“Terrifying”: Scottish Police to Investigate “Offensive Comments”

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: DrJunk

That would be none, then.

I mean, this woman hasn't even been arrested, much less charged and gone on trial.

What?!

You... you.. you mean this isn't the Orwellian nightmare I was promised in the OP?

I demand my outrage back!

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Surely you know, Solo?

Lowland Scotland, specifically Edinburgh and it's surroundings, were once part of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria and settled by "anglo-Saxons", until Edinburgh fell to the Scots in around the 9th century (maybe the 8th, I'd have to check).

The Scots language (Lowland Scots) is also not a Gaelic language, it is in fact a dialect of Old English.

Hence why Highlanders have always had a disdain for the Lowlanders because, well, they're pretty much just English in Tartan skirts...

And the English are pretty much French who in turn where pretty much Norwegians..it's all so confusing. Basically we are a bunch of Mongrels.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

There isn't someone sat there deciding it - if anyone ever bothered to read anything I posted, instead of going off half-cocked like an idiot, you'd see that precedents have been set and the guidelines drawn from them:

Prosecutors are reminded that in Redmond-Bate v DPP (Divisional Court, 23 July 1999), Sedley LJ emphasised that under the Public Order Act 1986 the mere fact that words were irritating, contentious, unwelcome and provocative was not enough to justify the invocation of the criminal law unless they tended to provoke violence. In a similar vein, in Dehal v CPS [2005] EWHC 2154 (Admin), Moses J, referring to section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, held that:

"... the criminal law should not be invoked unless and until it is established that the conduct which is the subject of the charge amounts to such a threat to public order as to require the invocation of the criminal as opposed to the civil law." (paragraph 5).

Prosecutors are reminded that what is prohibited under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is the sending of a communication that is grossly offensive. A communication sent has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. Just because the content expressed in the communication is in bad taste, controversial or unpopular, and may cause offence to individuals or a specific community, this is not in itself sufficient reason to engage the criminal law

a reply to: Soloprotocol

And that is what makes us awesome! All those pedigrees are just inbred's at the end of the day, barely able to stand or run in a straight line!

Woof!

a reply to: DrJunk

I'm sure there will be another thread along shortly misrepresenting something that will gladly have your outrage

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Telos

I'd be willing to lose my freedom of speech if it means Katie Hopkins loses hers.



I hate her guts.

It would be a worthy & noble sacrifice to shut her Pig mouth.



I hate her guts.
More than I hate Tony Blair's guts.


Or equally the same.



Edit: No seriously, it's a bit of a worry, Orwellian is the only description that can be made in all honesty.


S&F OP.

I am ashamed of you, you would be willing to lose your freedomspeech just to shut someone else up whos words/viewpoint are not acceptable to you?

I dont think you understand the concept therefore can not give up what you do not understand as you are not 100$ sure what you actually possess.

I've been called MUCH MUCH worse by Scottish fans at an England v's scotland footy match? shall we lock them up and staple their mouths closed?

Incredible

Q

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Surely you know, Solo?

Lowland Scotland, specifically Edinburgh and it's surroundings, were once part of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria and settled by "anglo-Saxons", until Edinburgh fell to the Scots in around the 9th century (maybe the 8th, I'd have to check).

The Scots language (Lowland Scots) is also not a Gaelic language, it is in fact a dialect of Old English.

Hence why Highlanders have always had a disdain for the Lowlanders because, well, they're pretty much just English in Tartan skirts...

And the English are pretty much French who in turn where pretty much Norwegians..it's all so confusing. Basically we are a bunch of Mongrels.

+1 for that comment

we probably have as much Roman or viking in us than anything else? we are all HUMANS, and hopefully at some point in the future that is all their will be ....

But people are free to say what they want and should be allowed to do so .

Q

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

I said my freedom of speech...
Not your's or anyone else's.


That's the irony of you being ashamed of me using my freedom of speech I guess.

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

But people are free to say what they want and should be allowed to do so .

But that doesn't stop you being ashamed of people who do so?

Hilarious.

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel
Did you miss the last paragraph of his post? His comment was not meant to be taken literally.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

I said my freedom of speech...
Not your's or anyone else's.


