Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: UK: Talk in public go to jail.... Unless you are muslim
1 view
Skip to first unread message
BurfordTJustice
May 30, 2012, 9:16:04 AM5/30/12
to
"G. Morgan" <seal...@osama-is-dead.net> wrote in message
news:cupbs75fmjv80sngu...@Osama-Is-Dead.net...
Eunometic wrote:
>On May 30, 6:58 pm, "BurfordTJustice" <burf...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
>> UK jails woman for racist rant on London subway
>>
>> LONDON (AP) -- A British judge has jailed a woman whose racist tirade
>> toward
>> fellow subway riders went viral on YouTube.
>>
>> Jacqueline Woodhouse, 42, boarded the subway drunk on the evening of Jan.
>> 23
>> and began berating her fellow passengers with a profanity-filled, racist
>> verbal assault.
>>
>> A seven-minute video of it was uploaded to YouTube and viewed more than
>> 200,000 times.
>>
>> Judge Michael Snow sentenced Woodhouse to 21 weeks in jail on Tuesday in
>> London, saying that anyone hearing her "grossly offensive" language would
>> feel a "deep sense of shame."
>>
>> Woodhouse - who had turned herself in to police after the footage began
>> to
>> circulate - had pleaded guilty to one count of causing racially
>> aggravated
>> harassment, alarm or distress by using threatening, abusive or insulting
>> words or behavior.
>
>Nevertheless she made some good points
Ridiculous. The worse that would have happened here would be a
night in jail for public intoxication. I'm surprised she wasn't
tried under Shia law and had her tongue removed in a public arena.
The British call "us" un-civilized when they don't even allow free
speech? Lol... I know who is free'er, no doubt in my mind.
Britanistan - has a real nice ring to it.
Are the drawings/plans ready to convert St Paul's Cathedral into a
mosque yet?
She's out of control but the camera operator keeps egging her on
to get good footage. Shouldn't that raghead get charged with
inciting a riot or something?!
Message has been deleted
saracene
May 30, 2012, 11:18:50 AM5/30/12
to
On May 30, 2:16 pm, "BurfordTJustice" <burf...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
> "G. Morgan" <sealte...@osama-is-dead.net> wrote in message
Edward Gibbon wondered if that might one day happen.
power shift. If someone has been given the whip hand and decides to
administer a bloody flogging, is that to be seen as an advance in
enlightenment?
> "G. Morgan" <sealte...@osama-is-dead.net> wrote in message
>
> She's out of control but the camera operator keeps egging her on
> to get good footage. Shouldn't that raghead get charged with
> inciting a riot or something?!
The extreme sentence is not an example of moral progress, only of a
> She's out of control but the camera operator keeps egging her on
> to get good footage. Shouldn't that raghead get charged with
> inciting a riot or something?!
power shift. If someone has been given the whip hand and decides to
administer a bloody flogging, is that to be seen as an advance in
enlightenment?
Message has been deleted
Jenn
May 30, 2012, 12:40:18 PM5/30/12
to
G. Morgan wrote:
> barbarism. First they take your guns, then your privacy, then
> your voice, then your national identity. Britannia will be
> unrecognizable in 20 years at this pace.
>
> What the hell happened over there? The very notion of getting a
> criminal charge for something you say (hateful or not), is nothing
> short of the "thought police" enforcing someone else's agenda.
The *thought police* exist everywhere, and many of those people
believe that if you don't tow the line that means you need
psychiatric help, your delusional, and/or your simply stupid. Try
posting a POV that is diametrically opposed to the PC mantra on
any given topic and see how quickly several people will pipe up
and tell you that your delusional, in need of pychiatric help, and/or
your simple stupid!
> Many men and women have given their lives so that we (in the US at
> least) can be free to speak about anything we choose without fear
> of reprisal by the government.
>
> Amendment I
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
> the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
> peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
> redress of grievances.
Although we believe in free speech, how often do you see
people being told to shut up or some other method in order
to silence someone else who doesn't tow the pc line?
--
Jenn
> saracene wrote:
>
>>> She's out of control but the camera operator keeps egging her on
>>> to get good footage. Shouldn't that raghead get charged with
>>> inciting a riot or something?!
