FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Truckers will be blocking roads in austrailia.
Truckers will be blocking roads in austrailia.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Tomorrow there will be a massive protest in australia and truckers from all over the country will be blocking roads everywhere, how do you think the protest will go there? What do you think will happen Shag? Have you seen any other news reports from Australia on how they are dealing with/ enforcing the lockdowns?I am not sure what will happen and yes I have seen abit of how they are dealing with it from the news, like with with the police there, they have also deployed hundreds of soldiers to sydney to help to enforce it. The authorities also shot and killed dogs and puppies to prevent the volunteers collecting them from a dog rescue centre … I’ve just read the story on this - it’s disgusting. To ‘protect the people against coronavirus ’ they chose to execute a number of dogs rather than transfer them to another town to be rehoused. The towns in question had had 1 covid case and 7 covid cases respectively - over a period of time - not at once. I have nothing but contempt for anyone who thinks this action is justifiable. Apparently the state authorities are now ‘considering’ whether the executions constituted animal cruelty. " Exactly  | |||
"Tomorrow there will be a massive protest in australia and truckers from all over the country will be blocking roads everywhere, how do you think the protest will go there? What do you think will happen Shag? Have you seen any other news reports from Australia on how they are dealing with/ enforcing the lockdowns?I am not sure what will happen and yes I have seen abit of how they are dealing with it from the news, like with with the police there, they have also deployed hundreds of soldiers to sydney to help to enforce it. The authorities also shot and killed dogs and puppies to prevent the volunteers collecting them from a dog rescue centre … I’ve just read the story on this - it’s disgusting. To ‘protect the people against coronavirus ’ they chose to execute a number of dogs rather than transfer them to another town to be rehoused. The towns in question had had 1 covid case and 7 covid cases respectively - over a period of time - not at once. I have nothing but contempt for anyone who thinks this action is justifiable. Apparently the state authorities are now ‘considering’ whether the executions constituted animal cruelty. Exactly "Thanks - I just feel it got glossed over earlier by the ‘any means necessary to stop all Covid’ brigade! | |||
| |||
"Costa. How about all the freedoms gained women's rights, discrimination rights (of which there are many) 50 years ago you could be locked up for being gay for fuck sake etc etc. Freedom of speech? how has that been taken away unless you think people have the right to spread hate ,racism and homophobia. 50 years ago you couldn't be locked up for being gay but you could be locked up for taking part in a homosexual act, there's a difference and more to our point the state didn't give you that freedom, it was won by societies actions. Freedom of speech most certainly has been taken away, non crime speech is certainly real, you can be investigated for all sorts of non crime speech. It's not only a stupid response to say but surely you must only need it to spread hate and racism but it's naive because the very case you gave, homosexual activity being made legal by challenge was made under free speech laws. " Thats exactly it laws are changed by people the very same people who vote the law makers in and if they dont like the laws they are making they vote them out again.Thats how democracy works. What are these none crime speeches you are talking about and who has been prosecuted and what did they say?  | |||
"Costa. How about all the freedoms gained women's rights, discrimination rights (of which there are many) 50 years ago you could be locked up for being gay for fuck sake etc etc. Freedom of speech? how has that been taken away unless you think people have the right to spread hate ,racism and homophobia. 50 years ago you couldn't be locked up for being gay but you could be locked up for taking part in a homosexual act, there's a difference and more to our point the state didn't give you that freedom, it was won by societies actions. Freedom of speech most certainly has been taken away, non crime speech is certainly real, you can be investigated for all sorts of non crime speech. It's not only a stupid response to say but surely you must only need it to spread hate and racism but it's naive because the very case you gave, homosexual activity being made legal by challenge was made under free speech laws. Thats exactly it laws are changed by people the very same people who vote the law makers in and if they dont like the laws they are making they vote them out again.Thats how democracy works. What are these none crime speeches you are talking about and who has been prosecuted and what did they say? "There's been several high profile cases from a comedian and his dog to a guy that runs his own firm. And I think your taking a naive approach if you think that's how democracy works, I mean that's how were told it works by people like yourself of an ideological persuasion, everybody in the middle looking in knows that's not really true on a case by case basis. | |||
"Costa. How about all the freedoms gained women's rights, discrimination rights (of which there are many) 50 years ago you could be locked up for being gay for fuck sake etc etc. Freedom of speech? how has that been taken away unless you think people have the right to spread hate ,racism and homophobia. 50 years ago you couldn't be locked up for being gay but you could be locked up for taking part in a homosexual act, there's a difference and more to our point the state didn't give you that freedom, it was won by societies actions. Freedom of speech most certainly has been taken away, non crime speech is certainly real, you can be investigated for all sorts of non crime speech. It's not only a stupid response to say but surely you must only need it to spread hate and racism but it's naive because the very case you gave, homosexual activity being made legal by challenge was made under free speech laws. Thats exactly it laws are changed by people the very same people who vote the law makers in and if they dont like the laws they are making they vote them out again.Thats how democracy works. What are these none crime speeches you are talking about and who has been prosecuted and what did they say?
There's been several high profile cases from a comedian and his dog to a guy that runs his own firm.
