Bernard Manning - the Daily Sillierandsillier inadvertently makes my point
Robin Carmody
columnist Sue Carroll reports the ban on Bernard Manning from performing at
Weymouth Pavilion, and sneers "Weymouth? If that's a town plagued by
massive feuding and inter-racial confict it's news to me."
Her patronising ignorance (she has probably never been here - if she has it
would doubtless have been on holiday 30 years ago) actually underlines
precisely why people like Manning should not be allowed to gain a foothold
in the shires; we have to nip any fantasies of an "all-white Britain" in the
bud. We cannot let the racists think that they own non-metropolitan
Britain.
--
Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
phil
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ate8br$qi9$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny. It doesn't
matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be allowed to be expressed
without restriction.
A good example of this recently is a report I saw on the BBC re: the
American Civil Liberties Union defending none other than the KKK in the
Supreme Court over a ban on burning crosses (!). Slightly embarrassing for
the ACLU to be representing them you might think, but they positively revel
in their defence of unpopular speech because they believe in freedom and see
any erosion of such a fundamental right as entirely unacceptable, by
definition that means defending the unpopular cases .
I dont know what the story is in this case, but if the council is involved
using the ridiculous system of licensing to control speech in this manner i
doubt it would stand up under a Human Rights Act challenge in the High
Court.
Nick
"phil" <ph...@no.com> wrote in message
news:FWBK9.9354$Jy4.78...@news-text.cableinet.net...
seriousness of petty dictators wielding their pc power. (We know what's good
for you to see/listen to).
Peter J King
> Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny. It doesn't
> matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be allowed to be expressed
> without restriction.
Why? The reasons for the importance of free speech seem to me to be good
ones, but they don't cover racist jokes, any more than they cover the
ludicrous extension of the notion of "free speech" found in the U.S.
That latter point is brought out by your example of the ACLU defending the
KK's burning crosses; in what way is that a matter of freedom of *speech*?
And if it is, why isn't refusing to let blacks ride at the front of buses
not a matter of free speech?
Of course, even if banning racist comedians doesn't offend against the
need for freedom of speech, it might be a bad idea for other reasons.
Still, to go back to my first point: why do you think that freedom of
speech is important? To what sorts of speech does your reason apply (and
to what sorts doesn't it)?
Peter J. King
Nick
"Huge" <hu...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote in message
news:atf816$e9j$5...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.44.021214...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Peter J King <shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> >On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, phil wrote:
> >
> >> Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny. It
doesn't
> >> matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be allowed to be
expressed
> >> without restriction.
> >
> >Why? The reasons for the importance of free speech seem to me to be good
> >ones, but
>
first
> part of their sentence was a lie.
>
>
> --
> "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
> The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
> [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
>
>
Well said!
to.reply.p...@end.of.message.com
must point out, for the record, that I am a staunch believer in
'health'.
For those who "believe in freedom" or "believe in the freedom of
speech":
PLEASE [imploringly] tell me what your notion is of the meaning
of either?
For those who choose to tackle that question, I would also be
grateful if, in your reply, you will deal with the ongoing
reality of people throughout history being imprisoned or
'legally' murdered purely as a consequence of what they say.
Jezza
<ateuga$lju$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, "Nick" <Ni...@aol.com> uttered the
following:
> Quite right . The whole thing would be hilarious were it not for the
>seriousness of petty dictators wielding their pc power. (We know what's good
>for you to see/listen to).
A council owned venue chooses not to give a platform to a known racist.
Why not? Any publican can throw out any one that they think is not
behaving.
If manning wants to perform in Weymouth he can hire another venue.
--
Jezza, Hotwells, Bristol
Bristol Music Guide
<http://www.hotwells.freeserve.co.uk/bristolmusic.html
Starry wisdom
weymouth (I thought it was a large nursing home for the incontinent)
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ate8br$qi9$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
dormouse
news:3dfb5...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> Lucky that the rest of the country are not as retarded as the yokels in
> weymouth (I thought it was a large nursing home for the incontinent)
Lets be frank, it was a revelation to discover that Weymouth (population 17
+4 sheep) still supports an entertainment centre.
--
dormouse
The dormouse welcomes visitors to:
http://www.the-dormouse.org
Visiting authors always welcome.
Peter J King
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.44.021214...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>, Peter J King <shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> >On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, phil wrote:
> >
> >> Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny. It doesn't
> >> matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be allowed to be expressed
> >> without restriction.
