Off Topic Political Debate

Is that you Leo ?????

It appears so - I am so glad that you are taking such a positive stand to protect England's Saxon heritage, against the Norman aristocracy which was forced on us all them years ago. But what sort of government is based on pulling swords out of ponds which some tart had left there ?

 

A mythical one.
The clue is in my signature (for now). I am not sure that the Saxons of Danish/Scandinavian descent were far removed from the Norman/ Scandinavians were they? We are all Indo-Europeans aren't we?
Is tart a type of pie or some politically incorrect phrase I am not familiar with?

 

Actually I'm not sure if we allow Kings on here - we are a people's collective after all. Or is this a deference to Arthur Scargill ? We are all Indo-Europeans but the Saxon monarchy was at least an elective one, which is some consolation.

 

Unfortunately though Arthur was not a Saxon but fought the Saxons. He was of a mystical, magical, celtic background.

 

You are conveniently moving the discussion away from the current prevalent problem in the UK with young Momentum and far left groups shutting down debate because they don't like the message from their political opponents. It is censorship well practiced in extreme left and right states and should be resisted at all costs.

 

Cologne: "Our 'news' is monitored daily, and every political system controls what is on offer in terms of eg. sexual explicitness, violence on TV. material which is considered as incitement to violence or is of an overtly racial nature. Just as slander and libel are also controlled. The British establishment 'controls' every bit as much as eg. Putin, it is just less obvious".
Do you equate choosing not to publish certain things and avoiding something considered offensive as the same as not allowing another person to speak in a public forum?

 

I don't think that anybody has prevented another person from speaking on a public forum Leo. What we have done is to try to prevent abusive and insulting behaviour and to keep the forum as a pleasant place to be. The shade of a persons politics do not bother me, but constant sniping and deliberate winding up of other posters, together with hurling of insults is another matter.

 

Slight confusion between Arthur and Alfred - it was a hard night last night

 

I don't think he is talking about the forum but groups of left wing activists in universities and other places deciding on who we should listen to. This is simply not acceptable. Momentum is not only trying to take over the Labour Party but control the rest of us.

 

I was not referring to the squabbles on here which I intend to ignore.
I was referring to students who ban speakers at their universities. When younger I went to hear Michael Foot on one side and Enoch Powell on the other extreme. I would have fought anybody who tried to stop them coming to speak. Ultimately foolish people and bigots expose themselves with their tomfoolery - you need to shine a light on people whose views are abhorrent (I confess I liked Foot but not Powell)

 

I thought that you were moving the discussion away SH. with your championing of Churchill. However, you are moving close to the project fear techniques which you accuse your opponents of. You cannot accept that Jeremy Corbyn has more support within the party than any Labour leader for God knows how many years - not, however within the PLP. The grass roots of the party have always been to the left of those in parliament and what we are now seeing is that the grass roots are asserting themselves - what we are seeing there is a democratic revolution, which happens to, also, be left wing. Bearing in mind that Momentum, as a group, make up no more than about one in twenty of all members, and that they bar entry to those who have connections to other left wing groups - then the 'project fear' campaign levelled against them appears pure paranoia and targeted propaganda against Corbyn.

 

I agree on principle Leo, but there are times when a public speech can be incendiary, and the prevention of which may be justified if it could result in a breach of the peace. Would you allow an Ian Paisley speech in a completely Catholic area ? Or an EDL march through the most Islamic area of London ? I know that we disagree on this from the Charlie Hebdo debate. A speech can be prevented if the content is so alien to the receiving public that a public order issue could arise as a result - but only then.

 

Strange that I can't see one mention of Momentum in the entire article - so it appears that you didn't read it before importing it. The fact that Peter Tatchell appears to be behind the article doesn't lend itself to being an attack on Momentum.

 

I would be very cautious of claims of potential breach of the peace - but if the police genuinely felt it could incite violence I guess you would have to listen to them. i might just allow Paisley to speak where he likes -and if he wanted special public protection he would have to pay for it - and if he did not have it then more fool him. Probably though I would not let him speak if he had deliberately picked an audience to inflame.
Similarly I would not allow an EDL march to go to certain places - reluctantly.
I don't remember the Charlie Hebdo debate on here.
However I would take the rule that says people cannot threaten violence against a person they do not like in order to prevent them from being heard. The police also have a duty to peaceful people - like most students - who want to hear a person speak and judge for themselves. Any failure of free speech is a failure of society. Once you allow mobs to dictate you have lost a lot of your freedom.

 

I agree Leo (or King ) - I do not know of the case referred to but if it was simply a case of a mob preventing someone, then it must be condemned. However, certain people appear to be drawing a link to Momentum and to Corbyn which is unreasonable and propagandist. The issue of free speech and free assembly is a hot issue here in Germany because most Turks living here still have voting rights in Turkey, and, unfortunately, some Turkish politicians have seen it as their right to hold political meetings here in Germany - including Erdogan, who has spoken here in Cologne. The result is we have Turkish and Kurdish rallies which have to be kept separate, the costs of which are paid by my taxes. It also places the police in an impossible situation. Yet Erdogan says we are stifling free speech (and uses the old Nazi accusation) when Germany says it doesn't want Turkish politics played out on German soil. Would you allow a Polish politician to electioneer in Britain ? The Charlie Hebdo debate was a while ago - I thought you were invloved, but I may have been mistaken. Obviously this was on the issue of free speech (or rather publication) in which my position was that material which was only designed to inflame should not be allowed.

 

They tried to ban Germaine Greer on transgender issues. The extreme left love censorship, it is what they always resort to.

Why are conservative speakers usually banned or unwelcome at ...

 

Once again are you actually reading material before posting it ? This inserted material appears to be American.

 

Quite easy to make a mistake when the same thing is happening in the UK. The left wing thinks it can decide on who should be listened to. Why are they frightened of free speech?

 

I suggest you check up on material before inserting it. There was another one earlier which also had nothing to do with momentum whatsoever.

 

Of course you have nothing to say about the anti democratic behaviour of far left wing groups stifling debates by only allowing their own propaganda to be heard. This echoes the antics of Momentum as it insidiously takes over the Labour Party.