tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post9127936134093376197..comments2024-02-06T16:17:25.826+00:00Comments on THE GRØNMARK BLOG: Would the UK authorities have used “hate” laws to shut down Charlie Hebdo? Scott Gronmarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15118026157459333174noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-12516798014712958602015-01-12T19:52:00.843+00:002015-01-12T19:52:00.843+00:00Left-wing hypocrisy? You astonish me!Left-wing hypocrisy? You astonish me!Scott Gronmarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118026157459333174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-20455538219397765922015-01-11T19:46:50.365+00:002015-01-11T19:46:50.365+00:00Sadly, if Peter Hitchens, writing in today's M...Sadly, if Peter Hitchens, writing in today's Mail, is to believed, three of the key players in the Charlie Hebdo organisation had been behind a petition to have Marine le Pen's National Front party banned.<br /><br /><br /><br />GCoopernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-49244466532666733742015-01-09T17:24:35.926+00:002015-01-09T17:24:35.926+00:00Well, I think everything's worked out splendid...Well, I think everything's worked out splendidly, given that nobody who ever comments about anything even vaguely contentious has the slightest clue whether what they're saying is "acceptable" (or "appropriate" or "helpful") or not. So we all cravenly practice self-censorship, thus ensuring that there will be no honest debate about the issues that actually exercise the public, because that debate mustn't offend the people who don;t want the debate to take place. At least our left-liberal elite get to sleep soundly in their beds - bless them.<br /><br />Funny how The Guardian - which despises the Monarchy, the Military, the House of Lords, the Security Services and the Church of Egland - thinks we should show humility to one rather befuddled judge.<br /> Scott Gronmarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118026157459333174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-52448029543764261952015-01-09T16:53:42.324+00:002015-01-09T16:53:42.324+00:00Genuinely scary video. There was a nice-sounding c...Genuinely scary video. There was a nice-sounding chap in suit purporting to represent mainstream Islamic Britons on TV after the Charlie Hebdo murders, who said that he would have sought to ban their cartoons through the courts rather than through violence - evidently unaware that there was another alternative, i.e.not to deliberately seek out publications which print material which doesn't accord with your political or religious views, but that if you do happen across them, post a blog or write an angry email and then just get on with your life. After all, if you want to live in a society in which criticism of Islam is banned, yiou can always move to an Islamic country. Scott Gronmarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118026157459333174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-52737309781620586292015-01-08T01:58:12.588+00:002015-01-08T01:58:12.588+00:00First Orwell prophesied the advent of "though...First Orwell prophesied the advent of "thoughtcrime". Then <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9298486/Leveson-Inquiry-risks-undermining-precious-liberty-of-free-speech-Michael-Gove-warns.html" rel="nofollow">Lord Leveson</a> raised acceptability above legality, without defining "acceptability" or bounding it in any way.<br /><br />Most of the British press accepted Leveson's findings and one member even recommended <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/press-regulation-lord-justice-leveson-editorial" rel="nofollow">respectful humility</a> towards him.<br /><br />There's your answer. No. They wouldn't have to.David Mosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12345636878071983416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-23856199105227663862015-01-07T23:55:18.182+00:002015-01-07T23:55:18.182+00:00 This short video extract from an Islamic Peace Co... This short video extract from an Islamic Peace Conference provides an interesting view of non - extremist Muslims :<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61KsT5YixF0Colin G Finlaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-4394913439653205292015-01-07T23:20:35.620+00:002015-01-07T23:20:35.620+00:00The 'why' is because the upper echelons of...The 'why' is because the upper echelons of the old bill have been infested with Common Purpose brainwashed sociology graduates.<br /><br />For PC Plod (ho ho) nicking someone on Twitter for using the word 'wog' or daring to 'diss' Stephen Fry is probably a better career move than nabbing a bank robber.GCoopernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-2033887891829691732015-01-07T22:48:47.792+00:002015-01-07T22:48:47.792+00:00In the matter of UK hate speech prosecution, the ...In the matter of UK hate speech prosecution, the cynical dictum of the Scottish judge , Lord Braxfield, comes to mind, viz., " Let them bring me prisoners, and I will find them law."Colin G Finlaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-17192506225998930502015-01-07T22:35:53.540+00:002015-01-07T22:35:53.540+00:00Laziness? Easy pickings? As you say, it's a lo...Laziness? Easy pickings? As you say, it's a lot easier to get your stats up that way than by putting your resources into a serious investigation iof household burglaries, and in any case those middle class homes are insured, aren't they Sarge? They'll be happy with the Victim Support Leaflet and a crime number.<br /><br />I think another explanation is that from Scarman to MacPherson, there has been a cultural shift, with the trust and respect in the forces of law and order once accepted as a given subsequently undermined, rightly or wrongly. The police responded to this by choosing to become more involved in the social and community welfare agenda than in catching villains. They now see themselves as the referees of consensus within communities (your socioligy point), giving far too much weight to the keepers of the peace element of Peel's original vision for the police force than to crime fighting. <br /><br />Sorry, I should have said "police service". And if you want the cultural shift summed up in a word, or more accurately, a word change, then that is it.ex-KCSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-61923893533462844412015-01-07T21:32:38.925+00:002015-01-07T21:32:38.925+00:00Fascinating answer. But why (oh why) do the police...Fascinating answer. But why (oh why) do the police behave this way if their bosses aren't demanding it of them? Is it because this sort of bullshit non-crime is easier to prosecute and has a higher publicity value than boring old robbery and burglary and rape? After all, there's absolutely no detection involved - and when they say they're "looking into" what someone wrote on a blog or Twitter I always wonder what the act of "looking into" it actually consists of, apart from following a link - which face it, doesn't take a lot of effort. Or is it because they get to monster mainly law-abiding middle class people who donlt give them the same sort of grief as the criminal classes? Or is it a point of principle because they all read the Guardian and do sociology degrees these days? Why the lack of interest in catching villains these days???<br /><br />I suspect the '60s version of Private Eye would often have got into trouble nowadays - but the current version is just "an old bitch gone in the teeth".Scott Gronmarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118026157459333174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-13177962683714267262015-01-07T20:36:54.661+00:002015-01-07T20:36:54.661+00:00I think the answer to your question is not so much...I think the answer to your question is not so much about what the law says but how it is implemented. The police will invariably push the boundaries beyond what Parliament intended, for example by using laws designed for criminalising terrorist activity for wider purposes. So while in theory, you could argue that the law won't punish the publication of offensive material like the cartoons you refer to, any editor and journalist and indeed your blog knows that the police will zealously pursue any complaint that it does way past the point of common sense. Against that background, most editors lose their nerve. Charly Hebdo didn't, uniquely in Europe it would seem. It is inconceivable that today's Private Eye would run any risk other than the occasional minor libel. <br /><br />As the chap from the Spectator said on the news just now, terrorism has won the battle against free speech.ex-KCSnoreply@blogger.com