Jump to content
Lee909

Paris shootings

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

Blasphemy laws in the U.K.?  It’ll never happen…

 

 

We're already going down that route in Scotland.

 

A fucking disgrace. If people can't stomach a cartoon or a piece of art, they should really just go & take their face for a shite.

 

Comparing defacing property to drawing a subversive cartoon is also absolutely ridiculous.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mook said:

Comparing defacing property to drawing a subversive cartoon is also absolutely ridiculous.

Not at all - she's comparing the emotional harm involved. We already have laws for defacing property - this is a new law specifically for the emotional harm caused by defacing a statue. Seems a fair argument to me.

 

The real answer is ofcourse that the new proposed law is equally ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, M_B said:

Not at all - she's comparing the emotional harm involved. We already have laws for defacing property - this is a new law specifically for the emotional harm caused by defacing a statue. Seems a fair argument to me.

 

The real answer is ofcourse that the new proposed law is equally ridiculous.

'Emotional harm' needs to fuck off.

 

'Ooh, I'm emotionally harmed because someone defaced a statue or drew a cartoon of an imaginary prophet'.

 

Laws created by cunts who have never spent a day in the real World.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mook said:

'Emotional harm' needs to fuck off.

 

'Ooh, I'm emotionally harmed because someone defaced a statue or drew a cartoon of an imaginary prophet'.

 

Laws created by cunts who have never spent a day in the real World.

Yeah I agree. I think that is partly her point though - you either fuck it off completely or you enter territory where you have to decide which causes of emotional harm are illegal and which aren't.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, M_B said:

Yeah I agree. I think that is partly her point though - you either fuck it off completely or you enter territory where you have to decide what causes emotional harm and what doesn't.

I agree the whole thing should be fucked off.

 

I don't agree that's her point but I am possibly misinterpreting her Tweet. Looks to me like she's using one stupid law being introduced to lobby for another one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, M_B said:

Yeah I agree. I think that is partly her point though - you either fuck it off completely or you enter territory where you have to decide what causes emotional harm and what doesn't.

I don’t think that’s her point at all. She’s very clear on what she wants and the replies to the post on Twitter are absolutely clear in their support. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

I don’t think that’s her point at all. She’s very clear on what she wants and the replies to the post on Twitter are absolutely clear in their support. 

I only watched the video but I think it's implied. She is using the law to argue a case for a law on the emotional harm caused by cartoons. The implication being that if you have one then why not the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a nonsensical idea, but we already have a de facto blasphemy law in this country, as a teacher who is currently in hiding for his life can attest.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, M_B said:

 

I only watched the video but I think it's implied. She is using the law to argue a case for a law on the emotional harm caused by cartoons. The implication being that if you have one then why not the other.

No it isn’t.  Her point is that statues hold a special status because of what they represent and society needs that to function. She then extends the point to say ‘if it’s reasonable to accept that, then it’s reasonable to accept hurt feelings when people say bad stuff about Mo”. So she isn’t making any point about a poor law (which it is) she’s using the poor law to bring in blasphemy. I mean she couldn’t be clearer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a slippery fucking slope she is proposing there. 

Say something bad about the Queen and the royalist will start claiming emotional distress, you'll the get the twitter celebrity wannabes claiming trawling twitter for a bad comment and claiming the same thing.

 

10 years for pulling down a statue is a fucking disgrace, its criminal damage and do them for that if you want but saying because it's a statue of X then the emotional damage means its worthy of another 5 years in prison is fucking disgraceful. 

 

 

Max 10 years for pulling down a statue of Churchill

 

 

Possessing or distributing prohibited weapon or ammunition (5 year minimum sentence)

 

Firearms Act 1968 10 years

Trespassing with firearm or imitation firearm in a building

 

 

Firearms Act 1968 7 years

Carrying firearm or imitation firearm in public place

 

 

Firearms Act 1968 7 years

Shortening a shot gun; conversion of firearm

 

 

Firearms Act 1968 7 years

Trading in firearms without being registered as firearms dealer

 

 

Firearms Act 1968 5 years
 

 

 

Administering poison etc. so as to endanger life Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.23 10 years
Cruelty to persons under 16 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 s.1 10 years