> >
> >Why? The reasons for the importance of free speech seem to me to be good
> >ones, but
>
> Whenever someone says "I believe in freedom, but ..." you know that the first
> part of their sentence was a lie.
Not a very original way of avoiding thinking about or replying to what
someone says. Did you get it from an early Christmas cracker?
How about: "I believe in freedom, but that doesn't mean that I think that
people should be free to rape and murder"? Do you want to apply your
little generalisation to that? Or do you really think that belief in
freedom should be unreflective and uncritical?
PJK
jd it's my turn to drive!
"Starry wisdom" <starry...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3dfb5...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> weymouth (I thought it was a large nursing home for the incontinent)
>
> "Robin Carmody"
Nah...that would be Portland.....home of The Winging & Whining Corrupt Has
Been Ex-Politicians Guild & The Home For The Incompetent Incontinents...
Oops....that's the whole of Dorset....sorry, Weymouth is just the safe haven
where they allow the inmates to go paddle in the Sea.
Jon~
Dan Scorpio
"dormouse" <bou...@britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:atfjtn$13on46$1...@ID-163332.news.dfncis.de...
> "Starry wisdom" <starry...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:3dfb5...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> > Lucky that the rest of the country are not as retarded as the yokels in
> > weymouth (I thought it was a large nursing home for the incontinent)
>
> Lets be frank, it was a revelation to discover that Weymouth (population
17
> +4 sheep) still supports an entertainment centre.
>
>
to a lamp post.
dormouse
news:atfuk9$4r3$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
That's not very sporting.
JNugent
|| "phil" <ph...@no.com> wrote:
||| Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny. It
||| doesn't matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be allowed
||| to be expressed without restriction.
|| What happened here was that Weymouth Council, who own the Pavilion,
|| decided that they would not accept a booking from Bernard Manning.
On what grounds?
|| Do you believe that the right to freedom of speech overrides the
|| right to refuse entry to premises that one owns? If so I demand the
|| right to come round your house and make a four hour speech on the
|| need for the reformed House of Lords to be wholly appointed.
Non-sequitur.
I very much doubt that ks's house is offered out for hire by the public.
Where a local authority does offer out rooms/halls/theatres for hire, there
is a powerful case to be made that the council (a political body) should
have no power to refuse to let out the facility on political or
quasi-political grounds such as these seem to be. And that anyone
unreasonably refused a hiring shouild be entitled to compensation for the
discrimination they are being made to suffer.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 06/12/02
Peter J King
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.44.021214...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>, Peter J King <shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> >Not a very original way of avoiding thinking about or replying to what
> >someone says. Did you get it from an early Christmas cracker?
>
> Whenever someone immediately resorts to 'ad hominem', you know that they have
> no rational argument.
>
> And indeed you haven't.
First, this wasn't an ad hominem argument, it was a (richly deserved)
insult.
Secondly, I wasn't claiming to offer an argument of any kind; I was asking
a question, an answer to which is essential to any rational discussion of
the issue of freedom of speech.
Thirdly, I do have arguments supporting my view, which I'll lay out as
soon as someone offers a moderately intelligent answer to my question (I'm
not holding my breath). This is something that I've been thinking about a
good deal deal lately, partly because I teach political philosophy on a
regular basis, partly because I'm about to teach a course that includes
this issue in a slightly different context. The discussion so far, on
both sides, has been conducted at the level of slogan-waving rather than
any kind of genuine thought and argument; I thought that it might be nice
to get beyond that.
Fourthly, you, however, are clearly a loud-mouthed drooling cretin,
incapable of engaging in rational discourse, so burble all you want, I'll
not be bothering to respond to you again.
PJK
dormouse
news:atgd1j$i9q$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> || "phil" <ph...@no.com> wrote:
>
> ||| Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny. It
> ||| doesn't matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be allowed
> ||| to be expressed without restriction.
>
> || What happened here was that Weymouth Council, who own the Pavilion,
> || decided that they would not accept a booking from Bernard Manning.
>
> On what grounds?
>
> || Do you believe that the right to freedom of speech overrides the
> || right to refuse entry to premises that one owns? If so I demand the
> || right to come round your house and make a four hour speech on the
> || need for the reformed House of Lords to be wholly appointed.
>
> Non-sequitur.
>
> I very much doubt that ks's house is offered out for hire by the public.
>
> Where a local authority does offer out rooms/halls/theatres for hire,
there
> is a powerful case to be made that the council (a political body) should
> have no power to refuse to let out the facility on political or
> quasi-political grounds such as these seem to be. And that anyone
> unreasonably refused a hiring shouild be entitled to compensation for the
> discrimination they are being made to suffer.
