I liked the old days when people talked about form.

[downendcity]

Form is temporary but City's ability to cock it up when things are going well seems permenant. 

[Clutton Caveman]

4 hours ago, bcfcfinker said:

I really don't know what you think you read?

As to freedom of speech, you haven't defined it.
Are your thoughts that: Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you like about whatever you like, whenever you like?
Or are there restrictions?

Freedom of speech is the ability to state your opinion without fear of punishment or censor. By censor I do not mean criticism, I mean trolling, personal attack by media or physically, hate mail etc. I would like to state the case of Lawrence Fox. He dared to state an opinion that is not promoted by mainstream or social media and was absolutely hammered. Strange thing is, his opinion is held by a great number of people who don't wish to change the thoughts and freedoms off others. I think that many people will take an interest in the Reclaim party not because it is right or left, pro or anti Brexit but because it provides an alternative voice to the politically correct.

[pongo88]

8 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

Ah right. If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? 

If there's no one there, how do you know it's fallen? Does the forest exists when you're not looking at it?

[Port Said Red]

1 hour ago, pongo88 said:

If there's no one there, how do you know it's fallen? Does the forest exists when you're not looking at it?

All valid questions, how do we know what is real man?

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

All valid questions, how do we know what is real man?

Descartes answered that one.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Freedom of speech is the ability to state your opinion without fear of punishment or censor. By censor I do not mean criticism, I mean trolling, personal attack by media or physically, hate mail etc. I would like to state the case of Lawrence Fox. He dared to state an opinion that is not promoted by mainstream or social media and was absolutely hammered. Strange thing is, his opinion is held by a great number of people who don't wish to change the thoughts and freedoms off others. I think that many people will take an interest in the Reclaim party not because it is right or left, pro or anti Brexit but because it provides an alternative voice to the politically correct.

Trolling, personal attack by media etc. are all manifestations of freedom of speech and are not censorship. They hurt peoples feelings and probably could be considered to be bullying of sorts. The other items you mention are covered by the law.

Laurence Fox is an interesting character and looks to be stepping into the shoes that Nigel Farage used to wear.
He talks sense at times and trollox at others - he's got the makings of a fine politician.
Problem he's going to be up against is his new party will be a lightening rod to people very much on the right of the political spectrum (UKIP attracted the likes of the BNP, EDL etc.). A bit of a Trump in the making. He needs to be able to defend his opinions with cold hard facts rather than the vagueries he's been trotting out.

Tell me, just which laws in this country prevent your version of Freedom of Speech?

[LondonBristolian]

7 hours ago, Clutton Caveman said:

If you consider the reaction to the BBC attempting to sanitise the format of the last night of the proms which the majority like and approve of, as overwrought, I seriously wonder what is important to you. When we read that Lord Admiral Nelson is being investigated as a potential racist, when in fact his innovative tactics saved us from near certain invasion by France and Spain I really wonder why such perpetrators of this tripe are not ridiculed as totally insignificant compared to the heroes they seek to smear

We, because of our laziness are allowing a small minority to not only control what we can say, but also control what we think.

 

You are able to say what you like, ans think what you like. You just said what you wanted to, and that was fine. What you seem to get upset about is the fact that people then disagree with you. Freedom of speech is not freedom from people disagreeing with you and telling you they have different points of view.

With the Proms, there was a restricted programme due to COVID and, as part of that’s, an artistic decision was made to not bring in vocalists for a couple of songs. This was not unprecedented - those songs had not been sung after 9/11 - and it was made clear the songs would be back next year.

And categorically the songs were not banned and no censorship took place. Anyone who wanted to could listen to those songs on Spotify, watch videos of them at previous proms on YouTube or indeed simply sing along at home whilst watching the instrumental versions. 

