Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

They fought and died for our freedom


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#21 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:49 PM

Though the article is somehwat misleading. Burning poppies isn't illegal but deliberately provocative behaviour can be. Peverse but still the law.

#22 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:38 PM

People fought and died so that we can set fire to poppies if we choose.

In the film The American President there's a speech which seems relevant..

Good speech, that, and sums up the American interpretation of freedom of speech. However, under the last government any resemblence the British version may have had to that interpretation was lost. I'd love to see Guardianistas approving of that interpretation of free speech being adopted here. I'd love to see it adopted but the resulting fireworks would be quite a display. Outrage!

#23 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,675 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:40 PM

Though the article is somehwat misleading. Burning poppies isn't illegal but deliberately provocative behaviour can be. Peverse but still the law.

Agree all the way.

I buy 3 or 4 every year and also lay a wreath for an old mate (GNR EDMUND FRANK MULLER 11/01/77: IRA sniper at VCP in Old Park area of Belfast).

Eddie was the son of a German P.O.W. who stopped in this country after his release to marry Eddie's mother, Eddie was a couple of years younger than me but we knocked about in the same crowd when we where kids. R.I.P. Eddie.

Edited by Marauder, 12 November 2012 - 07:53 PM.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#24 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,685 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:11 PM

Good speech, that, and sums up the American interpretation of freedom of speech. However, under the last government any resemblence the British version may have had to that interpretation was lost. I'd love to see Guardianistas approving of that interpretation of free speech being adopted here. I'd love to see it adopted but the resulting fireworks would be quite a display. Outrage!

That is exactly the type (if there more than one kind if free speech) that Guardian readers and lefties want. It tends to be right wing publications that get outraged at the drop of a hat.
Fides invicta triumphat

#25 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:24 PM

Sev - you seem to have forgotten the BNP hysteria that there was across the country. We had debates as to whether BNP members should be banned from certain professions. It's not what I would call free speech.

#26 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:27 PM

Good speech, that, and sums up the American interpretation of freedom of speech. However, under the last government any resemblence the British version may have had to that interpretation was lost. I'd love to see Guardianistas approving of that interpretation of free speech being adopted here. I'd love to see it adopted but the resulting fireworks would be quite a display. Outrage!


Have you tried reading the Guardian. You might find that "Guardianistas" don't believe what you think they believe.

That's me.  I'm done.


#27 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:30 PM

Sev - you seem to have forgotten the BNP hysteria that there was across the country. We had debates as to whether BNP members should be banned from certain professions. It's not what I would call free speech.


There was a debate about it? And that's not free speech?


Free speech must, by definition, allow for people to argue against it. Hopefully, people arguing that will lose.

That's me.  I'm done.


#28 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:40 PM

That is exactly the type (if there more than one kind if free speech) that Guardian readers and lefties want. It tends to be right wing publications that get outraged at the drop of a hat.

Well, you've mentioned Guardian readers but right wing publications! So are we talking readers or publications here? I regularly read both the Guardian and Telegraph forums online but I actually read The Times newspaper. I don't even think about reading the tabloids, regardless of their political shade. I find exactly the same sort of outrage! on both the Guardian and Telegraph forums but they just get all outraged about different things. So your Guardianista would throw a wobbler at anyone wanting to preserve a religious tradition, for example, or protest against gay marriage. A Telegraph reader would throw a wobbler at anyone wanting to liberalise immigration or promote birth control to under 16s. (Random examples in all cases - there are loads more that could be applied!) The issues are different but the outrage! is just the same.

#29 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:49 PM

There was a debate about it? And that's not free speech?


Free speech must, by definition, allow for people to argue against it. Hopefully, people arguing that will lose.


The debate is free speech but it is disingenuous that Guardianistas were arguing for the rights of the police / teachers / nurses to be BNP members. Some might have done but it was nothing like Sev suggests.

#30 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:02 PM

The debate is free speech but it is disingenuous that Guardianistas were arguing for the rights of the police / teachers / nurses to be BNP members. Some might have done but it was nothing like Sev suggests.

I rather think the Guardianistas were arguing in favour of locking the lot of them up!

#31 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,685 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:00 PM

Well, you've mentioned Guardian readers but right wing publications! So are we talking readers or publications here?

Sorry I've mixed readers and publications. Won't do it again :rolleyes:

FWIW IMO the left are more likely to be on the side of free speech than the right. As we all seemed to agree on, free speech must mean that all views and opinions, no matter how abhorrent you find them, should be able to be legitimately aired.

Edited by Severus, 12 November 2012 - 11:08 PM.

Fides invicta triumphat

#32 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:05 PM

So your Guardianista would throw a wobbler at anyone wanting to preserve a religious tradition, for example, or protest against gay marriage. A Telegraph reader would throw a wobbler at anyone wanting to liberalise immigration or promote birth control to under 16s. (Random examples in all cases - there are loads more that could be applied!) The issues are different but the outrage! is just the same.



The Guardianista throwing a wobbler at someone wanting to preserve a religious tradition *is* free speech in action. If the religious traditionalists don't like it, I suggest they wake up a bit and start debating.

Your Telegraph reader is, likewise, perfectly entitled to throw his wobbler at anyone wanting to liberalise immigration if he chooses. But he can't expect to get away with it unchallenged.


It seems to me that a lot of people think free speech is basically the right to say whatever you want without being challenged on it and then they see argument against them as some kind of affront to their basic human rights.

Edited by Steve May, 12 November 2012 - 11:07 PM.

That's me.  I'm done.


#33 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:09 PM

FWIW IMO the left are more likely to be on the side of free speech than the right. As we all seemed to agree on, free speech must mean that all views and opinions, no matter how abhorrent you find them, should be able to be legitimately aired.


Yes. But it certainly doesn't mean that all views and opinions are equally valid or due the same level of respect.

That's me.  I'm done.


#34 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,685 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:33 PM

Yes. But it certainly doesn't mean that all views and opinions are equally valid or due the same level of respect.

Indeed, and I agree with your comment about views being challenged.
Fides invicta triumphat

#35 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:40 AM

Indeed, and I agree with your comment about views being challenged.


The trouble with the liberal left and their tradition of "challenging ideas" that they don't like is that they only do this to white conservatives or the white far-right. Other extremists are tolerated on the grounds of "it's their culture" (unless they are Jewish).

#36 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,632 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:44 AM

FWIW IMO the left are more likely to be on the side of free speech than the right.


In my view that is not correct and not supportable by any evidence.

#37 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,632 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:57 AM

There were millions of German etc soldiers killed in the 1st ww, too.As we approach the centenary of the start of this terrible war, maybe we should spare a thought for those, too and in the name of humanity join with Germany in rememberance.

#38 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:04 AM

We do.

#39 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,862 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:08 AM

There were millions of German etc soldiers killed in the 1st ww, too.As we approach the centenary of the start of this terrible war, maybe we should spare a thought for those, too and in the name of humanity join with Germany in rememberance.


I've been to several German war cemetries. They are particularly moving places - especially those of the conscripted soldiers from the second world war.

There are three names per cross at this cemetry for the German dead of the Battle of the Bulge

Posted Image

We have fought lots of countries - all but 22 in the world apparently. Should we invite them all over as well?
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#40 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,121 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:02 AM

The trouble with the liberal left and their tradition of "challenging ideas" that they don't like is that they only do this to white conservatives or the white far-right. Other extremists are tolerated on the grounds of "it's their culture" (unless they are Jewish).



bit of an over geberalisation there NS
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users