• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What has happened to the UK

Agatha said:
I didn't ask for your interest, I asked what the public interest is.

It is not analogous to saying "the cat that walked by is orange", it's analogous to saying "the child that walked by is a rape victim". Everyone can see a cat's colour (obviously except for blind or colour-blind people) but nobody can see the history of a child's involvement with a crime.

Try again for a better analogy, or explain why you think that victims of rape should be identified.
Click to expand...

Those two things, the cat and the rape victim, are exactly the same. Neither needs a public interest for someone to speak those words.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Those two things, the cat and the rape victim, are exactly the same. Neither needs a public interest for someone to speak those words.
Click to expand...
That first sentence is so breathtakingly divorced from the real world that it deserves to be sigged.

UK law can appreciate the difference between a cat and a child victim of rape and the law reflects that difference.
 
Agatha said:
That first sentence is so breathtakingly divorced from the real world that it deserves to be sigged.

UK law can appreciate the difference between a cat and a child victim of rape and the law reflects that difference.
Click to expand...

In the real world, describing either is the same process. Observations are made then words come out of the mouth or are written on paper.
 
In the real world, words can damage people and put them at risk. The same is not generally true of cats, nor do we protect cats in the same way as we do people. Descriptions don't exist in a vacuum, so UK law protects the privacy of certain classes of people in certain circumstances.

To tie it back to the thread subject rather than your odd ideas about the laws of other countries, what Robinson was doing was against the law because he was identifying people who a judge had ordered were not to be identified (in the case of the defendants, they can be identified after the trial if they are over 18 or if the judge permits). Those who disagree with UK law are at liberty to campaign for change; they are not at liberty to break the law without consequence.
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
In the real world, words can damage people and put them at risk. The same is not generally true of cats, nor do we protect cats in the same way as we do people. Descriptions don't exist in a vacuum, so UK law protects the privacy of certain classes of people in certain circumstances.

To tie it back to the thread subject rather than your odd ideas about the laws of other countries, what Robinson was doing was against the law because he was identifying people who a judge had ordered were not to be identified (in the case of the defendants, after the trial they can be identified). Those who disagree with UK law are at liberty to campaign for change; they are not at liberty to break the law without consequence
Click to expand...

I'm campaigning for a change, here and now. People across oceans can advocate for the marginalized. This is like south Africa.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm campaigning for a change, here and now. People across oceans can advocate for the marginalized. This is like south Africa.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you mean by this, nor do I understand what your point is about preventing the press from identifying child rape victims.

If you are advocating that they should be identified, you are demonstrating an incredible lack of empathy, and a lack of understanding that the UK has a different history and culture from the UK which is why we have different laws.

If you are not advocating that they should be identified, then I really don't know what you mean by claiming that the UK is awful for protecting victims of crime.

ETA: Who is the marginalised in this scenario? Robinson the right wing thug and serial fraudster? Or the defendants being afforded a fair trial? Or the victims? You don't seem to be advocating for them at all.
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
ETA: Who is the marginalised in this scenario? Robinson the right wing thug and serial fraudster? Or the defendants being afforded a fair trial? Or the victims? You don't seem to be advocating for them at all.
Click to expand...

I don't know about marginalized. Robinson was held captive by an illegitimate government act.
 
No, he was arrested for breaking the law of the UK while serving a suspended sentence. Doing so activated the sentence that had been previously suspended.

Calling the police and justice system's action "illegal" when you really mean "something with which you don't agree" is not a correct meaning of the term "illegal".

If you want to stand by the word "illegal", you'll need to show precisely what law was broken, with reference to the law of England and Wales.
 
Agatha said:
No, he was arrested for breaking the law of the UK while serving a suspended sentence. Doing so activated the sentence that had been previously suspended.

Calling the police and justice system's action "illegal" when you really mean "something with which you don't agree" is not a correct meaning of the term "illegal".

If you want to stand by the word "illegal", you'll need to show precisely what law was broken, with reference to the law of England and Wales.
Click to expand...

I didn't call them illegal. For the exact reasons you just gave.
 
No, you are right, you called it an "illegitimate act"; I apologise for skim reading.

Why is protecting the rights of victims not to be identified, and protecting the rights of defendants to a fair trial an "illegitimate" act?
 
Agatha said:
No, you are right, you called it an "illegitimate act"; I apologise for skim reading.

Why is protecting the rights of victims not to be identified, and protecting the rights of defendants to a fair trial an "illegitimate" act?
Click to expand...

For one, I can't tell if it is a right or just something people really like. I know some of the philosophy behind positive rights. This doesn't seem to be consistent with those. Could be wrong.

Mine is a straight application of the non aggression principle and concept of negative rights. A right to not be identified if a victim doesn't rise during that.

Now if I'm thinking about it I would much prefer to live in your world. But my preferences don't matter.
 
In the UK both of the things I mentioned are rights enshrined in law.
 
BobTheCoward said:
For one, I can't tell if it is a right or just something people really like. I know some of the philosophy behind positive rights. This doesn't seem to be consistent with those. Could be wrong.

Mine is a straight application of the non aggression principle and concept of negative rights. A right to not be identified if a victim doesn't rise during that.

Now if I'm thinking about it I would much prefer to live in your world. But my preferences don't matter.
Click to expand...
The UK recognises human rights something that the US does not. These actions are in line with universal human rights, and media could appeal the court order to ECHR. There is always a balance between the rights of different individuals. The US has a constitution that has failed to evolve (probably because many in the US believe it was intelligently designed !).
 
Planigale said:
The UK recognises human rights something that the US does not. These actions are in line with universal human rights, and media could appeal the court order to ECHR. There is always a balance between the rights of different individuals. The US has a constitution that has failed to evolve (probably because many in the US believe it was intelligently designed !).
Click to expand...

Government politicians are not philosophers. Their pronouncements on philosophy is as menaingless as their pronouncements about science.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Government politicians are not philosophers. Their pronouncements on philosophy is as menaingless as their pronouncements about science.
Click to expand...
What, do you need an official philosopher card?

What I'm wondering is who Fox News would call "right wing"!
 
[Not as mod] I think discussing rights as a function of philosophy might be off-topic for this thread. As would be the different meanings of the word "rights". And incidentally some politicians may well be philosophers or scientists as well as politicians.

We were discussing Tommy Robinson (he chose that name to glorify a football hooligan) and his inability to act within the law.

[/not as mod]

Robinson's arrest was not for filming, it was for breaching the conditions of his suspended sentence. If the judge in his earlier trial hadn't been so lenient to a man with a long criminal record, he'd have been in jail for contempt of court much sooner.
 
Agatha said:
[Not as mod] I think discussing rights as a function of philosophy might be off-topic for this thread. As would be the different meanings of the word "rights". And incidentally some politicians may well be philosophers or scientists as well as politicians.

We were discussing Tommy Robinson (he chose that name to glorify a football hooligan) and his inability to act within the law.

[/not as mod]

Robinson's arrest was not for filming, it was for breaching the conditions of his suspended sentence. If the judge in his earlier trial hadn't been so lenient to a man with a long criminal record, he'd have been in jail for contempt of court much sooner.
Click to expand...

That is fair. My objections primarily would need to be argued under those conditions, and gladly table for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom