When did Free Speech disappear?

POPPYOSCAR

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

And I, as a practising Christian, am quite happy to discuss religion, or God, or whatever you wish, as long as it is polite and I am not personally insulted or called names. (Ands I'd prefer you did not refer to God as a sky-fairy whilst talking to me as it is impolite to do so, but if you insist on doing so I will still debate with you. If you wish to use the phrase any other time, then you are at liberty to do so).

FWIW I agree with you.

I am not a believer myself but I have noticed how insulting some are towards those that are.

It is the only thing that keeps my sister going visiting my nephew's
grave and believing she will see him again one day. Who am I or anyone else to deny her that comfort.

It never ceases to amaze me what people will write on the internet but I bet they would not say it to someone's face.

seven-day-weekend

pepper77 wrote: »

Really?

Knew there must be a reason.

No wonder that RC got all steamy when I suggested it seemed a great deal - see the priest, a few heil Marys and start again with a clean sheet.

It's Hail Marys.

And the priest cannot forgive anyone other than someone who has wronged him personally.

I am not an RC.

Moby

stephen77 wrote: »

By not talking about it on purpose is saying she is a part of it!
Its not like terrorists attacks are not on the news or papers.

I have talked about immigration to immigrants. They agree they did not move here for the sunny weather on a November evening!

I am sure people in the 1980's spoke about terrorism when an Irish person was around.

Don't agree ...not talking about it is not saying she is part of it. It is about sensitivity and politeness. Yes I remember the 80's very well and the Irish jokes. I also remember the signs in the pub windows saying, 'No blacks, no dogs and no Irish'. Thankfully as I'm sure you'll agree things are better now and such bigotry would be unimaginable.

seven-day-weekend

I'd still not allow dogs

[Deleted User]

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Usually this is a single-person facility. There will be not be a stranger of the opposite gender loudly emptying their bowels with just a thin partition between you.

Well, not quite ... when we had an extra bedroom built with an en suite, it was next door to the existing toilet/shower room. Let's just say I'm not deaf, and neither is anyone else in the house.:eek: We also have a tiny toilet off the hall next to our living room and if someone goes to the loo.... we sometimes feel like turning the telly volume up!

Anyway to be more serious, (;)) I'm quite happy with segregated toilets - go to any busy establishment - pub - shopping centre - even airports, and you'll often see long queues for the ladies (because of the slightly more elaborate process involved with so many garments) whereas the majority of men can be in and out quite happily in a matter of seconds (if you'll pardon the expression! :rotfl:)

Seriously, though, the "usual" arrangements are bit daft - there should be more facilities for ladies to help reduce queues - it is nonsense in the 21st century to have no queues for the gents and long queues for the ladies. Come on, sisters! Rise up!

WR

thescouselander

I'm not sure free speech disappeared exactly. As far as I know freedom of speech has never been a right in the UK, certainly not in modern times anyway.

wymondham

The minorities voice is now louder than the majority!

£$&*"($£&(

Marisco wrote: »

Why am I not entitled to say don't like them and don't want them without being ridiculed?

I think you're entitled to say that. I see no reason for ridicule.

Marisco wrote: »

Even your own post above "you mean old fashioned views like..." is sarcastic. What is wrong with having "old fashioned" views? People are just as entitled to them as you are to your views, doesn't make yours right and theirs wrong though, just different.

It's not sarcastic. You mentioned "old fashioned" so I mentioned something which is considered old fashioned. People are entitled to hold such views. Often you can't avoid rights and wrongs though. So in this case it would be wrong if someone feels forced or expected to do certain things because of the views of another/others and they are not free to choose.

trigger_fish

Free-speech depends on how much money you've got.

The newspaper can write what they like about me as I haven't the money to sue them.

If I lost I'd be totally ruined.

Almost happened to George Galloway but he beat them all.

tommix

'Right wing' free speech is usually bloody offensive, and the protagonists should be locked up Imo!:cool: