| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:07 - Feb 15 with 2104 views | positivity |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:05 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
railing against free speech is not a good look. best left to despots. |
standing up for blatant and dangerous lies is also not a good look. |  |
|  |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:10 - Feb 15 with 2081 views | positivity |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:01 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
"They talk about immigration, but our economy and services will collapse without it.
We cant man the basic services, NHS, care homes etc without people from aborad willing to do those jobs."
this is the sort of thing that people repeat because it sounds lovely. but it is just not a factual explanation of current migration numbers. only a minority of the net migration of 3 million in the past 4 years have come to work. of those who have come to work a small minority are skilled. those who have come to work in the nhs or the care sector are a tiny proportion of the 3 million total. it's like saying that people own dogs because they guide the blind - well a very small proportion do. |
what percentage of care workers are migrants?
what percentage of people in receipt of this care are migrants? | |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:12 - Feb 15 with 2067 views | redrickstuhaart |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:10 - Feb 15 by positivity |
what percentage of care workers are migrants?
what percentage of people in receipt of this care are migrants? |
Can you tell us then, why a government which spent so much money and time shouting about small boats, chose to keep the entry regulations such that very significant legal immigration came in last year? | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:14 - Feb 15 with 2046 views | redrickstuhaart |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:05 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
railing against free speech is not a good look. best left to despots. |
Your rught to free speech ends when you shout fire in a theatre for no good reason and people get hurt in what follows.
Which is what Vance just did. | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 19:19 - Feb 15 with 1935 views | J2BLUE |
Trump has also generously offered Ukraine the opportunity to give them 50% of their rare earth minerals for free...
I'm sure rejecting that 'offer' will be one of the reasons Trump gives for selling them out.
Time for a European army or at the very least a new version of NATO without the US |  |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 19:20 - Feb 15 with 1928 views | Eireannach_gorm |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:21 - Feb 14 by jontysnut |
It's America first and palling up with Russia, North Korea etc suits their China strategy more than the old transatlantic alliance. |
Isn't China an ally of Russia? |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 19:22 - Feb 15 with 1917 views | Kropotkin123 |
Nothing new there. If Europe wants to be relevant it needs to make itself so. Supporting Ukraine is a choice, one that we have done in an unwhelming capacity so far.
Making oursleves relevant would be at a minimum:
- Funding Ukraine at 0.25% of GDP for 4 years, as Estonia worked out and started doing themselves. Part of the problem with Ukraine's funding situation is they can't commit to ramping up production in key areas because they don't have the commitment of long-term financial support.
- Using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine and any rebuilding efforts. This can even offset the 0.25% contribution, and importantly sets out punative measures for the attack on Ukraine.
- Commit to 2.5-5% defence spending.
As we are seeing, we can't rely on others to protect ourselves. Russia won't stop here, if it even bothers to sign an agreement with the US. [Post edited 15 Feb 19:26]
|  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 19:28 - Feb 15 with 1872 views | redrickstuhaart |
And to make sure there are no independent witnesses... | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 20:01 - Feb 15 with 1793 views | ford6600 |
Nato perhaps could look to Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain, Turkey for coordinated leadership to support Ukraine whilst the US is AWOL under Trump. With leverage, if Taiwan becomes an issue Europe will not support the US..against China..if the US abandons Ukraine. | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 20:09 - Feb 15 with 1757 views | Plums |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 19:20 - Feb 15 by Eireannach_gorm |
Isn't China an ally of Russia? |
While it suits them |  |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 20:21 - Feb 15 with 1736 views | reusersfreekicks |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:05 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
railing against free speech is not a good look. best left to despots. |
Your free speech is blatant lies misinformation and incitement.
Not a good look either. |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 20:31 - Feb 15 with 1708 views | MattinLondon |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:05 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
railing against free speech is not a good look. best left to despots. |
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequence or freedom to be a prick. |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 21:13 - Feb 15 with 1639 views | Swansea_Blue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 20:31 - Feb 15 by MattinLondon |
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequence or freedom to be a prick. |
Quite. Lowie seems to have missed the memo that there can be consequences for free speech when it breaks laws or conventions of decency. Unfortunately It’s a viewpoint you’ll see regularly spouted by the Telegraph/Spectator columnists.
We’re in an interesting/scary place at the moment. It feels like we’re on a bit of a knife edge between being able to place limits around behaviours and having a free for all. The anti-immigrants/perfectly-fine-with-literal-Nazi-salutes crowd is the obvious example of where some of us are being corrupted. I also wouldn’t have thought the USA attack on abortions would come over here, for example. But statements in the last few days should put us in our guard and make any woman nervous.