And I think your taking a naive approach if you think that's how democracy works, I mean that's how were told it works by people like yourself of an ideological persuasion, everybody in the middle looking in knows that's not really true on a case by case basis."What ideological persuasion is it im in then? A comedian and a dog and a guy who runs his own firm well you have really convinced me now.  | |||
"Continue here, on the 31st there will be a massive protest in australia against the covid restrictions and truckers from all over the country will be blocking roads everywhere, how do you think the protest will go there?" the protest will go badly there is best part of a million km of roads in oz which just so happens to be vastly unpopulated land so I imagine a few roads in Sydney or some where else will get blocked certainly not roads blocked everywhere and there is no phyiscal way of them bringing the country to a stop using just trucks it's just to big. | |||
"Costa. How about all the freedoms gained women's rights, discrimination rights (of which there are many) 50 years ago you could be locked up for being gay for fuck sake etc etc. Freedom of speech? how has that been taken away unless you think people have the right to spread hate ,racism and homophobia. 50 years ago you couldn't be locked up for being gay but you could be locked up for taking part in a homosexual act, there's a difference and more to our point the state didn't give you that freedom, it was won by societies actions. Freedom of speech most certainly has been taken away, non crime speech is certainly real, you can be investigated for all sorts of non crime speech. It's not only a stupid response to say but surely you must only need it to spread hate and racism but it's naive because the very case you gave, homosexual activity being made legal by challenge was made under free speech laws. Thats exactly it laws are changed by people the very same people who vote the law makers in and if they dont like the laws they are making they vote them out again.Thats how democracy works. What are these none crime speeches you are talking about and who has been prosecuted and what did they say?
There's been several high profile cases from a comedian and his dog to a guy that runs his own firm.
And I think your taking a naive approach if you think that's how democracy works, I mean that's how were told it works by people like yourself of an ideological persuasion, everybody in the middle looking in knows that's not really true on a case by case basis.What ideological persuasion is it im in then?
A comedian and a dog and a guy who runs his own firm well you have really convinced me now. "Like I said, they were high profile cases in the mainstream news,Im sorry you missed them but then you could Google them and others, I'm sorry I can't recall exact specifics for you to pontificate over with laughing emojis but yea but no but yea, your responses are literally straight out of a political ideological stand point, I have no idea which as I don't know you but I can pretty much guarantee your firmly in the left or right political camp, my guess would be right!. So anyway yes, were not in a totalitarian state controlled government but what I was saying is they've been putting the foot in the door for many decades chipping away at freedoms. If you don't make a stand at this point you certainly won't make a stand once there on the road authoritarianism because at that point just like Russia today, you'll be jailed or bumped off and usually and sadly with the blessing of voters who stand firmly in the camp. | |||
"Costa. How about all the freedoms gained women's rights, discrimination rights (of which there are many) 50 years ago you could be locked up for being gay for fuck sake etc etc. Freedom of speech? how has that been taken away unless you think people have the right to spread hate ,racism and homophobia. 50 years ago you couldn't be locked up for being gay but you could be locked up for taking part in a homosexual act, there's a difference and more to our point the state didn't give you that freedom, it was won by societies actions. Freedom of speech most certainly has been taken away, non crime speech is certainly real, you can be investigated for all sorts of non crime speech. It's not only a stupid response to say but surely you must only need it to spread hate and racism but it's naive because the very case you gave, homosexual activity being made legal by challenge was made under free speech laws. Thats exactly it laws are changed by people the very same people who vote the law makers in and if they dont like the laws they are making they vote them out again.Thats how democracy works. What are these none crime speeches you are talking about and who has been prosecuted and what did they say?
There's been several high profile cases from a comedian and his dog to a guy that runs his own firm.
And I think your taking a naive approach if you think that's how democracy works, I mean that's how were told it works by people like yourself of an ideological persuasion, everybody in the middle looking in knows that's not really true on a case by case basis.What ideological persuasion is it im in then?
A comedian and a dog and a guy who runs his own firm well you have really convinced me now.
Like I said, they were high profile cases in the mainstream news,Im sorry you missed them but then you could Google them and others, I'm sorry I can't recall exact specifics for you to pontificate over with laughing emojis but yea but no but yea, your responses are literally straight out of a political ideological stand point, I have no idea which as I don't know you but I can pretty much guarantee your firmly in the left or right political camp, my guess would be right!.
So anyway yes, were not in a totalitarian state controlled government but what I was saying is they've been putting the foot in the door for many decades chipping away at freedoms.
If you don't make a stand at this point you certainly won't make a stand once there on the road authoritarianism because at that point just like Russia today, you'll be jailed or bumped off and usually and sadly with the blessing of voters who stand firmly in the camp.
