Katie Tells Tony Blair About It.

[Khandro]

Love her (I do) or hate her, isn't she rapidly becoming a national treasure?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/769289/katie-hopkins-lbc-blasts-tony-blair-over-rise-up-brexit-speech

[Mamyalynne]

Is it?

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // You were aware of one on Saturday when you said this :

//The lady could have used any number of excuses - she was too busy would be the most obvious,//

You said she should have lied rather than speak freely because the law, in that instance, doesn’t allow her to speak freely. //

I said she could have offered an excuse, which does not have to be a lie. Free speech does not entitle you to break the law, anymore than it allows you falsely to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. Her free speech was not curtailed, her inability to break the law was enacted - the two are entirely exclusive.

// Cassa333 is absolutely right. Free speech is curtailed. //

I won't post 'rubbish' or similar - as you usually do when you disagree, I will simply say that I disagree.
To address the topic, Katie Hopkins does say what a lot of people are thinking but are too afraid to say. I like her.

[Jackdaw33]

//Her free speech was not curtailed, her inability to break the law was enacted - the two are entirely exclusive. \\

Prière de traduire en anglais.

[andy-hughes]

//To address the topic, Katie Hopkins does say what a lot of people are thinking but are too afraid to say. I like her. //

That last bit of my previous post was left on in error - it is Naomi's quote rather than mine, and I wish to be disassociated from it.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, your last post to me is a bit garbled. I’ve no idea why you mentioned ‘rubbish’ – not something I said – and you’ve copied and pasted the last paragraph of my previous post and left it at that. Anyway …..

//I said she could have offered an excuse, which does not have to be a lie.//

But it would have been a lie – a deliberate lie. Her freedom of speech was restricted.

[andy-hughes]

jackdaw - ////Her free speech was not curtailed, her inability to break the law was enacted - the two are entirely exclusive. \\

Prière de traduire en anglais. //

The lady was not prevented from exercising her right to free speech, because a right to free speech does not entitle you to break the law - the concept is neatly outlined in the famous quote referring to free speech not entitling an individual falsely to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

The lady chose to break the law by acting against it, and she was duly held to account.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //and you’ve copied and pasted the last paragraph of my previous post and left it at that. Anyway ….. //

As explained, that was in error.

//I said she could have offered an excuse, which does not have to be a lie.//

But it would have been a lie – a deliberate lie. //

Unfortunately, if common decency and courtesy - in this case backed up by legal statute - means that you have to tell a minor untruth in order to avoid being offensive, as well as breaking the law, then that is simply the way it is.

Insisting on voicing your personal predjudicces is offensive and self-centered, as well as being in this case illegal, and the woman in question was rightly prosecuted for it.

// Her freedom of speech was restricted. // Please see my post to jackdaw containing the 'Free speech / shouting 'Fire!' explanation.

[SnookerPlayer]

Yes, she is a national treasure, end of. (hopefully)

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, The misunderstanding would appear to be on your part when you said // I am unaware of anyone who feels 'cowed' into not saying what they think.// For whatever reason the fact is the law, in many instances, doesn’t allow people to say what they think, and therefore freedom of speech is curtailed.

[Jackdaw33]

Naomi, you and I are flogging a dead horse.

[naomi24]

jackdaw, onwards! ;o)

[Jackdaw33]

One of my posts has been removed too. All I implied was that I would not consider the Guardian as a suitable substitute for Andrex, couched in the most delicate of terms.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, The misunderstanding would appear to be on your part when you said // I am unaware of anyone who feels 'cowed' into not saying what they think.// For whatever reason the fact is the law, in many instances, doesn’t allow people to say what they think, and therefore freedom of speech is curtailed. //

Are you aware of any instances - apart from where the law protects against predudice, as in this instance - where the law curtails free speech? I'd be interested to know.

[andy-hughes]

jackdaw - //Naomi, you and I are flogging a dead horse. //

I know from long experience that Naomi is a woman secure in her views, and willing to fight for them - and you appear willing to sail under her colours.

But do you think that if it is only you who understand / misunderstand (delete as you think fit) the situation here - maybe there's a reason why there is just the two of you/

Food for thought ..

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //apart from …//

… says it all. Speech is not ‘free’.

Your post at 17:13, What on earth are you talking about?

[agchristie]

I remember hearing members of the public who were being stopped on the street, young and old, as well as those who appeared on TV discussion programmes such as Question Time, regularly stating that they didn't understand the complexities of what they were voting for.

I would be willing to bet that this was typical of a considerable amount of voters who, even at the final stages, weren't sure what the issues were.

The same was true of the Scottish independence referendum.

Why was this? Partly because of the myths peddled by both sides of the debate.

I voted leave despite being uncertain in sone areas. If I was asked the same question today I would not be as confident although I still think I made the right call.

However, my point is, I am more concerned than I was and I certainly have become more bothered about one or two issues such as 'shrinkflation'. That is to say, that European import taxes are putting food prices at risk. In many cases, consumers are paying more for less as manufacturers are trying to con the public over their packaging.

I've not referred to either Hopkins or Blair as I don't need either of them telling me to either condemn or 'rise up'.

The nation voted for Brexit by a small margin and that should be honoured and let's hope that there is no interference by the H of Lords.

All I am saying is that there is considerably more to the whole question of Brexit than immigration and open border issues.

Can we really hand on heart say that we fully understand some of the other complexities and isn't it in all our interests to enquire a little bit further?

This doesn't mean that I am advocating a second referendum or that we should 'rise up'.

It would be silly to ignore matters that will affect us all such as the value of the pound in our pocket...

[agchristie]

Divebuddy, no not at all. Please don't misunderstand me, I did say that the outcome of the referendum should be honoured and that the peers should not interfere. I also said that I voted for leave though I am not as certain as I was, but still believe I made the right decision.

There are many uncertainties but these are outweighed by the benefits of leaving.

I just don't like the sneaky, underhanded tactics such as that mentioned by sections of the food industry for example.

[douglas9401]

"Your post at 17:13, What on earth are you talking about?"

Allow me. Na na na na na, my gang's bigger than your gang.

Little victories. :)