It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The UK has hit rock bottom - detaining a US citizen because she was to interview Tommy Robinson

page: 12
79
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The right to hold religions under scrutiny and critique them is enshrined in freedom of expression. People are free to criticise religions as much as they want, what they can't do is call for attacks on behalf of a religion (i.e radical Jihadi hate preachers) or call for others to attack followers of a particular religion/lack of.

Most of the last few pages has been people failing to understand how UK laws actually work. All of what you state is regularly held in open public debate in the UK. The restrictions only come into place when actual threats of violence are issued and even then are likely to be dropped.




posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The right to hold religions under scrutiny and critique them is enshrined in freedom of expression. People are free to criticise religions as much as they want, what they can't do is call for attacks on behalf of a religion (i.e radical Jihadi hate preachers) or call for others to attack followers of a particular religion/lack of.

Most of the last few pages has been people failing to understand how UK laws actually work. All of what you state is regularly held in open public debate in the UK. The restrictions only come into place when actual threats of violence are issued and even then are likely to be dropped.
I'm not certain that's what your previous post said. The law in the US agrees on that point, that you may not incite riots nor violence. That is not protected speech.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Isn't the UK a high camera zone where you're even jailed for drawings? A place where they'd rather hide the truth of grooming gangs for fear of being labelled racists they'd let minors be constantly abused?



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Saying things some disagree with is not the same as calling for death and destruction. I know, conflation is the primary weapon of the left, but this is a major stretch.

Further, the UK bends over backwards to let clerics like the ones in your hypothetical in. So your scenario where we applaud them being disallowed is based on fiction.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: UKTruth
What is this country coming to when we detain people for opinions???

I would like to see the official reason for the detention. It might not have been put in those terms.


I suspect it will have been under the public safety remit where they believe there is a risk of incitement of violence.

People can argue about the right or wrong of that, but I suspect many of those complaining would be the first to applaud if it was an Islamic preacher detained for the same reason.


Well one is just a journalist, with whom one can agree or disagree with. The other leads a group of people along their line of thinking. Should that Imam believe in Jihad against the west, at least some might develop those same beliefs. Of course in both instances proof is required before detainment. Its really apples to oranges, but nice try.


Nope completely comparable preaching hate is preaching hate


Then the Imams will be arrested immediately?
You are the one who said they both preach hate.
So why is only one arrested and not the other?
edit on 3/12/2018 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You guys are all about controlling the US borders. Here, however, the UK decides that it doesn't want this person entering their country, it's a travesty. So, they didn't want a racist coming into their country. That's their prerogative. The US can refuse entry to whoever they want as well. Someone in her group clearly tipped off the border agents so she could play the martyr. Well done. I'm sure some of you bought it.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: andrewh7
a reply to: UKTruth

You guys are all about controlling the US borders. Here, however, the UK decides that it doesn't want this person entering their country, it's a travesty. So, they didn't want a racist coming into their country. That's their prerogative. The US can refuse entry to whoever they want as well. Someone in her group clearly tipped off the border agents so she could play the martyr. Well done. I'm sure some of you bought it.


Arrests are one thing, barring travel is another, and illegal immigration yet another still. No one is saying Mexicans should be barred from travelling to the U.S. They can take a plane ticket and come here whenever they like. The issue is with them permanently staying here with no qualification, and neither legally immigrating nor taking the procedures to legally extend their stay.

Also I hear like 90% of girls and women are raped if they journey with people smugglers across the desert. That stuff should be barred, if only to reduce the rapes.

The UK is a police state becoming ever more totalitarian day by day.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We do but we know there has to be limits for example we have laws stopping pedos talking to kids online. (I know you think this is the pedos right for freedom of speech but we do not).
edit on 13-3-2018 by testingtesting because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

How do you stop pedo's from talking to kids online? No adults allowed to talk to minors? Only convicted pedo's?



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

Pedos are now pushing their way into left circles to have it recognised as a separate sexual identity.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

You make it illegal to talk to kids about sex it is called grooming.
But that is just speech and should be protected by freedom of speech according to some.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Don't talk nonsense, there are a multiple occasions of radical islamic figured also being barred from entry.

This isn't some unique one off event despite favoured alt right blog might be telling you.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: UKTruth
What is this country coming to when we detain people for opinions???

I would like to see the official reason for the detention. It might not have been put in those terms.


I suspect it will have been under the public safety remit where they believe there is a risk of incitement of violence.

People can argue about the right or wrong of that, but I suspect many of those complaining would be the first to applaud if it was an Islamic preacher detained for the same reason.


Well one is just a journalist, with whom one can agree or disagree with. The other leads a group of people along their line of thinking. Should that Imam believe in Jihad against the west, at least some might develop those same beliefs. Of course in both instances proof is required before detainment. Its really apples to oranges, but nice try.


Nope completely comparable preaching hate is preaching hate


Then the Imams will be arrested immediately?
You are the one who said they both preach hate.
So why is only one arrested and not the other?


Same answer as above.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: andrewh7
a reply to: UKTruth

You guys are all about controlling the US borders. Here, however, the UK decides that it doesn't want this person entering their country, it's a travesty. So, they didn't want a racist coming into their country. That's their prerogative. The US can refuse entry to whoever they want as well. Someone in her group clearly tipped off the border agents so she could play the martyr. Well done. I'm sure some of you bought it.


Arrests are one thing, barring travel is another, and illegal immigration yet another still. No one is saying Mexicans should be barred from travelling to the U.S. They can take a plane ticket and come here whenever they like. The issue is with them permanently staying here with no qualification, and neither legally immigrating nor taking the procedures to legally extend their stay.

Also I hear like 90% of girls and women are raped if they journey with people smugglers across the desert. That stuff should be barred, if only to reduce the rapes.

The UK is a police state becoming ever more totalitarian day by day.


You do know the US also has rules about barring people from entering?



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

So there's no sex ed class in school?

It also seems to have failed. See rohterham and rochdale.
edit on 13-3-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Of course, but not people who aren't deemed a threat, here in the sane world, journalists (whether you like them or not) are not considered a threat.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I think journalist is bring a bit kind.

But yes they can be. The rules don't specify occupation as threat or not.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

So you honestly think that a little white girl interviewing a controversial figure is a threat to the country? A threat big enough to justify imprisonment for three days without cause?
edit on 13-3-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Actually...Depending on the time of your arrest and seeing a judge you could spend 3 days in lockup without charge.


Not how the UK system works. Here you cannot be held without charge for over 24hrs for most offences. An extension can be requested for up to 36 hrs (authorised by a senior officer) or 96 hrs (authorised by a magistrate's court) if suspected of a serious crime such as murder, or up to 14 days if arrested under the Terrorism Act. This is quite cut and dry under sections 42 & 43 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

After this time you are either charged or must be released either with or without bail. You may have conditional bail (released but with restrictions such as a curfew) if there is reasonable suspicion you may re-offend, intimidate witnesses, fail to turn up at court etc.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

So you honestly think that a little white girl interviewing a controversial figure is a threat to the country?


No and literally no one has claimed it Is.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join