Looking Back In Time.

[anotheoldgit]

Any other old white man, noticed that their freedom of speech and the other priorities that they once enjoyed as a native Englishman, have now diminished from those that they once enjoyed during the 1950's era?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // There you go again pointing out to other that I am racist, and don't deny it this time, man up and come out with it. //

I did not point out that you are a racist, I pointed out that what you said was racist, and there is a difference which I have pointed out to you times without number.

I have said endless times, and for your benefit, since your memory is so unreliable, I will repeat it again - I do not believe that you are a racist.

However, I do believe that you offer statements that could be construed as such.

If you check back, you will notice that I am always really careful to distance you directly from your carelessly worded offerings, I did say that you 'seem' to hark back to earlier times, not that you actually did.

If you took the time to read and understand what I and others actually say, you could save valuable time and blood-pressure by not leaping to the defensive and shrieking about getting posts removed because you don't like them.

It's a debate, a lively debate, conducted by adults, so by all means join in, but if you are joining in, then be prepared to be challenged and argued with over your statements, and not to go crying to the Editor because someone gives you something you give out on a daily basis - robust views.

[Zacs-Master]

I'd contest (quite strongly) that AOG's points are robust. They're anything but, which is why most of his posts descend into arguments caused by his inability to produce any evidence to make them so (robust).

[andy-hughes]

Zacs - // 'd contest (quite strongly) that AOG's points are robust. They're anything but, which is why most of his posts descend into arguments caused by his inability to produce any evidence to make them so (robust). //

On consideration of your point, I would amend my observation to say that AOG's presentation of his views is robust, rather than perhaps the views themselves.

It's a small difference, but an important one, rather like appearing to post like a racist, while not actually being one.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// and not to go crying to the Editor because someone gives you something you give out on a daily basis - robust views. ///

How would you know if I went 'crying to the Editor' if you aren't using your position as a moderator to find out these things?
But for your information, to which you are obviously aware of, there is only one person that I have reported for abusive comment, which is against Site Rules and which you are forever reminding us of, but it seems that one as to be a protected member to get away with the type of comment Islay as made, but since it hasn't been removed, then perhaps the likes of you have been on duty today and with your response to me on this thread and others, can the likes of me be protected against those who constantly break Site Rules and continue to get away with it?

The said post:

/// Oh grow up AOG - you have been asked time and time again to tell us exactly what you have lost - and so far its has been the right to use a load of nasty names!
Act your age not your shoe size man!! ///

If I had put:
/// Oh grow up Islay - you have been asked time and time again to tell us exactly what you have lost - and so far its has been the right to use a load of nasty names!
Act your age not your shoe size Woman!!

Both you and her, would be accusing me of being rude.

[pixie374]

Free speech, aog. Enjoy it :-) xx

[douglas9401]

Some people do abuse the privilege though. :-)

[vetuste_ennemi]

Any conclusions after post 305 (and a very good post it was, too)?

Yes, I think so. Does anybody disagree with me that not only are many of these three hundred posts likely[i to cause offence, but are [i]intended[i] to cause offence?

Therefore most of us believe freedom of speech [i]does] entail the right to be offensive, don't we?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // How would you know if I went 'crying to the Editor' if you aren't using your position as a moderator to find out these things? //

With apologies to everyone else who knows this already, because I and others have told AOG dozens of times -

Neither I and my fellow Moderators have access to the mails sent to the Editor and his team, so I don't know, or indeed care, either way.

// But for your information, to which you are obviously aware of, there is only one person that I have reported for abusive comment ... //

Please refer to the response above.

[Spicerack]

Yes, VE, I've been following the stories of the 3 far-right 'activists' who were detained by our Border Force. (who'd have guessed we had one)
Tommy Robinson was going to read a free-speech speech by Sellner at Speakers Corner on Sunday.
Should be interesting........ if it isn't banned. ;o)

[-Talbot-]

[vetuste_ennemi]

Orwellian and farcical at the same time, Spicerack. The British Gestapo asking the toothsome Lauren Southern what she'd feel about someone driving a truck into a crowd of - wait for it - Muslims. And then banned from the UK because "her presence in the UK [would not be] conducive to the public good”.

[-Talbot-]

There are some passionate defenders of 'freedom of speech' on AB ... but they are very quiet on the current events.

[Spicerack]

Orwell must be spinning in his grave given the state of this country today.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Thinking about the OP, we still had censorship (ended 1960?), but we didn't have thugs in uniform enforcing it.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//Orwell must be spinning in his grave given the state of this country today//

Yes, indeed. In his day most of the British Left, if not most of its "intellectuals", were decent patriots.