Aristocrat guilty over Gina Miller post

[DonQuixote99]

Someone gets convicted under the malicious communication Act, I point out that people might want to consider the implications of that in light of how they post on a forum, and you want me to then provide all the examples of that? Really?

You seem to have a glitch in your capacity for verbal reasoning.

You seem to have a glitch in your capacity for honesty. Do you really think the part bolded above is an accurate reprise of your original claim from post 5, quoted below?

Wow, a few posts here could probably similarly qualify as malicious communications in that case.

You also dishonestly insert an 'all' into the request for examples.

 

[TheDecameron]

Kardhore is permanently banned as he's an alter-ego of another banned user who may or may not be a van driving resident of a famously open minded seaside resort.

Kar dhore- He's taken a few off in his time. The syntax was well disguised with only the potty mouthed direct abuse being similar. Maybe the van driver has a like minded lodger?

 

[kendo]

Sorry Kendo my heart felt apolgys due to a elderly moment and brain failure I typed the wrong moniker, it should of course have been Kardhore so once again please accept my Apolgys
oldie

Apology not required Oldie, I had guessed you were referring to that ars...err...bloke.

 

[kendo]

Not all the examples.
One example of a post on pfm of anything likely to be a prosecutable under the Malicious Communications Act would do just fine.
Otherwise it appears you have a nasty case of puddingus overeggious.



You seem to have a general lack of capacity for reasoning.

"One example of a post on pfm"

I did call David Cameron a cvnt a couple of years ago but after investigation and a review of the evidence the charge was quietly dropped.

 

[merlin]

It's funny that many here would defend SAS operatives being instructed to take out leading spokesmen pushing a radical Islamic agenda but become enraged by those proposing similar actions for those pushing radical capitalism.

The double standards are clear. Both "targets" are responsible for untold suffering, misery and death. Yet somehow one group is acceptable to many and the other is the work of the devil himself.

 

[flatpopely]

It's funny that many here would defend SAS operatives being instructed to take out leading spokesmen pushing a radical Islamic agenda but become enraged by those proposing similar actions for those pushing radical capitalism.

The double standards are clear. Both "targets" are responsible for untold suffering, misery and death. Yet somehow one group is acceptable to many and the other is the work of the devil himself.

Can you provide any evidence our special ops have been tasked as you describe?

 

[merlin]

No, FP

And if the government did actually allow us access to such information I couldn't be arsed to post it.

The dichotomy attached to these forms of crime is to me, offensive. It's illogical.

 

[DonQuixote99]

No, FP

And if the government did actually allow us access to such information I couldn't be arsed to post it.

The dichotomy attached to these forms of crime is to me, offensive. It's illogical.

What you are not getting is one of the main makers of what passes for peace in the world, where and when it holds. It's a fundamental norm of conduct, functions at the level of high law. It is: you don't use the means of war to settle disputes within the nation.

The city of Franklin, Ohio is on the Great Miami River, downstream of Dayton, OH. Franklin once sued in court to get Dayton to stop dumping raw sewage into the river. Dayton said they had to sometimes, due to engineering necessity as they operated and upgraded their treatment plant. Dayton won in court.

Then, no one in Franklin even thought of organizing a militia and going to war with Dayton. This norm in action.

 

[flatpopely]

No, FP

And if the government did actually allow us access to such information I couldn't be arsed to post it.

The dichotomy attached to these forms of crime is to me, offensive. It's illogical.

So you don't know if it happens.
Ergo your post makes no sense as the comparison has no basis in facts that you can provide.
Basically your opinion.

 

[gassor]

So you don't know if it happens.
Ergo your post makes no sense as the comparison has no basis in facts that you can provide.
Basically your opinion.

Merlin doesn't need any evidence to prove his viewpoint is correct.

 

[gassor]

It's funny that many here would defend SAS operatives being instructed to take out leading spokesmen pushing a radical Islamic agenda but become enraged by those proposing similar actions for those pushing radical capitalism.

WTF is radical capitalism and why have you interjected your concerns about it into this thread?

 

[merlin]

What you are not getting is one of the main makers of what passes for peace in the world, where and when it holds. It's a fundamental norm of conduct, functions at the level of high law. It is: you don't use the means of war to settle disputes within the nation.

The city of Franklin, Ohio is on the Great Miami River, downstream of Dayton, OH. Franklin once sued in court to get Dayton to stop dumping raw sewage into the river. Dayton said they had to sometimes, due to engineering necessity as they operated and upgraded their treatment plant. Dayton won in court.

Then, no one in Franklin even thought of organizing a militia and going to war with Dayton. This norm in action.

I don't think it's me who is "not getting" anything Don with respect although I accept the comparison is controversial.

If you didn't use war to settle disputes within nations and across cultures, you would not have a Parliament in the UK for starters. There would be no USA so your reference to Dayton is somewhat missing my point. What passes for the rule of law in your book is the result of centuries of armed struggle and local and international disputes. Dayton itself is surely the result of the violent oppression of the indigenous population? Would the local American Indian population not have employed Semtex and suicide bombing had the option been open to them as their land was stolen and their religion and tradition trampled upon?

Historically international terrorism is a new development in this struggle - simply because of the practicalities of travel. Had It been an option during the years of Empire for instance, only a fool would suggest that indigenous populations from nations across the continents would not have been queuing up to offer their services.

For me, anyone who knowingly inflicts pain, suffering and death on the masses with the goal of benefiting a small minority falls under the same bracket as a human being and is equally guilty of crimes against humanity.

 

[TheDecameron]

2pm today. Lord St.David faces the reckoning. Will he have brought an overnight bag and toothbrush with him?

 

[Paul R]

So you don't know if it happens.
Ergo your post makes no sense as the comparison has no basis in facts that you can provide.
Basically your opinion.