On top of which the hire of the hall would I have no doubt made a welcome
addition to council funds. Anybody tell me what the council tax is like for
Weymouth?
Wotan
Peter Looney <loo...@freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dnqmvuc3g9o2atcro...@4ax.com...
> Hi There.
>
> After reading your posts I think you can help me on a little project I
> am undertaking. It seems to me that this news group has not been at
> all successful in sticking to its charter nor for that matter in
> fulfilling its aims and objectives.
>
Impudent puppy !
There is no charter - neither are there any aims or objectives.
Now do your own bloody homework sonney jim !
JNugent
|| <JNu...@AC30.Freeofspamserve.co.uk> wrote:
|||||| Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny.
|||||| It doesn't matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be
|||||| allowed to be expressed without restriction.
||||| What happened here was that Weymouth Council, who own the
||||| Pavilion, decided that they would not accept a booking from
||||| Bernard Manning.
||| On what grounds?
|| That's up to them.
I say it isn't.
But then, the question was about their stated grounds. They did state them,
didn't they?
||||| Do you believe that the right to freedom of speech overrides the
||||| right to refuse entry to premises that one owns? If so I demand
||||| the right to come round your house and make a four hour speech on
||||| the need for the reformed House of Lords to be wholly appointed.
||| Non-sequitur.
||| I very much doubt that ks's house is offered out for hire by the
||| public.
|| A local authority is elected by the public, so it has slightly more
|| justification to speak about what would cause problems in the
|| locality.
It has nothing of the sort, with the possible exception of a situation
where there is unanimity of a whole (multi-party) council as to the issue
at hand. Local authorities have no brief to prevent the dissemination of
information, views or alternative political standpoints within the area
they administer.
||| Where a local authority does offer out rooms/halls/theatres for
||| hire, there is a powerful case to be made that the council (a
||| political body) should have no power to refuse to let out the
||| facility on political or quasi-political grounds such as these seem
||| to be.
|| Would that not be an unjustifiably strict restriction on local
|| democracy?
No - as you well know but do not care to admit.
It would be the opposite - it would be a measure *preventing* a local
authority from undemocratically stifling views with which it did not agree.
Ask yourself whether Wandsworth should be free to ban Labour Party meetings
on its property (not, I am sure, that they would do that). Then, when your
mind has been concentrated, ask yourself again about the larger question
(bearing in mind that many people find the Labour Party offensive, but also
that this should not be a reason for a LA to ban their hiring of
council-run halls, even where a majority of the LA are not in favour of
letting them hire them).
|| How would you prove 'political or quasi-political
|| grounds' in court?
The meaning would have to be construed liberally and non-restrictively,
with the onus being on the LA to credibly show that their reasons were
non-political. And those reasons should have to be very credible -
certainly not mere suggestion.
||| And that anyone unreasonably refused a hiring shouild be entitled
||| to compensation for the discrimination they are being made to
||| suffer.
|| Why should that apply to local authority run halls and not to
|| privately run ones?
Because LAs have public duties.
Mel Rowing
> Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny. It doesn't
> matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be allowed to be expressed
> without restriction.
>
> A good example of this recently is a report I saw on the BBC re: the
> American Civil Liberties Union defending none other than the KKK in the
> Supreme Court over a ban on burning crosses (!). Slightly embarrassing for
> the ACLU to be representing them you might think, but they positively revel
> in their defence of unpopular speech because they believe in freedom and see
> any erosion of such a fundamental right as entirely unacceptable, by
> definition that means defending the unpopular cases .
>
> I dont know what the story is in this case, but if the council is involved
> using the ridiculous system of licensing to control speech in this manner i
> doubt it would stand up under a Human Rights Act challenge in the High
> Court.
I would not go to see Manning if he were appearing in our front room.
I would presume that the burghers of Weymouth lack any sort of
confidence in the taste of its citizens. If they do not, what a
magnificent opportunity they have let pass to have him face the
humiliation of playing to empty seats.
Perhaps they are no different in their attitude towards certain
matters as we ar led to beleive.
Mel Rowing
altheim
"Huge" <hu...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
> Peter Looney <loo...@freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >Hi There.
> >
> >After reading your posts I think you can help me on a little project I
> >am undertaking. It seems to me that this news group
>
>
I think you missed the point Huge, he was talking about you.
