|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 22, 2024 11:32:16 GMT
He permitted the Trump balloon. If that means he endorsed it then he must also by the same logic have endorsed the anti-ulez protests. YOU..I never said all protests are the same. The protests don't have to be the same for my point to stand. You keep saying that the two protests are different as if it somehow puts my argument into difficulty. It doesn't, it in fact makes my point for me, Khan has permitted a wide range of protests, it doesn't automatically mean he endorses them. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 22, 2024 11:38:50 GMT
Then why use a completely different demonstration to make your non point ? Even you must see the difference between permitting a demonstration against ULEZ and permitting an insulting a visiting POTUS. If you cant you must be thick or maybe you can but are dishonest. How does the difference in the demonstrations challenge my point? Khan permitted the anti-ulez demonstration, that doesn't automatically mean he endorsed them. Agreed? So if he permitted the Trump balloon, it also doesn't automatically mean he endorsed it. He MAY have endorsed it, but I've not seen any quote to that effect and the fact that he permitted it is not in and of itself evidence of endorsement. Stop being an idiot and or dishonest. Your idiotic argument is the equivalent of claiming that if you allow a children’s party in your garden today and tomorrow allow a bunch of kids into garden KNOWING that they will abuse your neighbour …then you could claim that you didn’t endorse the abuse . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 22, 2024 11:40:25 GMT
YOU..I never said all protests are the same. The protests don't have to be the same for my point to stand. You keep saying that the two protests are different as if it somehow puts my argument into difficulty. It doesn't, it in fact makes my point for me, Khan has permitted a wide range of protests, it doesn't automatically mean he endorses them. It refutes your argument . You are pretending apples are oranges . |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Aug 22, 2024 11:41:51 GMT
I never said all protests are the same. I'm saying permitting something isn't the same as endorsing it. Then why use a completely different demonstration to make your non point ? Even you must see the difference between permitting a demonstration against ULEZ and permitting an insulting a visiting POTUS. If you cant you must be thick or maybe you can but are dishonest. I've pointed out that Khan clearly endorsed it through all his demands and actions to have the elected American president banned from entering the UK. Sadly, the multiaccount trolls just drone on and on to the point that it's best to just ignore them. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 22, 2024 11:43:28 GMT
They are trying to keep this low key, but It wont be long before the shit hits the fan, everyone assuming it was far-right who started the riots. Handcuffed Pakistani web designer is led into court in a hood after being accused of spreading lies about the Southport knifeman that triggered riots in Britain Farhan Asif was arrested for spreading lies about the Southport stabbing He was arrested and marched into court The web designer was charged with cyber terrorism www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13768677/Handcuffed-Pakistani-web-designer-led-court-hoWe will assume that .... HE WILL FACE THE FULL FORCE OF THE LAW .... |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 22, 2024 11:52:57 GMT
How does the difference in the demonstrations challenge my point? Khan permitted the anti-ulez demonstration, that doesn't automatically mean he endorsed them. Agreed? So if he permitted the Trump balloon, it also doesn't automatically mean he endorsed it. He MAY have endorsed it, but I've not seen any quote to that effect and the fact that he permitted it is not in and of itself evidence of endorsement. Stop being an idiot and or dishonest. Your idiotic argument is the equivalent of claiming that if you allow a children’s party in your garden today and tomorrow allow a bunch of kids into garden KNOWING that they will abuse your neighbour …then you could claim that you didn’t endorse the abuse . That's not a valid comparison, most if not every protest is going to piss off someone. That's the price of free speech/expression. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Aug 22, 2024 11:54:14 GMT
In order to fly an inflatable object which will then be displayed over or above a certain height in London, you have to seek permission, apply for permission from three different authorities.
The Metropolitan Police - permission was granted
The Air Traffic Service - permission was granted
The Greater London Authority - Permission was granted
It is the City Operations Team within the Greater London Authority which make such a decision, and the fact that a dummy or inflatable may insult a visiting world leader IS NOT a consideration, unless it is offensive or abusive in terms of hate laws.
