Fair enough didn't know that but why are NUS announcements being made on Stop the War's (Fifth Column) website?
Student diversity officer in racism row could lose her job after allegedly tweeting 'kill all white
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Fair enough didn't know that but why are NUS announcements being made on Stop the War's (Fifth Column) website?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
I guess this particular stuff was folded in with an anti-war declaration? I dunno.
edit: My experiences of dealing with the NUS are that they're a bit of a shambles.
Last edited:
This is what happens when people sit by and let them create acts though sadly. People automatically accept thier opinions due to being the biggest gang in town. And they will slap you with a nice fine and victim surcharge to boot, Even if there is no clear victim.
This is why i have zero sympathy for police injured or killed in the line of duty, They assist and enforce this kind of crap while promoting the protect and serve lie. In reality they signed up for the authority kick and fat cheque while playing an enforcment role in the enslavement and explotation of thier own family and community. And no i do not have any kind of caution or record to my name before anyone thinks i have a grudge.
Last edited:
The charge against her is stupid, but she represents the type of person who seeks out offence wherever possible, so it's funny that the fan has blown it back at her.
She should be able to say "kill all white men" and I should be able to say "black people are thieves" without the police needing to get involved.
She should be able to say "kill all white men" and I should be able to say "black people are thieves" without the police needing to get involved.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Firstly, your opinion is pretty disgraceful in general that you have no sympathy for police killed in the line of duty. For any policy the government shouldn't have or enforce there are many that are absolutely crucial and the difference between chaos in the streets and not. The world is not that black and white.
Secondly, she should ABSOLUTELY be charged. It's the head in the sand people that let these situations escalate. It starts with people like her, but if nothing happens to her and all she gets is a bunch of feminists supporting her in 10 years she'll end up on some board at a university able to genuinely effect peoples lives with her horrific beliefs. Similar people who said similar things a decade ago who are now in positions of power are causing major trouble. The way american universities are going is laughable. Guys who get thrown out of university because of proven false accusations of rape because crazy feminists on the board refuse to listen to the evidence against the 'victim' (in that case it was proven she was with her boyfriend at the time she says she was being raped). Many people treat him as a rapist and he spent 10's of thousands on an education he can't complete.
Other universities have free speech zones because people who don't want to get offended don't like hearing free speech all over campus.
When you let psychotic people with insane views get away completely unchecked you encourage those views and incorrect let younger people believe these views are acceptable by doing nothing to the person making them then 10 years down the line rather than an unimportant student union role she's ruining the life of people on campus, getting people expelled because she took offence to something someone said.
People like her should be held accountable, if they don't want to be held accountable they shouldn't take positions like head of the student union.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 12,957
My friend saw her. Said he'll smash it. Will you?
Interesting viewpoints here - she absolutely shouldn't be charged in my book, but I wouldn't go so far as to have no sympathy when an officer is killed in the line of duty... That's rather extreme! If it's that dangerous it almost certainly needs policing!
You're just as cuckoo as her.
I'd have no sympathy if you were stabbed in your own home and the police decided not to attend because you're a horrible human.
You probably won't ever need the police though your keyboard probably doubles up as a machine gun.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 13,072
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
'Tis a shame she's facing these charges, because I would have smashed it. However, I'm white trash so wouldn't have a prayer
No i agree actually and this is not really what i meant, She should go and anyone else for your example, But court is seriously extreme in such a case and in many cases. The police are bit by bit enforcing some seriously wrong verdicts in our society. Using laws that were designed for terrorists on the public is just one example of where the UK is going.
Two insults and a worthless example, Bravo Sir. Tell you what though if i am to be stabbed i hope the blade is as sharp as your wit.
Last edited:
well personally I'd prefer it if we had free speech more in line with the USA - but since we have laws on malicious communication then they should be applied evenly... even if it shows the laws themselves to be farcical
frankly if someone wants to be racist on twitter whether at face value or to make a wider point then that ought to be their choice... much better to have them out in the open
in what sense? Not investigating people for thought crimes? Not having ridiculously tight liable/defamation laws that actually prompt legal tourism because our courts are so backwards on the matter?
I just think racists and bigots being offensive should just be made polically accountable for their actions. Malicious communications offences should be limited to those which are threatening to individuals (I.e. Making it easier to land charges for assault), or are persistently intentionally offensive. In other words, help to combat what would otherwise be grey area instances of assault or harrassment.
Thought crimes? Not a real thing then. The rest is merely your own conjecture.
I just picked up on that you believe the US has some wonderfully open approach to freedom of speech. I think you're wrong, seeing as they are quite content with the censoring of many things seen as objectionable or politically sensitive. Their TV alone shows us this.
I'm not wrong - it is a fairly fundamental aspect of their legal system. You're confusing this with public sensitivities and the choice of commercial broadcasters.
was this article 'merely my own conjecture' for example:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/apr/19/controversiesinscience-health
it wouldn't have even been a possible legal issue in the first place in the US
or the current subject of this thread - the diversity officer wouldn't have been facing possible charges in the US for her tweet
Last edited:
I'm not arguing that the UK does not have some censorship laws, it does. I disagree though that the US is any better. She can be arrested and she can be charged, it doesn't mean she is found guilty of anything yet.
One thing you can almost sure bet on, if she had offended or threatened anyone in the USA, she would have been sued by someone for it
One thing you can almost sure bet on, if she had offended or threatened anyone in the USA, she would have been sued by someone for it
In what sense though - why do you think the US isn't any better when it comes to freedom of speech? (We're talking legally not culturally)