Road rules2 mins ago
About Time ?
22 Answers
May to call for new powers to ban extremist groups
http://
And not before time in my opinion, for far too long we have put up with people spouting vile and inciting our youngsters on our streets (include Mosques in that).
Yes, it will impinge on freedom of speech, but for the vast majority it will make no difference whatsoever in what they can say.
The only thing I would like to see is that this is thought out and not rushed through so preventing it's misuse.
No doubt the Metropolitan elite will be along to shoot me down shortly.
http://
And not before time in my opinion, for far too long we have put up with people spouting vile and inciting our youngsters on our streets (include Mosques in that).
Yes, it will impinge on freedom of speech, but for the vast majority it will make no difference whatsoever in what they can say.
The only thing I would like to see is that this is thought out and not rushed through so preventing it's misuse.
No doubt the Metropolitan elite will be along to shoot me down shortly.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Just *** waffle to cheer up the beleagued delegates at the Party Conference.
'Extremism ASBOs' won't happen for two reasons.
1. They have not been properly thought out, they are just a soundbite.
2. It depends on the Conservatives winning the General Election with a working majority, which they won't.
'Extremism ASBOs' won't happen for two reasons.
1. They have not been properly thought out, they are just a soundbite.
2. It depends on the Conservatives winning the General Election with a working majority, which they won't.
youngmafbog - "Yes, it will impinge on freedom of speech, but for the vast majority it will make no difference whatsoever in what they can say."
In the oft quoted statement on the issue of free speech - "Free speech does not entitle one to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre ..."
I would argue that there is no imposition on the concept of free speech.
Free speech does not entitle these hate preachers to insice hatred as they do - they simply abuse that freedom beyond reasomable limits.
As you advise, it will make no difference to the majority - if any of these deluded individuals would like to take their case to the ECOHR, I am sure they would be given short shrift ...
Hang on, I haven't thought this through have I ...
Humour aside, I think your point is a valid one.
In the oft quoted statement on the issue of free speech - "Free speech does not entitle one to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre ..."
I would argue that there is no imposition on the concept of free speech.
Free speech does not entitle these hate preachers to insice hatred as they do - they simply abuse that freedom beyond reasomable limits.
As you advise, it will make no difference to the majority - if any of these deluded individuals would like to take their case to the ECOHR, I am sure they would be given short shrift ...
Hang on, I haven't thought this through have I ...
Humour aside, I think your point is a valid one.
Every Home Secretary (of Labour and Conservative) has tried to grab more powers, and May is no exception. Under Blair, the Home Secretary was given greater powers in the Terrorism Acts of 2000 and 2006.
The extra powers usually seem to be the Home Secretary wants arbitary power to detain people who he/she does not like, but haven't broken any laws.
I would sooner the laws were changed to make it harder for hate preachers to practice rather than give Theresa May (or her probable successor, Yvette Cooper) even more power to by pass existing laws.
The extra powers usually seem to be the Home Secretary wants arbitary power to detain people who he/she does not like, but haven't broken any laws.
I would sooner the laws were changed to make it harder for hate preachers to practice rather than give Theresa May (or her probable successor, Yvette Cooper) even more power to by pass existing laws.
//I would sooner the laws were changed to make it harder for hate preachers to practice rather than give Theresa May (or her probable successor, Yvette Cooper) even more power to by pass existing laws.//
Yes, I would have to agree, but laws like this always seem to have holes that the likes of Chowdry will use. It then takes too long for the law to catch up.
Yes, I would have to agree, but laws like this always seem to have holes that the likes of Chowdry will use. It then takes too long for the law to catch up.
// "The problem that we have had is this distinction of saying we will only go after you if you are an extremist that directly supports violence.
"It has left the field open for extremists who know how not to step over the line. But these are people who have radicalised young minds and led to people heading off to Syria or Iraq to take part in this ghastly slaughter." //
It's purpose then is basically to shut Anjem Choudary up, or put him in prison.
I'm all for it.
"It has left the field open for extremists who know how not to step over the line. But these are people who have radicalised young minds and led to people heading off to Syria or Iraq to take part in this ghastly slaughter." //
It's purpose then is basically to shut Anjem Choudary up, or put him in prison.
I'm all for it.
Unfortunately (it seems sometimes) locking up people who haven't broken the law, but merely espouse unpopular views, is not something a free and democratic country does. Jailing people for not agreeing with the Government is what happens in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the other despotic states. They may have no trouble from unruly elements, but they are horrible regimes to live under, and we should do our best not to end up the same as them.
A little too late, and why do we have to wait before a Tory Government is re-elected, why not now?
We saw terrorism on our streets when the IRA were attacking us, so you would have thought that we would have leant from experience what strict security measures to take before this new lot were welcomed into our country.
We saw terrorism on our streets when the IRA were attacking us, so you would have thought that we would have leant from experience what strict security measures to take before this new lot were welcomed into our country.
@youngmafbog
What if they use these laws to stop people speaking out about immigration, to stop religious types speaking out about gay marriage, or about anything 'edgy' which is upsetting to one subset of the population or other?
What if there was a full-blown STFU law?
http://
(Today I learned: The British Press used to have to get a licence to print. We've only had 'freedom of the Press' for a shade over 300 years.)
What if they use these laws to stop people speaking out about immigration, to stop religious types speaking out about gay marriage, or about anything 'edgy' which is upsetting to one subset of the population or other?
What if there was a full-blown STFU law?
http://
(Today I learned: The British Press used to have to get a licence to print. We've only had 'freedom of the Press' for a shade over 300 years.)
@Khandro
//I wasn't aware that opposition to "gay marriage" was exclusive to "religious types".//
Neither was I. Did I say that? Or did you read that into my words? Kindly don't do that.
If non-religious types ever moaned about gay marriage, there can't have been many of them, or their PR was particularly ineffective. Can you name one whose name I might recognise?
(Not that I'd care much, since I had no stake in either side of the debate).
//I wasn't aware that opposition to "gay marriage" was exclusive to "religious types".//
Neither was I. Did I say that? Or did you read that into my words? Kindly don't do that.
If non-religious types ever moaned about gay marriage, there can't have been many of them, or their PR was particularly ineffective. Can you name one whose name I might recognise?
(Not that I'd care much, since I had no stake in either side of the debate).