 

But  unfortunately we live in an age where the “desperate to be outraged and offended” squad are desperate to be outraged and offended and so decided to turn it into a “culture war” issue where people who don’t even know the words to Land of Hope and Glory suddenly felt the need to assert that it was some sort of outrage that they were being invited to just sing along at home and pretend that somehow constitutes censorship and that a decision not to play a song on one occasion at one event somehow meant a song that is easy to find on YouTube, Spotify or any media platform available, and freely available to buy in shops on CD, was somehow “banned”

Of course that is an overwrought reaction. Unfortunately there is a small minority of the generation born between 1950 and 1975 who appear to have reached middle age and suddenly developed into delicate flowers who are anxious to find things to get upset, outraged and offended by and to tell the world how upset, outraged and offended they are. And then pretend it is the younger generations who are getting offended with no sense of irony. Of course these people do not represent the majority of their generation but they certainly make a Hell of a lot of noise pretending that they do.

[Clutton Caveman]

12 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

You are able to say what you like, ans think what you like. You just said what you wanted to, and that was fine. What you seem to get upset about is the fact that people then disagree with you. Freedom of speech is not freedom from people disagreeing with you and telling you they have different points of view.

With the Proms, there was a restricted programme due to COVID and, as part of that’s, an artistic decision was made to not bring in vocalists for a couple of songs. This was not unprecedented - those songs had not been sung after 9/11 - and it was made clear the songs would be back next year.

And categorically the songs were not banned and no censorship took place. Anyone who wanted to could listen to those songs on Spotify, watch videos of them at previous proms on YouTube or indeed simply sing along at home whilst watching the instrumental versions. 

 

But  unfortunately we live in an age where the “desperate to be outraged and offended” squad are desperate to be outraged and offended and so decided to turn it into a “culture war” issue where people who don’t even know the words to Land of Hope and Glory suddenly felt the need to assert that it was some sort of outrage that they were being invited to just sing along at home and pretend that somehow constitutes censorship and that a decision not to play a song on one occasion at one event somehow meant a song that is easy to find on YouTube, Spotify or any media platform available, and freely available to buy in shops on CD, was somehow “banned”

Of course that is an overwrought reaction. Unfortunately there is a small minority of the generation born between 1950 and 1975 who appear to have reached middle age and suddenly developed into delicate flowers who are anxious to find things to get upset, outraged and offended by and to tell the world how upset, outraged and offended they are. And then pretend it is the younger generations who are getting offended with no sense of irony. Of course these people do not represent the majority of their generation but they certainly make a Hell of a lot of noise pretending that they do.

Be careful, you could be accused of being ageist.

I make one last comment. A few days ago I was talking with my 18 year twins who have just started university. The conversation came on to the subject of ethnic groups. I wanted to make a comment and then stopped. I wanted to talk about a group. This group is made up of people who happen to have black skin. I suddenly realised I did not know the current correct name for this group, in recent times it has been: people of colour, Bane, African origin etc etc.

I explained my problem and the kids also struggled for a while. Finally my daughter, who has a mixed race boyfriend said. I think the problem is not what black people want to be referred to as, I think it is more a problem of media and ultra politically correct groups. To my surprise I was told that black people (many of my kids friends are black) have always seen themselves as black, referred to their group as black and are happy for others to call them black.

Their situation has been hijacked by the same people that say we cannot say man hole covers any more.

Enough, you have your opinion, I have mine. On this forum I am prepared to state mine. On Twitter, that's another matter entirely

 

[downendcity]

15 hours ago, bcfcfinker said:

Descartes answered that one.

Is that Didier Descartes. The France Manager? 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Is that Didier Descartes. The France Manager? 

Nah, it was Renee who had the picture of the Fallen Madonna with the big boobies

[Lanterne Rouge]

9 hours ago, downendcity said:

Is that Didier Descartes. The France Manager? 

 

9 hours ago, bcfcfinker said:

Nah, it was Renee who had the picture of the Fallen Madonna with the big boobies

Not sure. I do know he was a drunken fart though.