Hillsborough; 35yrs on...

Someone has written into our local paper saying the same as me.. It's not me by the way honest..

http://m.worcesternews.co.uk/news/1..._shirt_mocking_Hillsborough_victims/?ref=fbpg

It isn't me

 

I know you're a ****er

 

How very dare you!!!

....yeh ok fair enough

 

On free speech - where do you draw the line? Say anything you like, regardless of the consequences? Do anything you like- ditto?
We're supposed to be a society, what's so wrong about showing some consideration for those around you?
I'm not talking about banter on here, but out in the real world anyone who feels the need to indiscriminately offend others is pretty sad themselves, imo.

 

in theory the majority created hate crime legislation and like it or no democrac is majority rules.. so free speech? what free speech?

 

Exactly. The free speech argument doesn't extend as far as being allowed to call someone a "nigger" but we'll all call someone a "twat" from time to time workout a moments thought for consequences.

Having it on a t-shirt rather than saying it doesn't really change anything.

Mocking death happens all the time in comedy circles and in real life too (who hasn't heard or told a Jimmy Saville or Michael Jackson joke).

I think arguments are currently based around intentions which is always going to be vague since the only person who really knows what the intentions are is the persons "causing offence".

This is where I have no sympathy to the Hillsborough t-shirt wearer. He had no intention but aggregation, what else could he have been doing?

 

Staying on the subject the thread is about and including peoples right to free speech, the SYP, the government, the gutter press, Boris(the ****)Johnson and others all used their right to free speech, most of it to spout lies and poison about those who died, their families, LFC and an entire city and its inhabitants.
The bellend in the t-shirt is just the tip of the iceberg when showing what damage the above mentioned right to free speech can do and did do for 27 years.

 

Not one person with any opinion on here about free speech has ANY sympathy for the prick in the tshirt. And I think if you want to look at the whole debate about free speech you have to objectively.

After all, where do you draw the line. An offensive remark against Hillsborough will clearly mean more to you than others. While an offensive remark about the nazi's will mean less to you than the survivor of the holocaust.

Mito's spot on when he says "what free speech?". 10 years ago if I didnt like something I could paint a placard and protest outside my MP's office or the houses of parliament. Now I need to apply for a permit. A ****ing permit ffs! We ARE voting away our rights gradually. Freedom of speech is not perfect but overall it does far more good than bad. And as a society we are without doubt better off for it imo.

 

So basically, we're moaning about not being able to moan Gotcha

 

That's the way you may see it. I dont find the right to free speech so trivial. It's bigger than some dick in a tshirt. I can only paraphrase Voltaire - I detest what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it (although he was talking about writing).

 

Going along your lines of free speech (for everything), would you accept people using the word "nigger" in a description context?

It's ****ing bollocks mate. no way should everyone be allowed to say whatever the **** they like, there HAS to be limits. And this is coming from someone who pretty much does say as he likes too, I just have the common sense to know when and where.

 

Mate one of the biggest hits of last year had the word nigger in it and nobody batted an eyelid lol.

I did say earlier that where someone states something libelous or slanderous, because it's aimed at someone specific THAT person should have every right to take legal action. But then that's a civil case, NOT a criminal one which is where you're handing over power to the state.

 

Many batted their eyelids when Suarez used a derivative of the "n" word, were they right to?


Calling someone a "ginger twat" or similar can't be equal with what tshirt gobshite did just because both came from freedom of speech.

 

There's a difference between knowing something is considered offensive by some and being offended oneself.
If I heard a Munich joke I might not be offended personally, but I would realise that many others are so I wouldn't condone its use.

Getting back to the existence of these laws - well we have to have them. Like everything else, if we don't have some sort of guideline or restriction then we just have anarchy. Where we draw the line will always be subjective and open to debate, but that's always going to happen because we have a wide range of views.
Having the law on statute means there is due process available when somebody clearly oversteps the mark, it doesn't mean it has to be enforced routinely and for trivial matters.
We live in an imperfect society and we always have to be wary of the use of the law for political ends or as a means of suppression, but the fact that we're even having this debate shows that we're a long way from some Orwellian dystopia.

Where to draw the line is a problem, but we do have to have a line somewhere. The plain fact is that if there weren't so many utter pricks around we wouldn't need anti-prick laws.
But there are, so we do.

 

Ironically you've taken away the very part of my post that explains that. Using the word nigger is offensive but imo is someone's right to use it no matter how offensive. However, if you go upto someone and call them a nigger, then that person is well within their rights to take some form of legal recourse. It's then a civil matter. The whole crux of my argument is that it shouldn't be a criminal matter where the police or state are involved. The minute we do that we're curtailing our right to free speech from the state.