 

 

Racially-aggravated assault - ABH or GBH Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s. 29(1) 7 years
Racially-aggravated common assault Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s. 29 2 years
Racially-aggravated criminal damage Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s. 30(1) 2 years
Unlawful wounding Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.20 5 years
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.47 5 years
Concealment of birth Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.60 2 years
Abandonment of children under two Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.27 5 years

 

 

10 years for pulling down a statue

2 years for attempting to roofie a girl to rape her

7 years for trying to fuck a U13 girl

 

Administering drugs to obtain intercourse Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.4 2 years
Procurement of a woman by threats Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.2 2 years
Procurement of a woman by false pretences Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.3 2 years
Attempted sexual intercourse with girl under 13 Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.5 7 years

 

Incest by man with a girl under 13 Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.10 7 years
Incest by woman with a girl under 13 Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.11

7 years

 

 

 

Detention of woman in brothel Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.24

2 years

 

 

 

Paying for sexual services - penetration of a child aged 16 or 17 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s. 47

7 years

 

 

Possession of indecent photograph of a child Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.160 5 years

 

 

 

 

nice to see we have our priorities in order

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lee909 said:

That's a slippery fucking slope she is proposing there. 

Say something bad about the Queen and the royalist will start claiming emotional distress, you'll the get the twitter celebrity wannabes claiming trawling twitter for a bad comment and claiming the same thing.

 

10 years for pulling down a statue is a fucking disgrace, its criminal damage and do them for that if you want but saying because it's a statue of X then the emotional damage means its worthy of another 5 years in prison is fucking disgraceful. 

 

 

Max 10 years for pulling down a statue of Churchill

 

 

Possessing or distributing prohibited weapon or ammunition (5 year minimum sentence)

 

Firearms Act 1968 10 years

Trespassing with firearm or imitation firearm in a building

 

 

Firearms Act 1968 7 years

Carrying firearm or imitation firearm in public place

 

 

Firearms Act 1968 7 years

Shortening a shot gun; conversion of firearm

 

 

Firearms Act 1968 7 years

Trading in firearms without being registered as firearms dealer

 

 

Firearms Act 1968 5 years
 

 

 

Administering poison etc. so as to endanger life Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.23 10 years
Cruelty to persons under 16 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 s.1 10 years

 

 

Racially-aggravated assault - ABH or GBH Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s. 29(1) 7 years
Racially-aggravated common assault Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s. 29 2 years
Racially-aggravated criminal damage Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s. 30(1) 2 years
Unlawful wounding Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.20 5 years
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.47 5 years
Concealment of birth Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.60 2 years
Abandonment of children under two Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.27 5 years

 

 

10 years for pulling down a statue

2 years for attempting to roofie a girl to rape her

7 years for trying to fuck a U13 girl

 

Administering drugs to obtain intercourse Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.4 2 years
Procurement of a woman by threats Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.2 2 years
Procurement of a woman by false pretences Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.3 2 years
Attempted sexual intercourse with girl under 13 Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.5 7 years

 

Incest by man with a girl under 13 Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.10 7 years
Incest by woman with a girl under 13 Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.11

7 years

 

 

 

Detention of woman in brothel Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.24

2 years

 

 

 

Paying for sexual services - penetration of a child aged 16 or 17 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s. 47

7 years

 

 

Possession of indecent photograph of a child Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.160 5 years

 

 

 

 

nice to see we have our priorities in order


That reads like a checklist for one or two people on the FF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/07/2021 at 14:14, Rico1304 said:

No it isn’t.  Her point is that statues hold a special status because of what they represent and society needs that to function. She then extends the point to say ‘if it’s reasonable to accept that, then it’s reasonable to accept hurt feelings when people say bad stuff about Mo”. So she isn’t making any point about a poor law (which it is) she’s using the poor law to bring in blasphemy. I mean she couldn’t be clearer.  

 

Society needs statues to function. Are you fucking mental?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

Society needs statues to function. Are you fucking mental?

I think Rico was pointing out someone else's viewpoint there mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

I think Rico was pointing out someone else's viewpoint mate. 

 

Okay, so her point was mental, not Rico's. Fair enough. Apologies Rico - if you read that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×