We’re seeing an attack on our values from people who have very different values; ones we really don’t want to aspire to. I worry that our government is too weak/desperate to stand up to them. [Post edited 15 Feb 21:39]
|  |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 21:45 - Feb 15 with 1549 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:14 - Feb 15 by redrickstuhaart |
Your rught to free speech ends when you shout fire in a theatre for no good reason and people get hurt in what follows.
Which is what Vance just did. |
no he didn't. he said something you don't agree with. they are not the same things.
the way you are going you will have no defence when you say something someone else disagrees with and they want to silence you. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 21:57 - Feb 15 with 1509 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 21:13 - Feb 15 by Swansea_Blue |
Quite. Lowie seems to have missed the memo that there can be consequences for free speech when it breaks laws or conventions of decency. Unfortunately It’s a viewpoint you’ll see regularly spouted by the Telegraph/Spectator columnists.
We’re in an interesting/scary place at the moment. It feels like we’re on a bit of a knife edge between being able to place limits around behaviours and having a free for all. The anti-immigrants/perfectly-fine-with-literal-Nazi-salutes crowd is the obvious example of where some of us are being corrupted. I also wouldn’t have thought the USA attack on abortions would come over here, for example. But statements in the last few days should put us in our guard and make any woman nervous.
We’re seeing an attack on our values from people who have very different values; ones we really don’t want to aspire to. I worry that our government is too weak/desperate to stand up to them. [Post edited 15 Feb 21:39]
|
"Unfortunately It’s a viewpoint you’ll see regularly spouted by the Telegraph/Spectator columnists."
i don't read the telegraph or spectator, but i have read articles 9 and 10 of the echrc. i support human rights - why are you opposing fundamental human rights. are there other human rights you don't like?
my first post started by say free speech is not absolute. articles 9 and 10 also say free speech is not absolute. it is limited by law. it is not limited by "conventions of decency". the law is very clear that free speech can be offensive speech, it can be shocking speech, it can upset others - even you. these principles have been upheld by courts in europe and in the uk time and time again - do you oppose other judicial decisions relating to human rights? perhaps you want us to leave the echr or the strassbourg court?
you and other don't seem to get that free speech is symmetrical. you may subjectively find other people's speech offensive, dangerous, and factually incorrect - the chances are that subjectively they think exactly the same thing about your speech. free speech protects you both - you and the people that you think differently to. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:05 - Feb 15 with 1484 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 20:31 - Feb 15 by MattinLondon |
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequence or freedom to be a prick. |
who has said it was? speech is how you challenge pricks, challenge disinformation, challenge power. it is how you achieve political change and champion truth. of course speech isn't consequence free. but under the echr it is free, within the law, from political coercion, state control, or bullying by pressure groups or political opponents. free speech can't just be for those you agree with.
it is an issue of fundamental human rights - i always thought it was farage et al who wanted to derogate from the echr. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:19 - Feb 15 with 1431 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:07 - Feb 15 by positivity |
standing up for blatant and dangerous lies is also not a good look. |
jeez. standing up for free speech doesn't mean you agree with everything everyone says. the point is that in standing up for other people's freedom to speak i am also standing up for my own freedom to speak. you can't have one with out the other.
you do realise that the answer to 'blatant and dangerous lies' is speech. and others will also use speech to counter what they see as your dangerous lies. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:20 - Feb 15 with 1428 views | reusersfreekicks |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 21:57 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
"Unfortunately It’s a viewpoint you’ll see regularly spouted by the Telegraph/Spectator columnists."
i don't read the telegraph or spectator, but i have read articles 9 and 10 of the echrc. i support human rights - why are you opposing fundamental human rights. are there other human rights you don't like?
my first post started by say free speech is not absolute. articles 9 and 10 also say free speech is not absolute. it is limited by law. it is not limited by "conventions of decency". the law is very clear that free speech can be offensive speech, it can be shocking speech, it can upset others - even you. these principles have been upheld by courts in europe and in the uk time and time again - do you oppose other judicial decisions relating to human rights? perhaps you want us to leave the echr or the strassbourg court?
you and other don't seem to get that free speech is symmetrical. you may subjectively find other people's speech offensive, dangerous, and factually incorrect - the chances are that subjectively they think exactly the same thing about your speech. free speech protects you both - you and the people that you think differently to. |
False equivalence.
So it's OK to spout lies, disinformation etc that incites harm and violence.
Yeah a really important right which must be upheld | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:28 - Feb 15 with 1376 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:20 - Feb 15 by reusersfreekicks |
False equivalence.
So it's OK to spout lies, disinformation etc that incites harm and violence.