"so these were so high profile cases but you cant recall the specifics or even tell me what they were about? Of course anyone who does not agree with you must be must be right out of a political ideological stand point and nothing to do with thinking for themselves the laughing emojis are because i find your response laughable to be honest.Try giving some facts to back up your argument and then i may not find it so funny. | |||
"Costa. How about all the freedoms gained women's rights, discrimination rights (of which there are many) 50 years ago you could be locked up for being gay for fuck sake etc etc. Freedom of speech? how has that been taken away unless you think people have the right to spread hate ,racism and homophobia. 50 years ago you couldn't be locked up for being gay but you could be locked up for taking part in a homosexual act, there's a difference and more to our point the state didn't give you that freedom, it was won by societies actions. Freedom of speech most certainly has been taken away, non crime speech is certainly real, you can be investigated for all sorts of non crime speech. It's not only a stupid response to say but surely you must only need it to spread hate and racism but it's naive because the very case you gave, homosexual activity being made legal by challenge was made under free speech laws. Thats exactly it laws are changed by people the very same people who vote the law makers in and if they dont like the laws they are making they vote them out again.Thats how democracy works. What are these none crime speeches you are talking about and who has been prosecuted and what did they say?
There's been several high profile cases from a comedian and his dog to a guy that runs his own firm.
And I think your taking a naive approach if you think that's how democracy works, I mean that's how were told it works by people like yourself of an ideological persuasion, everybody in the middle looking in knows that's not really true on a case by case basis.What ideological persuasion is it im in then?
A comedian and a dog and a guy who runs his own firm well you have really convinced me now.
Like I said, they were high profile cases in the mainstream news,Im sorry you missed them but then you could Google them and others, I'm sorry I can't recall exact specifics for you to pontificate over with laughing emojis but yea but no but yea, your responses are literally straight out of a political ideological stand point, I have no idea which as I don't know you but I can pretty much guarantee your firmly in the left or right political camp, my guess would be right!.
So anyway yes, were not in a totalitarian state controlled government but what I was saying is they've been putting the foot in the door for many decades chipping away at freedoms.
If you don't make a stand at this point you certainly won't make a stand once there on the road authoritarianism because at that point just like Russia today, you'll be jailed or bumped off and usually and sadly with the blessing of voters who stand firmly in the camp.
so these were so high profile cases but you cant recall the specifics or even tell me what they were about?
Of course anyone who does not agree with you must be must be right out of a political ideological stand point and nothing to do with thinking for themselves the laughing emojis are because i find your response laughable to be honest.Try giving some facts to back up your argument and then i may not find it so funny. "Or you could Google exactly what I wrote and find them on the BBC website but let's face facts your not interested in a conversation to understand each others points of view, your interested in stamping your own political camp on it, your not laughing at my remarks, your belittling them to other reading as a sign of your superiority?. | |||
"Costa. How about all the freedoms gained women's rights, discrimination rights (of which there are many) 50 years ago you could be locked up for being gay for fuck sake etc etc. Freedom of speech? how has that been taken away unless you think people have the right to spread hate ,racism and homophobia. 50 years ago you couldn't be locked up for being gay but you could be locked up for taking part in a homosexual act, there's a difference and more to our point the state didn't give you that freedom, it was won by societies actions. Freedom of speech most certainly has been taken away, non crime speech is certainly real, you can be investigated for all sorts of non crime speech. It's not only a stupid response to say but surely you must only need it to spread hate and racism but it's naive because the very case you gave, homosexual activity being made legal by challenge was made under free speech laws. Thats exactly it laws are changed by people the very same people who vote the law makers in and if they dont like the laws they are making they vote them out again.Thats how democracy works. What are these none crime speeches you are talking about and who has been prosecuted and what did they say?
There's been several high profile cases from a comedian and his dog to a guy that runs his own firm.
And I think your taking a naive approach if you think that's how democracy works, I mean that's how were told it works by people like yourself of an ideological persuasion, everybody in the middle looking in knows that's not really true on a case by case basis.What ideological persuasion is it im in then?
A comedian and a dog and a guy who runs his own firm well you have really convinced me now.
Like I said, they were high profile cases in the mainstream news,Im sorry you missed them but then you could Google them and others, I'm sorry I can't recall exact specifics for you to pontificate over with laughing emojis but yea but no but yea, your responses are literally straight out of a political ideological stand point, I have no idea which as I don't know you but I can pretty much guarantee your firmly in the left or right political camp, my guess would be right!.
So anyway yes, were not in a totalitarian state controlled government but what I was saying is they've been putting the foot in the door for many decades chipping away at freedoms.
If you don't make a stand at this point you certainly won't make a stand once there on the road authoritarianism because at that point just like Russia today, you'll be jailed or bumped off and usually and sadly with the blessing of voters who stand firmly in the camp.
so these were so high profile cases but you cant recall the specifics or even tell me what they were about?
Of course anyone who does not agree with you must be must be right out of a political ideological stand point and nothing to do with thinking for themselves the laughing emojis are because i find your response laughable to be honest.Try giving some facts to back up your argument and then i may not find it so funny.
Or you could Google exactly what I wrote and find them on the BBC website but let's face facts your not interested in a conversation to understand each others points of view, your interested in stamping your own political camp on it, your not laughing at my remarks, your belittling them to other reading as a sign of your superiority?.