If Mr Trump, or anyone found the inflatable insulting, well thats just tough
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 22, 2024 11:54:20 GMT
The protests don't have to be the same for my point to stand. You keep saying that the two protests are different as if it somehow puts my argument into difficulty. It doesn't, it in fact makes my point for me, Khan has permitted a wide range of protests, it doesn't automatically mean he endorses them. It refutes your argument . You are pretending apples are oranges . Presumably this is proof that Khan is plotting against Khan: Sadiq Khan balloon takes flight in London www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/01/sadiq-khan-balloon-takes-flight-in-london |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 22, 2024 11:56:44 GMT
He had no choice, you can imagine the backlash if he'd have tried to stop that balloon ..... LOL it's a good likeness. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 22, 2024 11:57:07 GMT
Then why use a completely different demonstration to make your non point ? Even you must see the difference between permitting a demonstration against ULEZ and permitting an insulting a visiting POTUS. If you cant you must be thick or maybe you can but are dishonest. I've pointed out that Khan clearly endorsed it through all his demands and actions to have the elected American president banned from entering the UK. Sadly, the multiaccount trolls just drone on and on to the point that it's best to just ignore them. Yes it's clear Khan isn't a fan of Trump to say the least. He may well have privately endorsed the balloon, heck he may have been high fiving people over it behind closed doors. Then again maybe he didn't. I don't know because I've not heard any statements for or against the balloon made my Khan and permitting the balloon isn't in and of itself evidence of endorsement. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 22, 2024 11:58:21 GMT
Stop being an idiot and or dishonest. Your idiotic argument is the equivalent of claiming that if you allow a children’s party in your garden today and tomorrow allow a bunch of kids into garden KNOWING that they will abuse your neighbour …then you could claim that you didn’t endorse the abuse . That's not a valid comparison, most if not every protest is going to piss off someone. That's the price of free speech/expression. It’s a prefect comparison. The Trump ballon was timed to insult a visiting POTUS. The demo you posted was not. Insulting the US head of state is not free speech . It’s diplomatic idiocy . |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 22, 2024 11:58:40 GMT
In order to fly an inflatable object which will then be displayed over or above a certain height in London, you have to seek permission, apply for permission from three different authorities. The Metropolitan Police - permission was granted The Air Traffic Service - permission was granted The Greater London Authority - Permission was granted It is the City Operations Team within the Greater London Authority which make such a decision, and the fact that a dummy or inflatable may insult a visiting world leader IS NOT a consideration, unless it is offensive or abusive in terms of hate laws. If Mr Trump, or anyone found the inflatable insulting, well thats just tough It's funny how enthusiasm for free speech/expression fluctuates with some people. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 22, 2024 12:00:34 GMT
I've pointed out that Khan clearly endorsed it through all his demands and actions to have the elected American president banned from entering the UK. Sadly, the multiaccount trolls just drone on and on to the point that it's best to just ignore them. Yes it's clear Khan isn't a fan of Trump to say the least. He may well have privately endorsed the balloon, heck he may have been high fiving people over it behind closed doors. Then again maybe he didn't. I don't know because I've not heard any statements for or against the balloon made my Khan and permitting the balloon isn't in and of itself evidence of endorsement. He was complicit in a deliberate insult to a visiting POTUS. Your dishonesty just merges into idiocy to pretend otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 22, 2024 12:01:41 GMT
That's not a valid comparison, most if not every protest is going to piss off someone. That's the price of free speech/expression. It’s a prefect comparison. The Trump ballon was timed to insult a visiting POTUS. The demo you posted was not. Insulting the US head of state is not free speech . It’s diplomatic idiocy . The demo regarding Ulez was a protest against Khan policy, he permitted it, that doesn't mean he endorsed it. Similarly, Khan permitting the balloon isn't evidence in and of itself of endorsement. The fact that some might have found it insulting is neither here nor there. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 22, 2024 12:02:29 GMT
Yes it's clear Khan isn't a fan of Trump to say the least. He may well have privately endorsed the balloon, heck he may have been high fiving people over it behind closed doors. Then again maybe he didn't. I don't know because I've not heard any statements for or against the balloon made my Khan and permitting the balloon isn't in and of itself evidence of endorsement. He was complicit in a deliberate insult to a visiting POTUS. Your dishonesty just merges into idiocy to pretend otherwise. Freedom of speech without the right to cause offence isn't freedom of speech. |
|