That's the irony of you being ashamed of me using my freedom of speech I guess.

stop quibbling, it only needs to be ok for 1 before the snowball effect would take hold , well your honour in this case subject A did indeed agree to give up his free speech so subject B would shut the hell up....

and so it begins, and sorry i thought the overall point this thread was about freedom of speech Not Katie Hopkins

All this says to me is that it has come to a point in human evolution where the child mind no longer matures to an adult one. People are retaining their childish thoughts and actions.Everyone seems to be throwing their toys out of their prams over very silly things indeed.Why is it that todays adults find it so hard to put away childish things and thoughts ? The human mind is devolving !

a reply to: ScepticScot

when did HE put that edit in their? if it was before i posted then i apologise,

by the time i got to hate blairs guts i already started typing me post , do not be so quick to throw away what generations of people have fought for

Q

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

But people are free to say what they want and should be allowed to do so .

But that doesn't stop you being ashamed of people who do so?

Hilarious.

I am allowed to be ashamed of the comments as long as i don't call for you to be SILENCED i never said you couldn't/shouldn't post this , i just stated how it made me feel

PS i am also allowed to be Happy, Sad , Angry , outraged at anything you say , as long as i dont say you should be locked up because of it to seal your mouth ...

Ms. Hopkins is a vile wench who thrives on attention and doesn't actually deserve the attention she is getting. If people ignored her, she'd very quickly go away. No laws needed, just common sense.

To clarify one thing, the UK does NOT have any freedom of speech enshrined in statute law. Our freedom of speech comes from two sources only.
1) An EU directive guaranteeing all member states "Freedom of Speech", which we would lose should we exit the EU.
2) A law governing "The Negative Right to the Freedom of Expression and Creation", which means you can say and do anything you want, provided its not breaking any pre-existing laws. It's NOT "freedom of speech" but it it is very similar. It does however allow Parliament to pass legislation saying what you can and cannot say.

Following the recent tragic incident in Glasgow when 6 people died after a bin lorry went out of control a teenager was arrested for inappropriate comments on twitter. Link

Hopkins remarks are in relation to a Scot suffering from Ebola so imo are equally inappropriate.

Both comments made by an English person about suffering Scots

a reply to: BMorris
Pretty sure that freedom of speech is protected under the ECHR which is completely separate from EU membership.

originally posted by: BMorris
Ms. Hopkins is a vile wench who thrives on attention and doesn't actually deserve the attention she is getting. If people ignored her, she'd very quickly go away. No laws needed, just common sense.

To clarify one thing, the UK does NOT have any freedom of speech enshrined in statute law. Our freedom of speech comes from two sources only.
1) An EU directive guaranteeing all member states "Freedom of Speech", which we would lose should we exit the EU.
2) A law governing "The Negative Right to the Freedom of Expression and Creation", which means you can say and do anything you want, provided its not breaking any pre-existing laws. It's NOT "freedom of speech" but it it is very similar. It does however allow Parliament to pass legislation saying what you can and cannot say.

I guess things haven't changed much since the American Revolution.

God save the Queen.

I'll be waiting patiently for the wig-wearing bureaucrats to tell me what I'm allowed to say.

Oh wait... nevermind. I live in the U.S.

originally posted by: bigyin
Following the recent tragic incident in Glasgow when 6 people died after a bin lorry went out of control a teenager was arrested for inappropriate comments on twitter. Link

Hopkins remarks are in relation to a Scot suffering from Ebola so imo are equally inappropriate.

Both comments made by an English person about suffering Scots

Let me clarify
I also think Katie hopkins is a vile woman and an embarrasment to English Ladies everywhere.

However , the Ebola comment was a Dig at the independence Vote NOT all Scottish people

and a joke is a joke . if you start editing jokes we are buggered. some times timing can be better , but how many challenger shuttle jokes are their? how many 9/11 jokes? or countless other jokes about many many disasters that have occurred all through history

If someone from Australia had posted the exact same thing would you react as much?
Or is its just because she is English and we have a history of jibing each other and also that she is not a very likable person?

Q

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Agree but it's the totalitarian tiptoe,in the current state it will never stop,they will go away and then plan something else problem,reaction,solution.
In the end most people will be begging for the freedom of speech taken off them due to media propaganda and Government false flags creating horrific situations and high death tolls and then blaming it on some ding dongs freedom of speech tweet.