--
altheim
sean
Are you afraid that the sort of remarks that Manning comes out with
are so persuasive that people like you would be incapable of refuting
him? There remain plenty of open-minded leftists, but generally,
these days the Left wants to censor.
sean
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, phil wrote:
>
> > Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny. It doesn't
> > matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be allowed to be expressed
> > without restriction.
>
> Why? The reasons for the importance of free speech seem to me to be good
> ones, but they don't cover racist jokes, any more than they cover the
> ludicrous extension of the notion of "free speech" found in the U.S.
Why not? No one is compelled to go and listen to Bernard Manning. If
he were to advocate violence against non-whites, then he could be
prosecuted.
>
> That latter point is brought out by your example of the ACLU defending the
> KK's burning crosses; in what way is that a matter of freedom of *speech*?
> And if it is, why isn't refusing to let blacks ride at the front of buses
> not a matter of free speech?
Obviously it is not. If a blacks have paid for their tickets then
they should be entitled to sit at the front of the bus. What has that
to do with someone burning a cross on private property?
>
> Of course, even if banning racist comedians doesn't offend against the
> need for freedom of speech, it might be a bad idea for other reasons.
> Still, to go back to my first point: why do you think that freedom of
> speech is important? To what sorts of speech does your reason apply (and
> to what sorts doesn't it)?
>
> Peter J. King
Short of inciting people to commit crimes, or committing libel, people
should be free to express any opinion they choose.
spam welcome loads of it
>these days the Left wants to censor.
No one more Left Wing than me but I find Manning extremely funny and harmless.
It is not only the Left that wants to censor, the other lot are just as bad.
Dave
And remember... Every time you masturbate that God kills a kitten....
phil
"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-15120...@election.demon.co.uk...
> Would that not be an unjustifiably strict restriction on local democracy?
>
I reckon it is a necessary restriction on slimey and often ruthless
politicians whether they be at a local, national or supranational level.
Politicians must NOT be allowed to determine what speech can and cannot be
heard!
JNugent
|| "phil" <ph...@no.com> wrote:
||| "David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
|||| Would that not be an unjustifiably strict restriction on local
|||| democracy? How would you prove 'political or quasi-political
|||| grounds' in court?
||| I reckon it is a necessary restriction on slimey and often ruthless
||| politicians whether they be at a local, national or supranational
||| level. Politicians must NOT be allowed to determine what speech can
||| and cannot be heard!
|| But that is not relevant to this case. Bernard Manning is perfectly
|| free to go to Weymouth and put on a show in a private venue, or even
|| stand on a soapbox in the middle of the high street and address the
|| crowds.
It certainly *is* relevant to this case. It is hard to see what could be as
relevant. Or how you could more obviously miss the point.
Here we have politicians (for it is they who control the venue) censoring
speech.
And we have you (in your previous post) arguing not only that they ought to
have the power of censorship, but that they have exercised it properly.
It is notable that you have not responded to the point about whether it
would be right for a local authority to refuse a hiring of a public venue
to the Labour Party (an organisation whose collective view many people find
repugnant, as you know)..
Jezza
<e1b1d184.02121...@posting.google.com>,
mel.r...@btinternet.com (Mel Rowing) uttered the following:
>I would not go to see Manning if he were appearing in our front room.
Indeed, I would have him ejected if he got into my front room.
>I would presume that the burghers of Weymouth lack any sort of
>confidence in the taste of its citizens. If they do not, what a
>magnificent opportunity they have let pass to have him face the
>humiliation of playing to empty seats.
Well, the manager may have decided not to have him as they didn't want to
incur a loss on that evening. The Colston Hall in Bristol doesn't just
take any old booking. They have the overall impression of the type of
entertainment that they wish to present, ie they don't do boxing any more.
He may have been there and been abusive to staff. The racist Jim Davidson
got ejected from a leading local hotel recently for that.
What it comes down to is this. Any entertainment venue has standards and
policies about the type of entertainment they present. In this case they
have decided that Manning doesn't meet the standards they want. That is
their right. If you are a citizen of Weymouth, you can protest to the
council, get elected and get the policy changed. One thing is sure -
whining about it here won't do you any good.
--
Jezza, Hotwells, Bristol
<http://www.hotwells.freeserve.co.uk/Hotwell.html>
Jezza
<atidvm$dad$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "JNugent"
<JNu...@AC30.Freeofspamserve.co.uk> uttered the following:
>"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>|| But that is not relevant to this case. Bernard Manning is perfectly
>|| free to go to Weymouth and put on a show in a private venue, or even
>|| stand on a soapbox in the middle of the high street and address the
>|| crowds.
>
>It certainly *is* relevant to this case. It is hard to see what could be as
>relevant. Or how you could more obviously miss the point.
Or you.
>Here we have politicians (for it is they who control the venue) censoring
>speech.
No one has censored anyone. A municipal venue has refused a booking from
Bernard Manning, or maybe they have not offered him a booking. They have
chosen to promote him. Like they don't promote any old band that asks for
a booking, or any old off the street comic. They are entitled as licensees
to admit or refuse entry to anyone.
Bernard Manning and his supporters don't like it? Book another venue or
put up a big top.
Peter J King
> Peter J King <shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.4.44.021214...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>...
> > On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, phil wrote:
> >
> > > Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny. It doesn't
> > > matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be allowed to be expressed
> > > without restriction.
> >
> > Why? The reasons for the importance of free speech seem to me to be good
> > ones, but they don't cover racist jokes, any more than they cover the
> > ludicrous extension of the notion of "free speech" found in the U.S.
>
> Why not? No one is compelled to go and listen to Bernard Manning. If
> he were to advocate violence against non-whites, then he could be
> prosecuted.
If your "why not?" is asking about what I said, then my answer is that the
reasons for defending freedom of speech concern its being *speech*, and a
particular sort of speech. There are other reasons for opposing
censorship, but they shouldn't be confused with those to do with freedom
of speech.
If your "why not?" is about the Bernard Manning case, as your next
comments suggest, then it's aimed at a comment I didn't make. I'm not
concerned with whether or not it was right for a council to decide not to
book him (though it seems to me that they have a right to book or not to
book whomever they want); I'm concerned with the *reasons* given by those
who object.
> > That latter point is brought out by your example of the ACLU defending the
> > KK's burning crosses; in what way is that a matter of freedom of *speech*?
> > And if it is, why isn't refusing to let blacks ride at the front of buses
> > not a matter of free speech?
>
> Obviously it is not. If a blacks have paid for their tickets then
> they should be entitled to sit at the front of the bus. What has that
> to do with someone burning a cross on private property?
Because neither is *speech*. As for the issue of the front of the bus,
you seem to be unaware of the history of the civil-rights movement in the
U.S., where segregation had meant among other things that whites had
priority over the front seats of buses.
> > Of course, even if banning racist comedians doesn't offend against the
> > need for freedom of speech, it might be a bad idea for other reasons.
> > Still, to go back to my first point: why do you think that freedom of
> > speech is important? To what sorts of speech does your reason apply (and
> > to what sorts doesn't it)?
> Short of inciting people to commit crimes, or committing libel, people
> should be free to express any opinion they choose.
Why? That's precisely the question that I was asking: what reasons do you
have for this claim? You've answered by merely repeating the claim.
Peter J. King
Peter J King
> Peter J King <shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.4.44.021214...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>...
> > [...]
> > That latter point is brought out by your example of the ACLU defending the
> > KK's burning crosses; in what way is that a matter of freedom of *speech*?
> > And if it is, why isn't refusing to let blacks ride at the front of buses
> > not a matter of free speech?
> that impinges on black people's right to travel freely.
> cross-burning isn't necessarily impinging unless it's on their front
> laws, in which case it would probably count as intimidation.
But you miss my central point: neither is *speech*. Defence of the
freedom of speech is strictly irrelevant to both cases.
> > Of course, even if banning racist comedians doesn't offend against the
> > need for freedom of speech, it might be a bad idea for other reasons.
> > Still, to go back to my first point: why do you think that freedom of
> > speech is important? To what sorts of speech does your reason apply (and
> > to what sorts doesn't it)?
> freedom of speech is not a 'good' in itself.
Unfortunately that's not the position held by many people, who
unreflectively trot out the appeal to a right to free speech as a defence
of all sorts of behaviour.
> nobody argues it is 'important' that we hear certain things,
> particularly not from bernard manning (a genius),
Either that's sarcasm, or we have different understandings of what
constitutes genius.
> but the principle remains that if you start banning things you have to
> have someone doing the banning. usually that's the government. once you
> give them the chance to do that, they have the power to erode other
> important civil liberties.
First, in most cases it isn't the government, but other organisations
(such as students' unions). Secondly, slippery-slope arguments are
generally suspect, and need particular care.
There are other issues raised here, but I'll leave it at that. Very
roughly, it was something like your reason that I had in mind when I
wrote: "it might be a bad idea for other reasons". My main question,
though, remains.
Peter J. King
Mike Hide
premises that "ONE "owns...."
the council doesn't own the pavilion...mjh
--
"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-14120...@election.demon.co.uk...
