies, when the crimes against humanity became so widespread, the Left ran away never having to face the damage they have done. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 11, 2024 17:44:17 GMT
Not true. There's a difference between a fact and an opinion. "I bet the perp is a Muslim Asylum Seeker who came on a dinghy" is an opinion. "The perp is a Muslim Asylum Seeker who came on a dinghy" is presented as a fact. She actually said 'If this is true' about the supposed ID of the guy. So not actually claiming it as a fact. I take your point on that, although she was rather specific on the info. The first sentence is presented as fact, but then the second clarifies that she's not sure. Definitely presented as fact, not opinion, although she is unsure as to its accuracy. metro.co.uk/2024/08/08/woman-first-shared-fake-southport-suspect-rumour-sparked-riots-arrested-21389346/ |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 11, 2024 17:51:54 GMT
Of course it was it was an opinion as regards the identity of the stabber. Everything is opinion of one sort or another. The riots are far right is opinion, the riots are football hooligans is opinion Not true. There's a difference between a fact and an opinion. "I bet the perp is a Muslim Asylum Seeker who came on a dinghy" is an opinion. "The perp is a Muslim Asylum Seeker who came on a dinghy" is presented as a fact. No it is still opinion. If it is necessary to observe the nicety that anything stated is an opinion then conversations would become long and tedious and frequently very repetitive. The BNP are a racist party is an opinion, Reform are far right is also opinion yet both are stated frequently as though they are fact. Nazi scum off our streets is also opinion but touted as fact. Israel is a terrorist country is stated as fact yet is clearly opinion. The Tories are lying is opinion, Labour are lying is opinion but with no overrider to indicate that they are anything other than opinion. Farage is stoking the flames of dissent is opinion but clearly stated as fact. It is a nonsense and born from the authoritarian left. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 11, 2024 18:41:12 GMT
you are arguing semantics Andrew. The world I used was "view" and I stand by her right to hold this view. As pacifico kindly pointed out she qualified her view. I dont believe her view warranted an arrest. It will be interesting to see how this progresses. |
|