"Total rubbish what superiority its not me with that complex. If you want to discuss on here the least you can do is supply some facts to back up your argument all i have is google a comedian and a dog and some guy who runs a firm thats a great help especially when you cant even "remember the specifics" Just give me a list of what rights you have had taken away over the decades as you originally claimed thats all i ask then we will have the basis of a debate. | |||
"Costa. How about all the freedoms gained women's rights, discrimination rights (of which there are many) 50 years ago you could be locked up for being gay for fuck sake etc etc. Freedom of speech? how has that been taken away unless you think people have the right to spread hate ,racism and homophobia. 50 years ago you couldn't be locked up for being gay but you could be locked up for taking part in a homosexual act, there's a difference and more to our point the state didn't give you that freedom, it was won by societies actions. Freedom of speech most certainly has been taken away, non crime speech is certainly real, you can be investigated for all sorts of non crime speech. It's not only a stupid response to say but surely you must only need it to spread hate and racism but it's naive because the very case you gave, homosexual activity being made legal by challenge was made under free speech laws. Thats exactly it laws are changed by people the very same people who vote the law makers in and if they dont like the laws they are making they vote them out again.Thats how democracy works. What are these none crime speeches you are talking about and who has been prosecuted and what did they say?
There's been several high profile cases from a comedian and his dog to a guy that runs his own firm.
And I think your taking a naive approach if you think that's how democracy works, I mean that's how were told it works by people like yourself of an ideological persuasion, everybody in the middle looking in knows that's not really true on a case by case basis.What ideological persuasion is it im in then?
A comedian and a dog and a guy who runs his own firm well you have really convinced me now.
Like I said, they were high profile cases in the mainstream news,Im sorry you missed them but then you could Google them and others, I'm sorry I can't recall exact specifics for you to pontificate over with laughing emojis but yea but no but yea, your responses are literally straight out of a political ideological stand point, I have no idea which as I don't know you but I can pretty much guarantee your firmly in the left or right political camp, my guess would be right!.
So anyway yes, were not in a totalitarian state controlled government but what I was saying is they've been putting the foot in the door for many decades chipping away at freedoms.
If you don't make a stand at this point you certainly won't make a stand once there on the road authoritarianism because at that point just like Russia today, you'll be jailed or bumped off and usually and sadly with the blessing of voters who stand firmly in the camp.
so these were so high profile cases but you cant recall the specifics or even tell me what they were about?
Of course anyone who does not agree with you must be must be right out of a political ideological stand point and nothing to do with thinking for themselves the laughing emojis are because i find your response laughable to be honest.Try giving some facts to back up your argument and then i may not find it so funny.
Or you could Google exactly what I wrote and find them on the BBC website but let's face facts your not interested in a conversation to understand each others points of view, your interested in stamping your own political camp on it, your not laughing at my remarks, your belittling them to other reading as a sign of your superiority?.
Total rubbish what superiority its not me with that complex. If you want to discuss on here the least you can do is supply some facts to back up your argument all i have is google a comedian and a dog and some guy who runs a firm thats a great help especially when you cant even "remember the specifics"
Just give me a list of what rights you have had taken away over the decades as you originally claimed thats all i ask then we will have the basis of a debate."Like I said,I just typed business man non hate crime in Google it took me straight to the BBC website, his name is Harry miller, he took the force to court, it took a year and alot of money the judge according to the BBC article wrote. Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's place of work "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated". He added: "To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. "In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society." But we're going down a completely different path to the original topic, let's just agree to disagree. Your clearly of the opinion that the UK government haven't clamped down on basic freedoms for decades and were of the opinion that arresting and questioning people for non crimes is a step too far but then we said the same about the suspension of habeus corpus,90 day detentions without trial etc etc etc. | |||
"Costa. How about all the freedoms gained women's rights, discrimination rights (of which there are many) 50 years ago you could be locked up for being gay for fuck sake etc etc. Freedom of speech? how has that been taken away unless you think people have the right to spread hate ,racism and homophobia. 50 years ago you couldn't be locked up for being gay but you could be locked up for taking part in a homosexual act, there's a difference and more to our point the state didn't give you that freedom, it was won by societies actions. Freedom of speech most certainly has been taken away, non crime speech is certainly real, you can be investigated for all sorts of non crime speech. It's not only a stupid response to say but surely you must only need it to spread hate and racism but it's naive because the very case you gave, homosexual activity being made legal by challenge was made under free speech laws. Thats exactly it laws are changed by people the very same people who vote the law makers in and if they dont like the laws they are making they vote them out again.Thats how democracy works. What are these none crime speeches you are talking about and who has been prosecuted and what did they say?
There's been several high profile cases from a comedian and his dog to a guy that runs his own firm.
And I think your taking a naive approach if you think that's how democracy works, I mean that's how were told it works by people like yourself of an ideological persuasion, everybody in the middle looking in knows that's not really true on a case by case basis.What ideological persuasion is it im in then?
A comedian and a dog and a guy who runs his own firm well you have really convinced me now.
Like I said, they were high profile cases in the mainstream news,Im sorry you missed them but then you could Google them and others, I'm sorry I can't recall exact specifics for you to pontificate over with laughing emojis but yea but no but yea, your responses are literally straight out of a political ideological stand point, I have no idea which as I don't know you but I can pretty much guarantee your firmly in the left or right political camp, my guess would be right!.