> In article <FWBK9.9354$Jy4.78...@news-text.cableinet.net>, "phil"
> <ph...@no.com> wrote:
> >
> > Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny. It
doesn't
> > matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be allowed to be
expressed
> > without restriction.
>
> What happened here was that Weymouth Council, who own the Pavilion,
decided
> that they would not accept a booking from Bernard Manning.
>
> refuse entry to premises that one owns?> Do you believe that the right to
freedom of speech overrides the right to
If so I demand the right to come
> round your house and make a four hour speech on the need for the reformed
> House of Lords to be wholly appointed.
>
Mike Hide
--
mike hide
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"Huge" <hu...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote in message
news:atf7v5$e9j$4...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> In article <FWBK9.9354$Jy4.78...@news-text.cableinet.net>, "phil"
<ph...@no.com> writes:
>
> [22 lines snipped]
>
> >A good example of this recently is a report I saw on the BBC re: the
> >American Civil Liberties Union defending none other than the KKK in the
> >Supreme Court over a ban on burning crosses (!). Slightly embarrassing
for
> >the ACLU to be representing them you might think, but they positively
revel
> >in their defence of unpopular speech because they believe in freedom and
see
> >any erosion of such a fundamental right as entirely unacceptable, by
> >definition that means defending the unpopular cases .
>
> W-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-llllll. They're quite keen on the First Amendment,
but
> nothing like so keen on the Second, which rather erodes their moral stand
> on the Constitution.
Oh really , the right to bear arm for self defense was written into the
BRITISH "bill of rights ' published circa 1680.and of course overridden by
Blair several years ago...mjh
> "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
> The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
> [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
>
>
Mike Hide
"phil" <ph...@no.com> wrote in message
news:FWBK9.9354$Jy4.78...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ate8br$qi9$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > In the Daily Mirror (Wednesday 11th December) ultra-"populist" tabloid
> > columnist Sue Carroll reports the ban on Bernard Manning from performing
> at
> > Weymouth Pavilion, and sneers "Weymouth? If that's a town plagued by
> > massive feuding and inter-racial confict it's news to me."
> >
> > Her patronising ignorance (she has probably never been here - if she has
> it
> > would doubtless have been on holiday 30 years ago) actually underlines
> > precisely why people like Manning should not be allowed to gain a
foothold
> > in the shires; we have to nip any fantasies of an "all-white Britain" in
> the
> > bud. We cannot let the racists think that they own non-metropolitan
> > Britain.
>
> Any erosion of freedom of speech is destined to end in tyranny. It doesn't
> matter how unpopular such speech is, it should be allowed to be expressed
> without restriction.
>
> A good example of this recently is a report I saw on the BBC re: the
> American Civil Liberties Union defending none other than the KKK in the
> Supreme Court over a ban on burning crosses (!). Slightly embarrassing for
> the ACLU to be representing them you might think, but they positively
revel
> in their defence of unpopular speech because they believe in freedom and
see
> any erosion of such a fundamental right as entirely unacceptable, by
> definition that means defending the unpopular cases .
I believe recently the congress passed a law that it was illegal to ban
burning the Stars and stripes and thereby limiting freedom of speach. Others
are arguing that burning crosses is essentially the same thing, limiting
free speech.
I hasten to mention that the ACLU is an institution that defends the civil
rights blacks and whites alike neither of which is embarassing.
One other point the KKK did and does not only burn crosses in black front
yards but white ones also . You also need to do a little research into the
origines of the KKK before running your mouth...mjh
> I dont know what the story is in this case, but if the council is involved
> using the ridiculous system of licensing to control speech in this manner
i
> doubt it would stand up under a Human Rights Act challenge in the High
> Court.
>
gavin
Robin Carmody <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ate8br$qi9$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> In the Daily Mirror (Wednesday 11th December) ultra-"populist" tabloid
> columnist Sue Carroll reports the ban on Bernard Manning from performing
at
> Weymouth Pavilion, and sneers "Weymouth? If that's a town plagued by
> massive feuding and inter-racial confict it's news to me."
>
> Her patronising ignorance (she has probably never been here - if she has
it
> would doubtless have been on holiday 30 years ago) actually underlines
> precisely why people like Manning should not be allowed to gain a foothold
> in the shires; we have to nip any fantasies of an "all-white Britain" in
the
> bud. We cannot let the racists think that they own non-metropolitan
> Britain.
Mike Hide
"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-16120...@election.demon.co.uk...
