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

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: UKTruth

Haha that's just twisting things.

So no I'm hardly confused.

I could equally say that when the US government executes prisoners that happen to be white then they are fulfilling the calls to Jihad.

Obviously I'm talking about laws, how the hell can something be punishable if not by law? I live in a nation not fantasy land.

If laws dictate your entire reality and ideological compass, then I feel sorry for you.
Nazi Germany had laws too, you know. I am sure you'd have positively glowed at the Enabling Act in 1933. After all it was the law once it passed you know... so all good from there on, right?

Tyranny is tyranny whether a piece of paper says you can do it or not, and the fact clearly remains LesMis' point was exactly correct.

a reply to: UKTruth

I think you know well that this happened to this woman, but you don't really care as she is a conservative.

I think you don't know me at all.

I think the politics of a person, or any facade for that matter does not wholly define them.

I think all people should be protected equally by law and to be treated equally by law. It's what the law states.

I believe there will be greater people than I willing to defend this woman if she was misrepresented or unlawfully detained regardless of her political convictions.

I believe a lot of things...

I'm also willing to believe what you described happened to this woman, I'll need a lot more than what's been offered though if I'm to have faith.

So yeah... I couldn't care less about politics.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

So how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that I was lying?

He didn't conclude it,
It just suits the agenda to say stupid like that, and will continue to repeat it ad nauseum, that's how childish things have become.

a reply to: UKTruth

So they put her in jail in the hopes she gets her bum beat? Intent seem to be typically left wing thuggery. Brown shirts.

... they told her to 'be careful around other inmates with her politics ...

a reply to: UKTruth

I was also misled by the information I provided.
So your two-choice fallacy of “liar or disingenuous” is, ironically, disingenuous itself...
Could I not just have been misinformed? Too gung-ho in trying to find and share details? Wrong to assume things at such an early stage? No?

I gain nothing by lying or purposefully misleading people here.

Besides, you’re putting way too much stock into how much influence my posts can have on ATS readers.

originally posted by: moyeti
a reply to: UKTruth

So they put her in jail in the hopes she gets her bum beat? Intent seem to be typically left wing thuggery. Brown shirts.

... they told her to 'be careful around other inmates with her politics ...

Seems like it... and the fact she was there for 3 days is a worrying element to this. If something had of happened to this woman in prison, then not even liberals could bury their heads in the sand.

a reply to: UKTruth

Just so we are clear is it also tyranny when a country bans people from entering based on their religion?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth

Just so we are clear is it also tyranny when a country bans people from entering based on their religion?

We could get into such a discussion, but it's been done.
I am more concerned that a couple were put in jail for 3 days without breaking any law.
I could almost understand if they were just put on the next flight out, but no, they were jailed and kept apart like criminals.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

British Gymnastics said that Smith had subsequently admitted to an independent panel that his behaviour was in breech of its standards of conduct.

That panel decided to suspend Smith for two months after taking into account another incident in June, in which he posted a zoomed-in photograph of a 16-year-old gymnast’s leotard-clad bottom on Instagram along with the comment “my sport has its moments” and a smiling emoji.

1) “British Gymnastics” and an “Independent Panel” are NOT the State...

2) Breeching “Standards of Conduct” comes with consequences in EVERY SINGLE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE WESTERN WORLD!

3) Did you ignore the questionable behaviour he displayed on his Instagram page regarding a 16yr old girl, which was also “taken in to account”???



Basically, you’re still living in a fantasy!

I assumed British Gymnastics was a government body. My mistake.

Either way, banning people from entering the UK for criticizing Islam is the going rate.

a reply to: UKTruth

If laws dictate your entire reality and ideological compass, then I feel sorry for you. 
Nazi Germany had laws too, you know. I am sure you'd have positively glowed at the Enabling Act in 1933. After all it was the law once it passed you know... so all good from there on, right? 

Wow man, you guys should really change the tactics a bit. It's far too obvious now.

The old insult and bagging "the foe" in with a bunch of wrong'uns from the past.

I'll play though, I'll play

Tbh laws don't dictate my entire reality and especially not my moral compass, again you don't know me.

I've probably broke a lot of man-made laws and never had a thought, I could be breaking one now...

I'm actually bothered more about human decency, one of the things that irks me most is human morality and above that cowardice.

We have hate laws for a good reason, I've seen cowards my whole life victimise the weak. I think it's frigging awesome that somebody cannot victimise let's say a Muslim because they hate Muslims. It's bang on.