So anyway yes, were not in a totalitarian state controlled government but what I was saying is they've been putting the foot in the door for many decades chipping away at freedoms.
If you don't make a stand at this point you certainly won't make a stand once there on the road authoritarianism because at that point just like Russia today, you'll be jailed or bumped off and usually and sadly with the blessing of voters who stand firmly in the camp.
so these were so high profile cases but you cant recall the specifics or even tell me what they were about?
Of course anyone who does not agree with you must be must be right out of a political ideological stand point and nothing to do with thinking for themselves the laughing emojis are because i find your response laughable to be honest.Try giving some facts to back up your argument and then i may not find it so funny.
Or you could Google exactly what I wrote and find them on the BBC website but let's face facts your not interested in a conversation to understand each others points of view, your interested in stamping your own political camp on it, your not laughing at my remarks, your belittling them to other reading as a sign of your superiority?.
Total rubbish what superiority its not me with that complex. If you want to discuss on here the least you can do is supply some facts to back up your argument all i have is google a comedian and a dog and some guy who runs a firm thats a great help especially when you cant even "remember the specifics"
Just give me a list of what rights you have had taken away over the decades as you originally claimed thats all i ask then we will have the basis of a debate.
Like I said,I just typed business man non hate crime in Google it took me straight to the BBC website, his name is Harry miller, he took the force to court, it took a year and alot of money the judge according to the BBC article wrote.
Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's place of work "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated".
He added: "To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom.
"In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."
But we're going down a completely different path to the original topic, let's just agree to disagree.
Your clearly of the opinion that the UK government haven't clamped down on basic freedoms for decades and were of the opinion that arresting and questioning people for non crimes is a step too far but then we said the same about the suspension of habeus corpus,90 day detentions without trial etc etc etc."Thanks i have found it so after all you were saying this arrest was over the college of police guidance and nothing to do with laws changing to deprive the public of rights. so now back on track what laws have deprived you of rights over the last decades as you claim? | |||
"Costa. How about all the freedoms gained women's rights, discrimination rights (of which there are many) 50 years ago you could be locked up for being gay for fuck sake etc etc. Freedom of speech? how has that been taken away unless you think people have the right to spread hate ,racism and homophobia. 50 years ago you couldn't be locked up for being gay but you could be locked up for taking part in a homosexual act, there's a difference and more to our point the state didn't give you that freedom, it was won by societies actions. Freedom of speech most certainly has been taken away, non crime speech is certainly real, you can be investigated for all sorts of non crime speech. It's not only a stupid response to say but surely you must only need it to spread hate and racism but it's naive because the very case you gave, homosexual activity being made legal by challenge was made under free speech laws. Thats exactly it laws are changed by people the very same people who vote the law makers in and if they dont like the laws they are making they vote them out again.Thats how democracy works. What are these none crime speeches you are talking about and who has been prosecuted and what did they say?
There's been several high profile cases from a comedian and his dog to a guy that runs his own firm.
And I think your taking a naive approach if you think that's how democracy works, I mean that's how were told it works by people like yourself of an ideological persuasion, everybody in the middle looking in knows that's not really true on a case by case basis.What ideological persuasion is it im in then?
A comedian and a dog and a guy who runs his own firm well you have really convinced me now.
Like I said, they were high profile cases in the mainstream news,Im sorry you missed them but then you could Google them and others, I'm sorry I can't recall exact specifics for you to pontificate over with laughing emojis but yea but no but yea, your responses are literally straight out of a political ideological stand point, I have no idea which as I don't know you but I can pretty much guarantee your firmly in the left or right political camp, my guess would be right!.
So anyway yes, were not in a totalitarian state controlled government but what I was saying is they've been putting the foot in the door for many decades chipping away at freedoms.
If you don't make a stand at this point you certainly won't make a stand once there on the road authoritarianism because at that point just like Russia today, you'll be jailed or bumped off and usually and sadly with the blessing of voters who stand firmly in the camp.
so these were so high profile cases but you cant recall the specifics or even tell me what they were about?
Of course anyone who does not agree with you must be must be right out of a political ideological stand point and nothing to do with thinking for themselves the laughing emojis are because i find your response laughable to be honest.Try giving some facts to back up your argument and then i may not find it so funny.
Or you could Google exactly what I wrote and find them on the BBC website but let's face facts your not interested in a conversation to understand each others points of view, your interested in stamping your own political camp on it, your not laughing at my remarks, your belittling them to other reading as a sign of your superiority?.
Total rubbish what superiority its not me with that complex. If you want to discuss on here the least you can do is supply some facts to back up your argument all i have is google a comedian and a dog and some guy who runs a firm thats a great help especially when you cant even "remember the specifics"
Just give me a list of what rights you have had taken away over the decades as you originally claimed thats all i ask then we will have the basis of a debate.
Like I said,I just typed business man non hate crime in Google it took me straight to the BBC website, his name is Harry miller, he took the force to court, it took a year and alot of money the judge according to the BBC article wrote.
Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's place of work "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated".
He added: "To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom.