> In article <cV8L9.168197$pN3.12041@sccrnsc03>, "Mike Hide"
> <mike...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > Oh really , the right to bear arm for self defense was written into the
> > BRITISH "bill of rights ' published circa 1680.and of course overridden
by
> > Blair several years ago...mjh
>
> Limited knowledge of history there. The Bill of Rights was 1689 in the
> interregnum, not during Charles II who would never have countenanced it.
>
> There never was an unchallengable right to own firearms and restrictions
> on gun ownership began long before the present government. The previous
> Conservative government made two very restrictive changes to the law
> after the Hungerford massacre and the Dunblane massacre.
>
> --
> http://www.election.demon.co.uk
Excuse the rough date, certainly Charles II would not agree being as pro
Catholic as he was.
The RIGHT to bear arms was written into the English bill of rights and was
written as such...
a.. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their
defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.
Both William and Parliament signed on to this so it was unchallenged.
This was then a basic right of the citizens of England only to be
countermanded by sucessive goverments which leads to the problems at hand.
There are no defining rules that parliamentary law has to abide by,
consequently you end up with an elected dictatorship...mjh
Derek
Boothroyd) wrote:
>> I reckon it is a necessary restriction on slimey and often ruthless
>> politicians whether they be at a local, national or supranational level.
>> Politicians must NOT be allowed to determine what speech can and cannot be
>> heard!
>
>But that is not relevant to this case. Bernard Manning is perfectly free
>to go to Weymouth and put on a show in a private venue, or even stand on
>a soapbox in the middle of the high street and address the crowds.
WRONG.
He most certainly is not free to do that. He has the right "To pass and
to re - pass", and that is the extent of it.
The late Lord Soper was once arrested by a young constable whilst
addressing the crowds from a soapbox at speaker's corner (Which he had
always done, every Sunday) for "Causing an obstruction".
DG
~ TFW ~
"Mary MacQuire" <toodl...@this.and.that> wrote in message
news:27krvukvvaddllhtq...@4ax.com...
> Look folks, instead of sitting around with your head so far up your
> arse that all you are aquainted with is the back of your own teeth why
> don't all of you get out there and get a fucking life? Before you know
> where you are it will have passed you by!
>
> Trust me on this one.
Duckie, I wouldn't trust you with a mouse and a tampon, you'd be bound to
get it wrong!
Now, be a good girl and kindly troll off somewhere else and procreate
yourself with a broken bottle, believe me, you'll really enjoy it better
than Trolling around the Newsgroups like "The Artificial Blonde Moron"
fanniless pip that you undoubtedly are.
The Fourth Warrior.
David
venue is a dump and should be redeveloped as a carpark (currently
under consideration), if he is a roaring success then its a victory
for free speech. I don't like his show personally , but I don't
advocate such bans either.
Dave
JNugent
|| In the Daily Mirror (Wednesday 11th December) ultra-"populist"
|| tabloid columnist Sue Carroll reports the ban on Bernard Manning
|| from performing at Weymouth Pavilion, and sneers "Weymouth? If
|| that's a town plagued by massive feuding and inter-racial confict
|| it's news to me."
|| Her patronising ignorance (she has probably never been here - if she
|| has it would doubtless have been on holiday 30 years ago)
What is wrong with her assumption that Weymouth does not suffer from
feuding and inter-racial conflict?
As it happens. I have *never* been to Weymouth (whether or not the
columnist has) and if Weymouth were a town plagued by massive feuding and
inter-racial confict it would also be news to me.
Joe Hutcheon
<JNu...@AC30.Freeofspamserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>|| In the Daily Mirror (Wednesday 11th December) ultra-"populist"
>|| tabloid columnist Sue Carroll reports the ban on Bernard Manning
>|| from performing at Weymouth Pavilion, and sneers "Weymouth? If
>|| that's a town plagued by massive feuding and inter-racial confict
>|| it's news to me."
>
>|| Her patronising ignorance (she has probably never been here - if she
>|| has it would doubtless have been on holiday 30 years ago)
>
>What is wrong with her assumption that Weymouth does not suffer from
>feuding and inter-racial conflict?
>
>As it happens. I have *never* been to Weymouth (whether or not the
>columnist has) and if Weymouth were a town plagued by massive feuding and
>inter-racial confict it would also be news to me.
It certainly wasn't plagued by such when I was last there, though that
was 20 years ago. If you're ever in that neck of the woods, Wareham
is very pleasant.
spam welcome loads of it
But it is certainly a place that gets its fair share of villians ducking
and diving!