Yeah a really important right which must be upheld |
the law on incitement is very clear. incitement to violence is clearly not legal. free speech is not absolute and the law - consistent with the echr - places limits upon it.
but yes people saying things you disagree with, even things you think are lies and disinformation, are protected. but good news - the things you say that other people think are lies and disinformation are also protected.
i never realised that i would encounter people on here opposing fundamental human rights. the irony is that i'm guessing in other circumstances you would want to see people like farage silenced when they seek to limit human rights (the right to family life). | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:37 - Feb 15 with 1324 views | Swansea_Blue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 21:57 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
"Unfortunately It’s a viewpoint you’ll see regularly spouted by the Telegraph/Spectator columnists."
i don't read the telegraph or spectator, but i have read articles 9 and 10 of the echrc. i support human rights - why are you opposing fundamental human rights. are there other human rights you don't like?
my first post started by say free speech is not absolute. articles 9 and 10 also say free speech is not absolute. it is limited by law. it is not limited by "conventions of decency". the law is very clear that free speech can be offensive speech, it can be shocking speech, it can upset others - even you. these principles have been upheld by courts in europe and in the uk time and time again - do you oppose other judicial decisions relating to human rights? perhaps you want us to leave the echr or the strassbourg court?
you and other don't seem to get that free speech is symmetrical. you may subjectively find other people's speech offensive, dangerous, and factually incorrect - the chances are that subjectively they think exactly the same thing about your speech. free speech protects you both - you and the people that you think differently to. |
It’s a shame you try to lecture others on the ECHR when you don’t understand the articles you’re accusing me of not supporting without any evidence.
Of course decency comes into it. It’s very clear. ‘Decency’ is a cross cutting theme, covered by the requirements for respect, not dishonouring the reputations of others and morality.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-fre
“Restrictions to the right to freedom of expression
Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights.
Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:
protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
prevent disorder or crime
protect health or morals
protect the rights and reputations of other people
prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
maintain the authority and impartiality of judges” [Post edited 15 Feb 22:45]
| |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:37 - Feb 15 with 1324 views | positivity |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:19 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
jeez. standing up for free speech doesn't mean you agree with everything everyone says. the point is that in standing up for other people's freedom to speak i am also standing up for my own freedom to speak. you can't have one with out the other.
you do realise that the answer to 'blatant and dangerous lies' is speech. and others will also use speech to counter what they see as your dangerous lies. |
it's impossible to counter blatant and dangerous lies if the blatant and dangerous liars control vast swathes of the media.
speaking up against the far-right makes you a target of musk and his twitter hordes, that's chilling to free speech and democracy | |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:38 - Feb 15 with 1313 views | StokieBlue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:05 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
railing against free speech is not a good look. best left to despots. |
Can you please define free speech.
SB |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:43 - Feb 15 with 1284 views | reusersfreekicks |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:28 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
the law on incitement is very clear. incitement to violence is clearly not legal. free speech is not absolute and the law - consistent with the echr - places limits upon it.
but yes people saying things you disagree with, even things you think are lies and disinformation, are protected. but good news - the things you say that other people think are lies and disinformation are also protected.
i never realised that i would encounter people on here opposing fundamental human rights. the irony is that i'm guessing in other circumstances you would want to see people like farage silenced when they seek to limit human rights (the right to family life). |
If you think I lie, slander, mis inform and provoke like Vance does you are wrong.
You seem far more concerned with this subject than the reshaping of the world order where authoritarianism, international bullying and crushing of the underdog will become the norm.
Like being on some lofty theoretical perch while all hell let's lose.
Still I'm sure the likes of Vance, Farage, Trump, Musk and Putin would be appreciative of your support [Post edited 15 Feb 22:46]
| | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:49 - Feb 15 with 1255 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 22:37 - Feb 15 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s a shame you try to lecture others on the ECHR when you don’t understand the articles you’re accusing me of not supporting without any evidence.
Of course decency comes into it. It’s very clear. ‘Decency’ is a cross cutting theme, covered by the requirements for respect, not dishonouring the reputations of others and morality.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-fre
“Restrictions to the right to freedom of expression
Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights.
Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:
protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
prevent disorder or crime
protect health or morals
protect the rights and reputations of other people
prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
maintain the authority and impartiality of judges” [Post edited 15 Feb 22:45]
|
i am familiar with the articles and the ways in which they have been interpreted. as i have said repeatedly the echr is very clear that free speech is not absolute. free speech can not be exercised regardless of other people's rights. when conflicts between rights do occur courts have to carrying out a balancing exercise based established harm and the proportionality of any intervention. this is not the basis for a free for all to limit speech and the courts have never seen it as such.
what you have copied and pasted about public authorities is the basis for laws in countries signed up the echr which place limits on free speech - in the uk that is incitement laws, harassment laws, libel etc. in general those laws are drawn tightly and do not amount to any general restriction of free speech - their application is very specific. those laws are then consistent with article 10.
'decency' and 'respect' in their normal meanings do not come into it. speech does not need to be decent or respectful - it can be offensive, distasteful, and scandalous. the law doesn't restrict speech on the basis of decency or respect. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