>>
>> The extreme sentence is not an example of moral progress, only of a
>> power shift. If someone has been given the whip hand and decides to
>> administer a bloody flogging, is that to be seen as an advance in
> To me it would appear to be going backwards, trending towards
>
>>> She's out of control but the camera operator keeps egging her on
>>> to get good footage. Shouldn't that raghead get charged with
>>> inciting a riot or something?!
>>
>> The extreme sentence is not an example of moral progress, only of a
>> power shift. If someone has been given the whip hand and decides to
>> administer a bloody flogging, is that to be seen as an advance in
> barbarism. First they take your guns, then your privacy, then
> your voice, then your national identity. Britannia will be
> unrecognizable in 20 years at this pace.
>
> What the hell happened over there? The very notion of getting a
> criminal charge for something you say (hateful or not), is nothing
> short of the "thought police" enforcing someone else's agenda.
The *thought police* exist everywhere, and many of those people
believe that if you don't tow the line that means you need
psychiatric help, your delusional, and/or your simply stupid. Try
posting a POV that is diametrically opposed to the PC mantra on
any given topic and see how quickly several people will pipe up
and tell you that your delusional, in need of pychiatric help, and/or
your simple stupid!
> Many men and women have given their lives so that we (in the US at
> least) can be free to speak about anything we choose without fear
> of reprisal by the government.
>
> Amendment I
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
> the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
> peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
> redress of grievances.
Although we believe in free speech, how often do you see
people being told to shut up or some other method in order
to silence someone else who doesn't tow the pc line?
--
Jenn
SeaNymph
May 30, 2012, 12:57:30 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/30/2012 11:40 AM, Jenn wrote:
> G. Morgan wrote:
>> saracene wrote:
>>
>>
>> What the hell happened over there? The very notion of getting a
>> criminal charge for something you say (hateful or not), is nothing
>> short of the "thought police" enforcing someone else's agenda.
>
> The *thought police* exist everywhere, and many of those people
> believe that if you don't tow the line that means you need
> psychiatric help, your delusional, and/or your simply stupid. Try
> posting a POV that is diametrically opposed to the PC mantra on
> any given topic and see how quickly several people will pipe up
> and tell you that your delusional, in need of pychiatric help, and/or
> your simple stupid!
What line? The problem here is that you are making these wild
> G. Morgan wrote:
>> saracene wrote:
>>
>>
>> What the hell happened over there? The very notion of getting a
>> criminal charge for something you say (hateful or not), is nothing
>> short of the "thought police" enforcing someone else's agenda.
>
> The *thought police* exist everywhere, and many of those people
> believe that if you don't tow the line that means you need
> psychiatric help, your delusional, and/or your simply stupid. Try
> posting a POV that is diametrically opposed to the PC mantra on
> any given topic and see how quickly several people will pipe up
> and tell you that your delusional, in need of pychiatric help, and/or
> your simple stupid!
accusations because some have taken exception to what you have posted.
What PC mantra are you referring to? The problem is not a person's
reaction to what you post, the problem is your continuing refusal to
clarify, expound or answer questions about said post. You see a
person's reaction as an attack on you. It's not, it's your posted words
that have resulted in the response you don't like.
>
>
>> Many men and women have given their lives so that we (in the US at
>> least) can be free to speak about anything we choose without fear
>> of reprisal by the government.
>>
>> Amendment I
>>
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
>> the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
>> peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
>> redress of grievances.
>
> Although we believe in free speech, how often do you see
> people being told to shut up or some other method in order
> to silence someone else who doesn't tow the pc line?
>
huffy, why don't you explain? You don't do that, you just head off in
another direction, like totally unsupportable fear mongering. You claim
to believe in free speech, yet you continue to take exception when
others engage in that very activity. Ever consider that the problem is
your refusal to explain what you're saying?
Message has been deleted
Jenn
May 30, 2012, 2:20:03 PM5/30/12
to
G. Morgan wrote:
> simply fire back with the truth as I know it, or ignore the
> comment(s) altogether if they are not worthy of a reply.
I fire back with the truth just like you do, Graham.
>> Although we believe in free speech, how often do you see
>> people being told to shut up or some other method in order
>> to silence someone else who doesn't tow the pc line?