I.e. Weymouth is hardly the peaceful retirement home that it is
being made out to be here.
David
to be a naval port, went through an identity crisis, and still trying
to reinvent itself. On the up though. There is very few people there
from different cultures or countries, so most people have little
experience of interracial tension. The nearest the locals get is to
arguing over the site of hostels and the influx of "dolies" (people on
benefits - some get moved to where there is a lot of accommodation)
from elsewhere.
Dave
Jezza
<bS8L9.73862$hw3.10815@sccrnsc04>, "Mike Hide" <mike...@attbi.com>
uttered the following:
>Since when did the "Weymouth council " OWN the pavilion . "refuse entry to
>premises that "ONE "owns...."
>the council doesn't own the pavilion...mjh
Well they do own it - and they are putting on the racist, also his other
racist mate davidson.
<URL: http://www.weymouth.gov.uk/main.asp?svid=4&svaid=178&svapid=390>
Mike Hide
"Jezza" <wr...@ubgjryyf.serrfreir.pb.hx.vainyvq> wrote in message
news:n4kuvu8fmhfmg7me4...@4ax.com...
Sorry for that assertion, I did not realize the council members owned the
pavilion, I was under the impressiom the Weymouth taxpayers did and that the
council were acting as the social nannies for them..mjh
Robin Carmody
> Nothing at all. Its a traditional bucket and spade seaside town. Used
> to be a naval port, went through an identity crisis, and still trying
> to reinvent itself. On the up though.
The fabric of the place has changed massively since I came here in 1994,
when it was *very* depressed. As you say it has become something of a
miniature boom town.
There is very few people there
> from different cultures or countries, so most people have little
> experience of interracial tension. The nearest the locals get is to
> arguing over the site of hostels and the influx of "dolies" (people on
> benefits - some get moved to where there is a lot of accommodation)
And had an influence swinging the seat to Labour, as far as I could see.
Count Dracula
news:ate8br$qi9$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> columnist Sue Carroll reports the ban on Bernard Manning from performing at
> massive feuding and inter-racial confict it's news to me."
>
> Her patronising ignorance (she has probably never been here - if she has it
> precisely why people like Manning should not be allowed to gain a foothold
> in the shires; we have to nip any fantasies of an "all-white Britain" in the
> bud. We cannot let the racists think that they own non-metropolitan
> Britain.
> Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
>
>
I am white, English and proud of it and I sympathise with the British National
Party.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 30-Dec-02
The Ancient Geek
wrote:
>Britain is primarily a white country, not a black or brown country.
Actually it is primarily brown, green, grey and blue when viewed from
above - bits of yellow and white - in Devon there's a fair amount of red
too.
>I am white, English and proud of it and I sympathise with the British National
>Party.
Nooo - you are a twat and proud of it no doubt.
and no, this wasn't an attempt to engage in deeply thought out debate -
just telling it "how it is".
Wotan
Count Dracula <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:av99mm$3m5$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ate8br$qi9$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > In the Daily Mirror (Wednesday 11th December) ultra-"populist" tabloid
> > columnist Sue Carroll reports the ban on Bernard Manning from performing
at
> > Weymouth Pavilion, and sneers "Weymouth? If that's a town plagued by
> > massive feuding and inter-racial confict it's news to me."
> >
> > Her patronising ignorance (she has probably never been here - if she has
it
> > would doubtless have been on holiday 30 years ago) actually underlines
> > precisely why people like Manning should not be allowed to gain a
foothold
> > in the shires; we have to nip any fantasies of an "all-white Britain" in
the
> > bud. We cannot let the racists think that they own non-metropolitan
> > Britain.
> > --
> > Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
> >
> >
> Britain is primarily a white country, not a black or brown country.
> I am white, English and proud of it and I sympathise with the British
National
> Party.
>
Robin Carmondy is a notrious Marxist "EU" quisling - and they
do not think that anybody who disagrees with their dogman (now
wrapped up as "political correctness") should be allowed to express
any opinion.
Police states maintained by political repression and cersorship are
their speciality.
Bernard Manning, or anybody esle, has a perfect right to say
anything he likes. As guaranteed by our constitution and law.
Goose stepping Marxist fleas who insist otherwise have the option
of taking themselves to Communist China or N.Korea where they
can get away with it.
They are not going to here.
Joe Hutcheon
>Goose stepping Marxist fleas
Roll up! Roll up! See Professor Wotan and his world-famous
goose-stepping Marxist fleas!
Joe Fogey
"Count Dracula" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:av99mm$3m5$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...