If you parse his sentence,

It's funny that many here would defend SAS operatives being instructed to take out leading spokesmen pushing a radical Islamic agenda but become enraged by those proposing similar actions for those pushing radical capitalism.

You will note that the first clause is somewhat subjunctive, the 'many here would defend...' were that to happen. But the second clause is indicative, 'become enraged by those proposing'.

So the people who are enraged by merlin's incitements to assassination of undesirable wealth creators would defend the SAS eliminating spokesmen and in merlin's construction this puts them into a contradiction.

About the only clear aspect of the statement is merlin's proposal that operatives be instructed to take out the pushers of radical capitalism. If he put names on that definition then it would be fun to get the police on the case.

Meantime in Scotland a chap is being tried for taking the piss out of Nazis.

This arrest should serve as a warning to anyone posting such material online, or in any other capacity, that such views will not be tolerated.

I blame the SNP.

(More details at http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-curious-case-of-the-nazi-pug and elsewhere.)

Paul

 

[merlin]

It is indicative of society that idiots like Paul would rather defend the rights of fascists to not be subjected to threatening posts than he would defend the right to freedom of expression. Hence the need for posts that are necessarily vague.

One person will complain about non specific references and another with far right, fascist sympathies will lie in wait because they feel threatened by the Gina Millar case and want to flip its ruling.

My opinion is that we ought to be allowed to call a spade a spade on line. The fact that fascists on PFM cannot differentiate between openly calling for the elimination of those responsible for mass suffering and those openly offering to pay for the elimination of human rights campaigners again speaks volumes about their distorted and abhorrent right wing views of the world IMO.

 

[gassor]

My opinion is that we ought to be allowed to call a spade a spade on line. The fact that fascists on PFM cannot differentiate between openly calling for the elimination of those responsible for mass suffering and those openly offering to pay for the elimination of human rights campaigners again speaks volumes about their distorted and abhorrent right wing views of the world IMO.

Fascists on pfm? I can only think of one person who likes the idea of a military dictatorship

 

[sean99]

WTF is radical capitalism

I don't know what Merlin intended, but I think the American healthcare system might qualify, and especially if the Republicans manage to push it back into the dark ages.

Merlin didn't word his post well, so here's my take.

Americans are taught that Isis is their feared enemy, to be wiped out by any and all means. OK so far.

However should the republicans repeal Obamacare far more Americans will die of preventable causes than Isis could ever hope of killing. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will die prematurely because of unnecessary legislation aimed to give a small (<2%) tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions more will be bankrupted should they ever get sick.

We have a severe problem with enemy identification. If radical Islam ever managed to kill a tenth of the number that this healthcare "overhaul" will kill Fox news et al would be screaming the "end of days".

 

[DonQuixote99]

I don't think it's me who is "not getting" anything Don with respect although I accept the comparison is controversial.

If you didn't use war to settle disputes within nations and across cultures, you would not have a Parliament in the UK for starters. There would be no USA so your reference to Dayton is somewhat missing my point. What passes for the rule of law in your book is the result of centuries of armed struggle and local and international disputes. Dayton itself is surely the result of the violent oppression of the indigenous population? Would the local American Indian population not have employed Semtex and suicide bombing had the option been open to them as their land was stolen and their religion and tradition trampled upon?

Historically international terrorism is a new development in this struggle - simply because of the practicalities of travel. Had It been an option during the years of Empire for instance, only a fool would suggest that indigenous populations from nations across the continents would not have been queuing up to offer their services.

For me, anyone who knowingly inflicts pain, suffering and death on the masses with the goal of benefiting a small minority falls under the same bracket as a human being and is equally guilty of crimes against humanity.

I did not say war is not used within nations and across cultures. Of course it is. I'm saying there is a norm that stops it sometimes.

Again, no one in Franklin even thought of going to war against Dayton when Dayton was stinking up their town. That is a wonderful thing, I think. I want more of this wonderful thing. Of course history is replete with examples in which this is not how it goes. That's what makes it wonderful.

Rule of law, I think it's called. Now I'm not calling law 'god,' or sacred. I'm fully aware of bad things done under law. But for all it's imperfections and abuses, we'd sure miss it if we didn't have it. Calls for political violence are calls for it's destruction. Better the devils we know. Much better.

 

[gassor]

I don't know what Merlin intended, but I think the American healthcare system might qualify, and especially if the Republicans manage to push it back into the dark ages.

Merlin didn't word his post well, so here's my take.

Americans are taught that Isis is their feared enemy, to be wiped out by any and all means. OK so far.

However should the republicans repeal Obamacare far more Americans will die of preventable causes than Isis could ever hope of killing. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will die prematurely because of unnecessary legislation aimed to give a small (<2%) tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions more will be bankrupted should they ever get sick.

We have a severe problem with enemy identification. If radical Islam ever managed to kill a tenth of the number that this healthcare "overhaul" will kill Fox news et al would be screaming the "end of days".

I would not base any argument on the suppositions you have made above. If radical capitalism is a term with any meaning at all, it would mean a form of capitalism which is completely different to it's existing form. I don't see that happening anywhere.

 

[DonQuixote99]

Meantime in Scotland a chap is being tried for taking the piss out of Nazis.



I blame the SNP.

(More details at http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-curious-case-of-the-nazi-pug and elsewhere.)

Paul

Your dishonest link doesn't say one little word about the actual offensive part of the video--the extensive sequences in which the dog is stimulated to respond to the phrase "You want to gas the Jews?"

You maybe can still make a case for innocuous satire, but the case gets a little harder....

(No link to the actual video from me. But I found it via a link in the story Paul linked to, if you want to see it, and your legal consultant agrees that you may do so....)