> All the time, how often to you see the other party "flip the
> script" and make that person/organization look douche-like? It
> works both ways.
yep ... It's difficult to actually talk about many issues..
--
Jenn
> Jenn wrote:
>> The *thought police* exist everywhere, and many of those people
>> believe that if you don't tow the line that means you need
>> psychiatric help, your delusional, and/or your simply stupid. Try
>> posting a POV that is diametrically opposed to the PC mantra on
>> any given topic and see how quickly several people will pipe up
>> and tell you that your delusional, in need of pychiatric help, and/or
>> your simple stupid!
> BTDT, and I don't care what they say. I really don't. I'll
>> The *thought police* exist everywhere, and many of those people
>> believe that if you don't tow the line that means you need
>> psychiatric help, your delusional, and/or your simply stupid. Try
>> posting a POV that is diametrically opposed to the PC mantra on
>> any given topic and see how quickly several people will pipe up
>> and tell you that your delusional, in need of pychiatric help, and/or
>> your simple stupid!
> simply fire back with the truth as I know it, or ignore the
> comment(s) altogether if they are not worthy of a reply.
I fire back with the truth just like you do, Graham.
>> Although we believe in free speech, how often do you see
>> people being told to shut up or some other method in order
>> to silence someone else who doesn't tow the pc line?
> script" and make that person/organization look douche-like? It
> works both ways.
yep ... It's difficult to actually talk about many issues..
--
Jenn
BurfordTJustice
May 31, 2012, 3:24:49 AM5/31/12
to
Really?
"Aardvark" <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in message
news:jq65i0$qek$1...@dont-email.me...
> First they take your guns,
No one took any guns, mate. Advances in civilised behaviour rendered them
unnecessary. GB civilians don't *need* firearms.
> then your privacy,
Huh?
> then your voice,
My voice is in my vote, mate. I haven't lost that.
> then your
> national identity.
Huh?
> Britannia will be unrecognizable in 20 years at this
> pace.
>
Huh?
> What the hell happened over there?
Nothing, mate. It's still accepted that with every individual right comes
an equal duty to one's fellow members of society. This case of the loud-
mouthed bigoted bitch on the tube is a perfect example of this. She
deserved what she got.
> The very notion of getting a
> criminal charge for something you say (hateful or not), is nothing short
> of the "thought police" enforcing someone else's agenda.
>
Wrong. The silly bitch was behaving in a manner which might have caused a
breach of the peace, a public order offence. Of course she was exercising
her right to free speech, but she was unaware of, or didn't give a shit
about, her responsibilities to society which go along with this right.
She was drunk and disorderly, a crime under the Criminal Justice act. She
used 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly
behaviour', a crime under the Public Order Act. Nothing at all to do with
exercising her right to free speech, mate. It was criminal behaviour,
pure and simple.
<http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_offences/#a01>
> Many men and women have given their lives so that we (in the US at
> least)
> can be free to speak about anything we choose without fear of reprisal
> by the government.
The government took no reprisal, mate. The mouthy, drunken, bigoted bitch
broke our society's rules and paid the price.
We all have rights, but we have responsibilities to match. The public
order laws we have are designed to deal with those who forget or ignore
these responsibilities.
In this case, the system worked as it was designed to do, and I'm pleased
by that.
--
"Tell me, truthfully, do *you* download music from The Pirate Bay for
your personal use and listening pleasure?"
Clever guy BD in post <gLidnTjP2tgGPy7S...@bt.com>
"Aardvark" <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in message
news:jq65i0$qek$1...@dont-email.me...
On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:28:42 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:
> To me it would appear to be going backwards, trending towards barbarism.
Huh?
> To me it would appear to be going backwards, trending towards barbarism.
> First they take your guns,
unnecessary. GB civilians don't *need* firearms.
> then your privacy,
Huh?
> then your voice,
My voice is in my vote, mate. I haven't lost that.
> then your
> national identity.
Huh?
> Britannia will be unrecognizable in 20 years at this
> pace.
>
> What the hell happened over there?
an equal duty to one's fellow members of society. This case of the loud-
mouthed bigoted bitch on the tube is a perfect example of this. She
deserved what she got.