"In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."
But we're going down a completely different path to the original topic, let's just agree to disagree.
Your clearly of the opinion that the UK government haven't clamped down on basic freedoms for decades and were of the opinion that arresting and questioning people for non crimes is a step too far but then we said the same about the suspension of habeus corpus,90 day detentions without trial etc etc etc.Thanks i have found it so after all you were saying this arrest was over the college of police guidance and nothing to do with laws changing to deprive the public of rights.
so now back on track what laws have deprived you of rights over the last decades as you claim?"Suspension of habeus corpus Your right to remain silent 90 day trials Signing of Maastricht treaty Any and all anti terrorism laws Interment of said suspects Free speech The communications act The shutting down of parliament The ability to travel freely as a citizen in your own country The mandating of vaccines The privacy of medical records. Let's just agree we see things from a different perspective. | |||
"Costa. How about all the freedoms gained women's rights, discrimination rights (of which there are many) 50 years ago you could be locked up for being gay for fuck sake etc etc. Freedom of speech? how has that been taken away unless you think people have the right to spread hate ,racism and homophobia. 50 years ago you couldn't be locked up for being gay but you could be locked up for taking part in a homosexual act, there's a difference and more to our point the state didn't give you that freedom, it was won by societies actions. Freedom of speech most certainly has been taken away, non crime speech is certainly real, you can be investigated for all sorts of non crime speech. It's not only a stupid response to say but surely you must only need it to spread hate and racism but it's naive because the very case you gave, homosexual activity being made legal by challenge was made under free speech laws. Thats exactly it laws are changed by people the very same people who vote the law makers in and if they dont like the laws they are making they vote them out again.Thats how democracy works. What are these none crime speeches you are talking about and who has been prosecuted and what did they say?
There's been several high profile cases from a comedian and his dog to a guy that runs his own firm.
And I think your taking a naive approach if you think that's how democracy works, I mean that's how were told it works by people like yourself of an ideological persuasion, everybody in the middle looking in knows that's not really true on a case by case basis.What ideological persuasion is it im in then?
A comedian and a dog and a guy who runs his own firm well you have really convinced me now.
Like I said, they were high profile cases in the mainstream news,Im sorry you missed them but then you could Google them and others, I'm sorry I can't recall exact specifics for you to pontificate over with laughing emojis but yea but no but yea, your responses are literally straight out of a political ideological stand point, I have no idea which as I don't know you but I can pretty much guarantee your firmly in the left or right political camp, my guess would be right!.
So anyway yes, were not in a totalitarian state controlled government but what I was saying is they've been putting the foot in the door for many decades chipping away at freedoms.
If you don't make a stand at this point you certainly won't make a stand once there on the road authoritarianism because at that point just like Russia today, you'll be jailed or bumped off and usually and sadly with the blessing of voters who stand firmly in the camp.
so these were so high profile cases but you cant recall the specifics or even tell me what they were about?
Of course anyone who does not agree with you must be must be right out of a political ideological stand point and nothing to do with thinking for themselves the laughing emojis are because i find your response laughable to be honest.Try giving some facts to back up your argument and then i may not find it so funny.
Or you could Google exactly what I wrote and find them on the BBC website but let's face facts your not interested in a conversation to understand each others points of view, your interested in stamping your own political camp on it, your not laughing at my remarks, your belittling them to other reading as a sign of your superiority?.
Total rubbish what superiority its not me with that complex. If you want to discuss on here the least you can do is supply some facts to back up your argument all i have is google a comedian and a dog and some guy who runs a firm thats a great help especially when you cant even "remember the specifics"
Just give me a list of what rights you have had taken away over the decades as you originally claimed thats all i ask then we will have the basis of a debate.
Like I said,I just typed business man non hate crime in Google it took me straight to the BBC website, his name is Harry miller, he took the force to court, it took a year and alot of money the judge according to the BBC article wrote.
Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's place of work "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated".
He added: "To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom.
"In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."
But we're going down a completely different path to the original topic, let's just agree to disagree.
Your clearly of the opinion that the UK government haven't clamped down on basic freedoms for decades and were of the opinion that arresting and questioning people for non crimes is a step too far but then we said the same about the suspension of habeus corpus,90 day detentions without trial etc etc etc.Thanks i have found it so after all you were saying this arrest was over the college of police guidance and nothing to do with laws changing to deprive the public of rights.
so now back on track what laws have deprived you of rights over the last decades as you claim?
Suspension of habeus corpus
Your right to remain silent
90 day trials
Signing of Maastricht treaty
Any and all anti terrorism laws
Interment of said suspects
Free speech
The communications act
The shutting down of parliament
The ability to travel freely as a citizen in your own country
The mandating of vaccines
The privacy of medical records.