 

Of course I see your point but I don't agree and not just for the sake of it, if I called you a twat on and you got upset and/or distressed by it you'd have a hard job getting me arrested, on the other hand if you call me a murderer because I killed my own in 89 and I happen to have lost a close family member or a close friend or been affected by the tragedy the police would have no problem arresting you for causing me distress and anquish and making malicious allegations, and rightly so imo.

But I'm off to get me 'ead down trebs, night mate.

 

Ahhh but that's exactly where I disagree. You don't need an Orwellian dystopia, you just need to be on the end of it. You may not have been, but plenty of people have been or could be. Individual cases where people's right to criticise or protest or express an opinion has ended up with careers being wrecked, ppl being placed on a police databanks or even being arrested and cautioned. Now does it matter to those individuals the fact we're not in an Orwellian dystopia? Well to them it probably feels like one at the time and that's the point. One day if it happens to be something you feel passionate enough about, it could be you. Until it touches you it seems like a long way away.

By the way I'm not sure why ppl keep posting phrases like "sympathise" or "condone" and I think that's where the problem lies. By saying you protect the right for someone's free speech does not in any way shape or form mean you're sympathising or condoning what they're saying. I've never also known any anarchy from any freedom of speech that didnt directly incite violence. That's where the line for any law should be drawn imo, not for some berk to be wearing a tshirt or making munich chants.

 

Yep @Page_Moss_Kopite I think I want to draw a line under this as well. Also the thread is probably veering away from what it originally was for, and this whole thing about freedom of speech probably didn't need this much time given to it on here. Goodnight mate

 

Absolutely disgusting and callous behaviour by Greater Manchester Police.

Greater Manchester Police apologises for poster showing dying Hillsborough fans

Greater Manchester Police today apologised for using a photo of Liverpool fans being crushed at Hillsborough on a poster that asked: “Can you pick out a face in a crowd of people?”

The harrowing image that showed supporters dying in the Leppings Lane stand was emailed to police employees on Wednesday.

One of them informed the ECHO after being left ashamed of the force’s actions.
They said: “I was incredibly shocked that a police force would choose to use such an image to send to their staff.
“A lot of staff come from Liverpool or follow the team and this is a highly emotive subject.”



Assistant Chief Constable Robert Potts said he was “deeply sorry” for the force’s “completely inappropriate” use of the image.

The poster was advertising a new initiative at Greater Manchester Police called ‘Super Recognisers’.

The aim was to find officers who have a particular skill for recognising faces that can help identify unknown criminals on CCTV.

Mr Potts said: “It was brought to the attention of senior officers that a poster had been circulated around the force advertising for ‘Super Recognisers’.

“This is an initiative to identify members of staff who have a high ability to recognise individuals that they have previously seen, often years later."

“This poster contained an image of the Hillsborough disaster in progress, a distressing image which was completely inappropriate for such use.

“The poster, which was only ever circulated internally within the force, was immediately recalled and the offending image was removed within 90 minutes of its initial circulation.”

Mr Potts continued: “The use of this image was not intended to offend but to demonstrate how ‘Super Recognisers’ can greatly assist ongoing investigations.

“The ‘Super Recognisers’ technique has been successfully used in a number of complex national investigations to identify potential witnesses as well as suspects."

“We acted swiftly to remove the offending image and limit the distress caused, however, I recognise that the use of this image was obviously inappropriate and I am deeply sorry for the upset and offence that this has caused.”

Greater Manchester police and crime commissioner Tony Lloyd added: “The use of this image was wholly inappropriate and should never have happened.

“Senior GMP officers have rightly acted quickly to remove this poster from circulation and have apologised.

“I have also asked GMP to make contact with the families of the Hillsborough victims to apologise to them directly for any further distress this has caused them.

“Hillsborough families have fought long and hard for justice, they don’t need this as a reminder.”

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...-manchester-police-apologises-poster-11454709


The person or people responsible for GMP media could have chosen a up to date photo of any large crowd at any location or event(preferably from their own jurisdiction) for this exercise, but the ****s chose a photo of the dead, mangled, blue, lifeless and broken bodies of innocent football supporters from 27 years ago to highlight the job of spotting known criminals.

Fair play to the GM police commissioner for his decency, but considering the high profile inquests that only finished a few weeks ago and the fact that their SY colleagues got shown up for the liars and possible criminals they are there appears to be an agenda as to why the picture chosen was from Hillsborough.

 

There should be a job lost over it... no question. theres no excuse for this.