> The very notion of getting a
> criminal charge for something you say (hateful or not), is nothing short
> of the "thought police" enforcing someone else's agenda.
>
breach of the peace, a public order offence. Of course she was exercising
her right to free speech, but she was unaware of, or didn't give a shit
about, her responsibilities to society which go along with this right.
She was drunk and disorderly, a crime under the Criminal Justice act. She
used 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly
behaviour', a crime under the Public Order Act. Nothing at all to do with
exercising her right to free speech, mate. It was criminal behaviour,
pure and simple.
<http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_offences/#a01>
> Many men and women have given their lives so that we (in the US at
> least)
> can be free to speak about anything we choose without fear of reprisal
> by the government.
broke our society's rules and paid the price.
We all have rights, but we have responsibilities to match. The public
order laws we have are designed to deal with those who forget or ignore
these responsibilities.
In this case, the system worked as it was designed to do, and I'm pleased
by that.
--
"Tell me, truthfully, do *you* download music from The Pirate Bay for
your personal use and listening pleasure?"
Clever guy BD in post <gLidnTjP2tgGPy7S...@bt.com>
sutartsorric
May 31, 2012, 4:15:28 AM5/31/12
to
On May 30, 5:40 pm, "Jenn" <therealmeforev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> G. Morgan wrote:
> > saracene wrote:
>
> >>> She's out of control but the camera operator keeps egging her on
> >>> to get good footage. Shouldn't that raghead get charged with
> >>> inciting a riot or something?!
>
> >> The extreme sentence is not an example of moral progress, only of a
> >> power shift. If someone has been given the whip hand and decides to
> >> administer a bloody flogging, is that to be seen as an advance in
> > To me it would appear to be going backwards, trending towards
> > barbarism. First they take your guns, then your privacy, then
> > your voice, then your national identity. Britannia will be
> > unrecognizable in 20 years at this pace.
>
> > What the hell happened over there? The very notion of getting a
> > criminal charge for something you say (hateful or not), is nothing
> > short of the "thought police" enforcing someone else's agenda.
>
> The *thought police* exist everywhere, and many of those people
> believe that if you don't tow the line that means you need
> psychiatric help, your delusional, and/or your simply stupid. Try
> posting a POV that is diametrically opposed to the PC mantra on
> any given topic and see how quickly several people will pipe up
> and tell you that your delusional, in need of pychiatric help, and/or
> your simple stupid!
>
Exactly right, and it is not only the 'several people' that pipe up
> G. Morgan wrote:
> > saracene wrote:
>
> >>> She's out of control but the camera operator keeps egging her on
> >>> to get good footage. Shouldn't that raghead get charged with
> >>> inciting a riot or something?!
>
> >> The extreme sentence is not an example of moral progress, only of a
> >> power shift. If someone has been given the whip hand and decides to
> >> administer a bloody flogging, is that to be seen as an advance in
> > To me it would appear to be going backwards, trending towards
> > barbarism. First they take your guns, then your privacy, then
> > your voice, then your national identity. Britannia will be
> > unrecognizable in 20 years at this pace.
>
> > What the hell happened over there? The very notion of getting a
> > criminal charge for something you say (hateful or not), is nothing
> > short of the "thought police" enforcing someone else's agenda.
>
> The *thought police* exist everywhere, and many of those people
> believe that if you don't tow the line that means you need
> psychiatric help, your delusional, and/or your simply stupid. Try
> posting a POV that is diametrically opposed to the PC mantra on
> any given topic and see how quickly several people will pipe up
> and tell you that your delusional, in need of pychiatric help, and/or
> your simple stupid!
>
yelling abuse at those who propose a non consensus view; but
invariably they will be supported by the appearance of users with
names never before seen on this newsgroup, who just happen to parrot
exactly the same "you need help" mantra.
They will then be followed by some brain dead object that does nothing
else but inform us that it is all the fault of the Jews, the
Illuminati, a bunch of lizards, David Icke, etc, etc, ad nauseam.
It is so predictable that I cant help thinking that all these
*responses* must be centrally co-ordinated. What amuses me though, is
that these people seem to be under the impression that their posts are
taken seriously.
0 new messages