Let's just agree we see things from a different perspective."yes we definitely do if thats the list of what you are worried about. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Interested in hearing how our antipodean cousins faired. My friends in NZ said that literally no one turned up to the Beehive protest." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/nsw-police-arrest-150-anti-lockdown-protesters-issue-600-fines/100422546 | |||
"How'd it go? "Yes. it will be interesting to how it would go there | |||
"How'd it go? Yes. it will be interesting to how it would go there "It's 9:40pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (BST +9). So if it'll happen it's happened... | |||
| |||
"Interested in hearing how our antipodean cousins faired. My friends in NZ said that literally no one turned up to the Beehive protest. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/nsw-police-arrest-150-anti-lockdown-protesters-issue-600-fines/100422546 " Looks as though they didn't manage to bring the country to a halt then. | |||
"Interested in hearing how our antipodean cousins faired. My friends in NZ said that literally no one turned up to the Beehive protest. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/nsw-police-arrest-150-anti-lockdown-protesters-issue-600-fines/100422546 Looks as though they didn't manage to bring the country to a halt then." No. Indeed not. The brave noble freedom fighters roared, and most of Australia rolled its eyes  | |||
"Interested in hearing how our antipodean cousins faired. My friends in NZ said that literally no one turned up to the Beehive protest. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/nsw-police-arrest-150-anti-lockdown-protesters-issue-600-fines/100422546 Looks as though they didn't manage to bring the country to a halt then. No. Indeed not. The brave noble freedom fighters roared, and most of Australia rolled its eyes "The silent majority have spoken and they didn't have much to say. | |||
| |||
"How'd it go? Yes. it will be interesting to how it would go there
It's 9:40pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (BST +9).
So if it'll happen it's happened..."I see yes, cos of the time difference there. I will check out the news too | |||
"How'd it go? Yes. it will be interesting to how it would go there
It's 9:40pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (BST +9).
So if it'll happen it's happened..."Of course I'm incorrect - that's the winter time difference (GMT +11 = Australian Eastern Daylight Time). Try again
It's 7:47pm in Sydney. | |||
"Interested in hearing how our antipodean cousins faired. My friends in NZ said that literally no one turned up to the Beehive protest. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/nsw-police-arrest-150-anti-lockdown-protesters-issue-600-fines/100422546 Looks as though they didn't manage to bring the country to a halt then. No. Indeed not. The brave noble freedom fighters roared, and most of Australia rolled its eyes
The silent majority have spoken and they didn't have much to say."Mmm. Probably wished the idiots would go home. | |||
"Interested in hearing how our antipodean cousins faired. My friends in NZ said that literally no one turned up to the Beehive protest. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/nsw-police-arrest-150-anti-lockdown-protesters-issue-600-fines/100422546 Looks as though they didn't manage to bring the country to a halt then. No. Indeed not. The brave noble freedom fighters roared, and most of Australia rolled its eyes
The silent majority have spoken and they didn't have much to say.
Mmm. Probably wished the idiots would go home."A surprisingly small group of idiots for a country where apparently 'everyone is sick of the lockdowns'. | |||
"Interested in hearing how our antipodean cousins faired. My friends in NZ said that literally no one turned up to the Beehive protest. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/nsw-police-arrest-150-anti-lockdown-protesters-issue-600-fines/100422546 Looks as though they didn't manage to bring the country to a halt then. No. Indeed not. The brave noble freedom fighters roared, and most of Australia rolled its eyes
The silent majority have spoken and they didn't have much to say.
Mmm. Probably wished the idiots would go home.
A surprisingly small group of idiots for a country where apparently 'everyone is sick of the lockdowns'."Funny how the external hot takes on a country that's had less lockdowns than we have, are wrong. | |||
"Interested in hearing how our antipodean cousins faired. My friends in NZ said that literally no one turned up to the Beehive protest. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/nsw-police-arrest-150-anti-lockdown-protesters-issue-600-fines/100422546 Looks as though they didn't manage to bring the country to a halt then. No. Indeed not. The brave noble freedom fighters roared, and most of Australia rolled its eyes
The silent majority have spoken and they didn't have much to say.
Mmm. Probably wished the idiots would go home.
A surprisingly small group of idiots for a country where apparently 'everyone is sick of the lockdowns'.
Funny how the external hot takes on a country that's had less lockdowns than we have, are wrong."It's almost as if anecdotal evidence based on a very small sample size is meaningless. | |||
"Interested in hearing how our antipodean cousins faired. My friends in NZ said that literally no one turned up to the Beehive protest. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/nsw-police-arrest-150-anti-lockdown-protesters-issue-600-fines/100422546 Looks as though they didn't manage to bring the country to a halt then. No. Indeed not. The brave noble freedom fighters roared, and most of Australia rolled its eyes
The silent majority have spoken and they didn't have much to say.
Mmm. Probably wished the idiots would go home.
A surprisingly small group of idiots for a country where apparently 'everyone is sick of the lockdowns'.
Funny how the external hot takes on a country that's had less lockdowns than we have, are wrong.
It's almost as if anecdotal evidence based on a very small sample size is meaningless."I'm sure some people feel that way. But then we can look to Melbourne last year to see the reaction. The bold freedom fighters sang John Farnham outside a supermarket without masks. Eyeroll, and cringe that that's the protest. And one hero declared that masks were against her human rights in a hardware store. Had been dubbed Bunnings Karen within hours. | |||
"Interested in hearing how our antipodean cousins faired. My friends in NZ said that literally no one turned up to the Beehive protest. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/nsw-police-arrest-150-anti-lockdown-protesters-issue-600-fines/100422546 Looks as though they didn't manage to bring the country to a halt then. No. Indeed not. The brave noble freedom fighters roared, and most of Australia rolled its eyes
The silent majority have spoken and they didn't have much to say.