Because seemingly you know nothing about human psychology, what was harsh nasty words today could be a fist tomorrow. What was fear of walking down a street could evolve into fear of life.

Humans are unpredictable under stress, I find it just that laws inhibit the ability for one person to victimise another.

Above all laws are rights and if my rights are being evoked or ignored by you and the law won't protect me?

Where does that leave me?

I'll give you a clue, it's a "less" than I would've been.

Tyranny is tyranny whether a piece of paper says you can do it or not, and the fact clearly remains LesMis' point was exactly correct. 

It's tyrannical that you are not allowed to practise victimisation?

Free speech is one thing, using it as a weapon is another.

Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want and get away with it. We still have laws governing the communication from one human to another.

Context is everything with law, but you'll never say that will you?

You and Les would rather blind me into thinking context is nothing and that everything is literal... And the government is reading my thoughts and putting the case together now.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth

Just so we are clear is it also tyranny when a country bans people from entering based on their religion?

We could get into such a discussion, but it's been done.
I am more concerned that a couple were put in jail for 3 days without breaking any law.
I could almost understand if they were just put on the next flight out, but no, they were jailed and kept apart like criminals.

We could enter into that discussion, but it might highlight the hypocrisy that you are only supporting their right to enter the UK because you agree with their views.

If this was a pro islam speaker you would absolutely agree with the action taken.

a reply to: UKTruth

Is it really any worse than this ?

A couple of British newlyweds have told how they were detained at a US airport for 26 hours and their honeymoon utterly ruined, “because the groom is Muslim”. The couple, from West London, had spent £7,000 ($9,100) for a two-week trip that would take in Los Angeles, Hawaii and finally Las Vegas. But after being held at Los Angeles International Airport for more than a day, they were handcuffed, marched to a plane and flown back to London.

www.independent.co.uk... l

a reply to: RAY1990


Lot's of words with not a bean of understanding about this actual case.
Brittany Pettibone is not someone who runs around preaching hate.

The danger is obvious - when you push 'hate speech' to include questions, challenges, cultural and political debate then you have an enabling mechanism for fascism.

It seems she was handcuffed, driven 30 miles to a prison and detained there for 3 days.

I agree that those who just want to incite violence should be stopped. This is not the case here.

a reply to: alldaylong


Slightly worse in that they were held for longer, but both are a bad joke.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth

Just so we are clear is it also tyranny when a country bans people from entering based on their religion?

We could get into such a discussion, but it's been done.
I am more concerned that a couple were put in jail for 3 days without breaking any law.
I could almost understand if they were just put on the next flight out, but no, they were jailed and kept apart like criminals.

We could enter into that discussion, but it might highlight the hypocrisy that you are only supporting their right to enter the UK because you agree with their views.

If this was a pro islam speaker you would absolutely agree with the action taken.

You are incorrect. I have no problem with anyone legally entering a country.
That's why your sidebar is not worth the discussion.

So they were detained because they planned on saying things, that could have possibly led to violence?
Or specifically because they were going to criticize a religion, which may have led to violence?

In either case, who gets to decides what kind of speech falls into that category? The ones being violent?

The maximum amount of time a person can be detained with charge is 24 hours.

More time can be applied for by the police IF you are suspected of a serious crime a maximum of 96 hours.

Under the terrorism act you can be detained for 14 days without charge.

So someone is being disingenuous here. Either that or a massive screw up by the police and that doesn't happen with high profile cases or people, it happens to us plebs and it takes years to get any justice.

Just waiting on evidence...

a reply to: UKTruth

Or, in some cases, arrested for quoting Churchill.

Paul Weston, chairman of Liberty GB and a candidate in the recent European elections, was arrested on 26 April after quoting Winston Churchill on the steps of Winchester Guildhall.

He was arrested for failing to comply with a dispersal order and on suspicion of religious or racial harassment.

No action against Euro candidate Paul Weston over Islam remarks

"suspicion of religious or racial harassment"

I've never heard a more Orwellian phrase.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

So they were detained because they planned on saying things, that could have possibly led to violence?
Or specifically because they were going to criticize a religion, which may have led to violence?

In either case, who gets to decides what kind of speech falls into that category? The ones being violent?

The government, those who have the monopoly on violence, decides on these matters.

a reply to: UKTruth

Look above, you don't get detained for three days for absolutely nothing.

You get detained for that long Only in regards to serious crimes, where you are the suspect. The extra time needs to be applied for as to ensure no abuse of the system (in theory) can happen.

You a keep thinking I'm against you because you're Conservative... Stop playing the victimisation card, I'm on your side if this all happens to be unjust.