Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[joeyjojo]

What if the security at the event is the police? Freedom of speech, like all other rights, is not absolute. The cut off usually comes when one individual exercising their rights starts to infringe on another's ability to exercise their own rights.

Preventing people from communicating is infringing their right to free speech, so there is certainly a balance there to be found. Note this does not include speaking against people, or forming an opinion based on someone's speech, all of which are perfectly legitimate.

Is it OK for a group of people to stand in front of an anti racism speaker and just scream through megaphones every time they start to speak? No content, no opposing arguement, just literally screaming so the opposition cannot be heard? I certainly so not think this is acceptable.

You're still not getting what "freedom of speech" is!

Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Everyone gets the right to impart information orally without (state or political) interference. It is NOT a right to a quiet podium and a keen audience at all times.

Preventing someone from expressing oneself, e.g. by shouting through a megaphone, should indeed get you ejected from whatever forum the speaker is at, and possibly land you with an offence under the Public Order Act (in this country), but it's not a violation of the human right.

The human right is there to make it e.g. illegal to arrest someone for what they say or think, BUT (as you say) with some limitations. If there are grounds to prevent someone speaking (wikipedia again has a nice little list: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, public security, public order, public nuisance) the government may do so.

 

[Mr Jack]

So Farage is now backing away from a migration cap...when oh, just such a short time ago they were touting a 50,000 limit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31722779

Seems a doublespeak way of saying, we can't promise to limit immigration because either

a) We won't be able to control it like we said we could

or

b) We actually need the immigration

Listening to him on BBC News just now, he was saying that the number will be lower than 50,000 while be slippery on what the actual policy will be* and, somewhat bizarrely, asserting that his aim (he kept on saying it wasn't a target) of 20,000-50,000 net migration was a return to the "normal" situation between 1950 and 2000 when, in fact, net migration was lower than 20,000 on average and frequently negative between 1950 and 1990 and higher than 50,000 between 1991 and 2001. He also said that their proposed system would have allowed just 27,000 people in last year.

As usual there was no justification as to why we should think that cutting by such a massive amount would be beneficial. He also got irritated when it was pointed out that his ballpark figure of earning more than £27k would exclude nurses.


* - which is probably fair, I don't think they've published a finalised policy yet.

 

[Dolph]

You're still not getting what "freedom of speech" is!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Everyone gets the right to impart information orally without (state or political) interference. It is NOT a right to a quiet podium and a keen audience at all times.

Preventing someone from expressing oneself, e.g. by shouting through a megaphone, should indeed get you ejected from whatever forum the speaker is at, and possibly land you with an offence under the Public Order Act (in this country), but it's not a violation of the human right.

The human right is there to make it e.g. illegal to arrest someone for what they say or think, BUT (as you say) with some limitations. If there are grounds to prevent someone speaking (wikipedia again has a nice little list: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, public security, public order, public nuisance) the government may do so.

You missed the rest of the caveats around article 19. From your own link.

Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

The state has responsibilities not just to not violate your rights directly, but also to protect your rights from violation. If your logic was applied to other rights, the state could not imprison you, but has no responsibility to prevent your imprisonment by others. This is quite clearly nonsense, and indeed, your list of exceptions supports that the state can and does manage freedom of speech to protect the rights of others. That is the reason why these offences exist, to prevent the abuse of an individuals rights by another individual

 

[robgmun]

The foundations of the UKIP house of cards are starting to look a little unstable.

LOL, hardly

It's only so that the lefty media can't make a big song and dance about missing a target when it turns out the numbers are 50,001, because they will

We don't need an extra quarter of a million people every year in this country. as long as it's below about 70k-80k, and we get to choose the cream of the crop that wants to get in, then i'm happy

 

[robgmun]

somewhat bizarrely, asserting that his aim (he kept on saying it wasn't a target) of 20,000-50,000 net migration was a return to the "normal" situation between 1950 and 2000 when, in fact, net migration was lower than 20,000 on average and frequently negative between 1950 and 1990 and higher than 50,000 between 1991 and 2001.

[jeopardy]Question for £100, What is an avarage?[/jeopardy]

 

[Mr Jack]

[jeopardy]Question for £100, What is an avarage?[/jeopardy]

An avarage? No idea. I was talking about the average.

Also, the point of jeopardy is that you were given an answer, and had to work out what the question was. So your 'jeopardy' tags are misplaced too.

 

[robgmun]

Sure

Don't play dumb you know what i was asking, I'm talking about average from 1950-2001,

 

[Mr Jack]

Don't play dumb you know what i was asking, I'm talking about average from 1950-2001,

Actually, dude, I didn't have a clue what you were trying to ask. You can find figures for decade-long averages here (chart 5); I couldn't find year-by-year figures. Note that exact figures don't exist, so these are estimates.

 

[robgmun]

So you had a go at Nigel Farage for a saying a fact you don't know if it correct yourself? Bit of a fail isn't it?

 

[Mr Jack]

So you had a go at Nigel Farage for a saying a fact you don't know if it correct yourself? Bit of a fail isn't it?

Do you know what the word 'estimate' means?

 

[robgmun]

Thats a weak comeback, in the meantime

 

[Mr Jack]

Thats a weak comeback, in the meantime

It's not a weak comeback. I gave you figures from a reliable source which contradict Nigel's statement and you dismissed them as not being correct because they're an estimate this strongly suggests that you don't know what an estimate is.

Nice pic

 

[robgmun]

It doesn't contradict as all because it's not a like for like comparison, i wasn't even referring to the fact it was an estimate, you're barking up the wrong tree

 

[Mr Jack]

It doesn't contradict as all because it's not a like for like comparison, i wasn't even referring to the fact it was an estimate, you're barking up the wrong tree

Perhaps you'd like to say what you were referring to then?

Nige said that average net migration between 1950 and 2000 was 20,000-50,000 a year. The actual figures are different from that. What is the not a like-for-like comparison here?

 

[platypus]

LOL, hardly

It's only so that the lefty media can't make a big song and dance about missing a target when it turns out the numbers are 50,001, because they will

We don't need an extra quarter of a million people every year in this country. as long as it's below about 70k-80k, and we get to choose the cream of the crop that wants to get in, then i'm happy

So its ok when UKIP miss targets, but not the current "establishment" parties?

 

[robgmun]

You said.

net migration was lower than 20,000 on average and frequently negative between 1950 and 1990 and higher than 50,000 between 1991 and 2001.

I didn't think i had to spell it out to you but couldn't Nigel Farage be taking the average on the whole time frame? I asked you what the average was between 1950 and 2001 because you seem to know that he was wrong but you didn't know.

 

[robgmun]

So its ok when UKIP miss targets, but not the current "establishment" parties?

They haven't missed a target yet because they're not in office and never have been and as the Tories proved it's dangerous to set one. I rather they have a rough target with a +/- several thousand so that lefty bashing doesn't get in the way of real politics.

 

[platypus]

They haven't missed a target yet because they're not in office and never have been and as the Tories proved it's dangerous to set one.

Granted, but just checking that you're happy for them to miss targets should they get into power.

 

[Judgeneo]

I think its a step in the right direction for UKIP, setting hard numbers on immigration is pointless, more important is the quality of the people coming in. A move away from unenforceable targets, towards evaluation based entry is a positive move.

 

[platypus]

I think its a step in the right direction for UKIP, setting hard numbers on immigration is pointless, more important is the quality of the people coming in.

Agreed but then why are they even trying to set a target then? Why not just say they want to lower it.

Mind its government targets that are mostly to blame.