Mmm. Probably wished the idiots would go home.
A surprisingly small group of idiots for a country where apparently 'everyone is sick of the lockdowns'.
Funny how the external hot takes on a country that's had less lockdowns than we have, are wrong.
It's almost as if anecdotal evidence based on a very small sample size is meaningless.
I'm sure some people feel that way.
But then we can look to Melbourne last year to see the reaction.
The bold freedom fighters sang John Farnham outside a supermarket without masks.
Eyeroll, and cringe that that's the protest.
And one hero declared that masks were against her human rights in a hardware store.
Had been dubbed Bunnings Karen within hours."I’m not saying these people are being treated with the contempt that they deserve but… | |||
"Interested in hearing how our antipodean cousins faired. My friends in NZ said that literally no one turned up to the Beehive protest. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/nsw-police-arrest-150-anti-lockdown-protesters-issue-600-fines/100422546 Looks as though they didn't manage to bring the country to a halt then. No. Indeed not. The brave noble freedom fighters roared, and most of Australia rolled its eyes
The silent majority have spoken and they didn't have much to say.
Mmm. Probably wished the idiots would go home.
A surprisingly small group of idiots for a country where apparently 'everyone is sick of the lockdowns'.
Funny how the external hot takes on a country that's had less lockdowns than we have, are wrong.
It's almost as if anecdotal evidence based on a very small sample size is meaningless.
I'm sure some people feel that way.
But then we can look to Melbourne last year to see the reaction.
The bold freedom fighters sang John Farnham outside a supermarket without masks.
Eyeroll, and cringe that that's the protest.
And one hero declared that masks were against her human rights in a hardware store.
Had been dubbed Bunnings Karen within hours.
I’m not saying these people are being treated with the contempt that they deserve but…" | |||
| |||
"I’ll be honest, I’ve not seen much on the news about Australia grinding to a halt." We don't see much in the news when cities in the UK grind to a halt during protests tbh. But it has happened. Media is sensationalist on the whole and likes drama. No trouble, no story seems to be their mantra. | |||
"I’ll be honest, I’ve not seen much on the news about Australia grinding to a halt. We don't see much in the news when cities in the UK grind to a halt during protests tbh. But it has happened. Media is sensationalist on the whole and likes drama. No trouble, no story seems to be their mantra. " I’ve been checking on Australian news websites too, I was really quite surprised to that there doesn’t seem to have been much, if any, disruption. After all we read on here just how sick the Australians are of lockdowns. I’m starting to wonder if it’s like in the UK, where there’s a very vocal minority on the Internet who are against restrictions but the silent majority are very much in favour of them? | |||
"I’ll be honest, I’ve not seen much on the news about Australia grinding to a halt. We don't see much in the news when cities in the UK grind to a halt during protests tbh. But it has happened. Media is sensationalist on the whole and likes drama. No trouble, no story seems to be their mantra. I’ve been checking on Australian news websites too, I was really quite surprised to that there doesn’t seem to have been much, if any, disruption. After all we read on here just how sick the Australians are of lockdowns. I’m starting to wonder if it’s like in the UK, where there’s a very vocal minority on the Internet who are against restrictions but the silent majority are very much in favour of them?" I'm 100% for restrictions when necessary, I'm 100% for the government paying compensation for lost time and business during restrictions. I'm 100% against the government having the power to compel or force restrictions upon anybody. I'd rather be a Swede than a Aussie | |||
"I’ll be honest, I’ve not seen much on the news about Australia grinding to a halt. We don't see much in the news when cities in the UK grind to a halt during protests tbh. But it has happened. Media is sensationalist on the whole and likes drama. No trouble, no story seems to be their mantra. I’ve been checking on Australian news websites too, I was really quite surprised to that there doesn’t seem to have been much, if any, disruption. After all we read on here just how sick the Australians are of lockdowns. I’m starting to wonder if it’s like in the UK, where there’s a very vocal minority on the Internet who are against restrictions but the silent majority are very much in favour of them?" I suspect that that's exactly it. I don't know anyone who has a problem with the restrictions in Australia, and I know a few Australians (understatement). | |||
"I'm 100% for restrictions when necessary, I'm 100% for the government paying compensation for lost time and business during restrictions. I'm 100% against the government having the power to compel or force restrictions upon anybody. I'd rather be a Swede than a Aussie "
I'm sure the thread OP feels the same
What do you think Shag... glad you are Swedish?
| |||
"I'm 100% for restrictions when necessary, I'm 100% for the government paying compensation for lost time and business during restrictions. I'm 100% against the government having the power to compel or force restrictions upon anybody. I'd rather be a Swede than a Aussie
I'm sure the thread OP feels the same
What do you think Shag... glad you are Swedish?
"Yes. I feel the same thing too and I have said it from the start of all this too, keep it business as usual | |||
