Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[Emily's Cat]

Wow, that is an utterly pathetic strawman. I said nothing like that, as you well know.
Are you still annoyed at me for debunking you Pakistani rapists nonsense?

You didn’t though.

 

[Trausti]

Iran has "free speech," as long as you aren't abusive. It's good that Iran has state-approved bureaucrats to stop people using "free speech" to be abusive.

Who is Najmeh Amini? 23-year-old Iranian woman sentenced to death over social media post

 

[smartcooky]

From that edge of the political spectrum everything looks to be further left right.

FTFY
Sauce for the goose. If you were any further left you'd be in danger of falling off

 

[smartcooky]

You really are terrified of reasoned argument, aren't you?
She spouted off irrelevant nonsense rather than engaging with the actual arguments raised. But then that's a common technique among your ilk, isn't it?

I have put up plenty of reasoned argument, you just handwaved it away by calling it a strawman or labelling it racist or far right or some other thing you've pulled out of your own arse.

Also, I found her comments relevant, reasonable and on point.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, Palestine Action is a direct action organization, that engages in criminal acts of sabotage and property destruction.

Not only that, there is considerable suspicion that members help to fund Hamas, even if indirectly.

Of course Sally Rooney should be sanctioned for supporting them. So should anyone who supports them.

If I were her, I would not be traveling to the US any time soon

 

[angrysoba]

And it was good natured humor. Seriously, have none of you seen House Bunny? “Yeah. Hence!” Is a meme of its own people.

I simply thought the typo of “hench” was funny.

Indeed, and I thought "oathetic and abnoxious" was funny too, hench () I recycled your picture as a humorous call-back. It went over smartcooky's head and he called me a liar!

 

[smartcooky]

Indeed, and I thought "oathetic and abnoxious" was funny too, hench () I recycled your picture as a humorous call-back. It went over smartcooky's head and he called me a liar!

You might want think about why I thought it was just another of your lies?

 

[catsmate]

I know she is doing it to drum up interest in PA - but she is telling lies.

Her publishers are unable to pay her the contracted royalties, so once books in channel are sold no new copies will be stocked.

Sally Rooney says her books will be removed from sale in UK over Palestine Action support

The Irish writer is best known for novels such as Normal People, Intermezzo and Conversations With Friends.

www.bbc.com

 

[catsmate]

You didn’t though.

 

[catsmate]

FTFY
Sauce for the goose. If you were any further left you'd be in danger of falling off

This is really rather silly on your part.

 

[Darat]

Her publishers are unable to pay her the contracted royalties, so once books in channel are sold no new copies will be stocked.

Sally Rooney says her books will be removed from sale in UK over Palestine Action support

The Irish writer is best known for novels such as Normal People, Intermezzo and Conversations With Friends.

www.bbc.com

That's one of her lies:

n a statement to BBC News, Rooney said further publication of her work could constitute a "serious criminal offence", so she had agreed with her publisher Faber not to continue supplying her books in the UK.

That "could" is as they say doing a lot of lifting.

If that was the case then the books already in the channel would also not be allowed to be sold, yet those are being sold through. It's a publicity stunt, not a free speech matter.

 

[catsmate]

That's one of her lies:

n a statement to BBC News, Rooney said further publication of her work could constitute a "serious criminal offence", so she had agreed with her publisher Faber not to continue supplying her books in the UK.

That "could" is as they say doing a lot of lifting.

If that was the case then the books already in the channel would also not be allowed to be sold, yet those are being sold through. It's a publicity stunt, not a free speech matter.

The law is quite clear. While all involved may well be using the free publicity created by UKGov's stupidity, they are legally correct.

 

[Darat]

The law is quite clear. While all involved may well be using the free publicity created by UKGov's stupidity, they are legally correct.

Then why haven't the books already sold by the publisher been withdrawn? If the law actually was interpreted as they claim then the book retailers would also be breaking the law. They have taken an extreme stance as a publicity stunt.

 

[angrysoba]

You might want think about why I thought it was just another of your lies?

Because you’re not as smart as you think you are?

 

[catsmate]

A "well-known individual" in UKia is attempting to secure a permanent injunction against both The Guardian and ITN to prevent them reporting on sexual abuse allegations against him, on the grounds of his poor mental health and the risk of suicide.

‘Well-known individual’ tries to secure permanent injunction against Guardian and ITN

Lawyers tell high court that client could harm himself if serious allegations against him are made public

www.theguardian.com

Am I allowed to name name? Or should it be left to the research skills of everyone? Or wait for an MP? Or the Falkirk Herald?

 

[Darat]

A "well-known individual" in UKia is attempting to secure a permanent injunction against both The Guardian and ITN to prevent them reporting on sexual abuse allegations against him, on the grounds of his poor mental health and the risk of suicide.

‘Well-known individual’ tries to secure permanent injunction against Guardian and ITN

Lawyers tell high court that client could harm himself if serious allegations against him are made public

www.theguardian.com

Am I allowed to name name? Or should it be left to the research skills of everyone? Or wait for an MP? Or the Falkirk Herald?

https://www.rdj.ie/insights/when-public-interest-meets-a-risk-to-life-the-media-injunction-case

An anonymity order has already been made, which I suppose it has to be if the person saying they have a legal reason for keeping his name secret, hardly be fair if the name was revealed prior to the injunction hearing.

Of course such allegations will be stressful to any normal human, but I wonder if the Arday case will make the courts more likely to be sympathetic to such claims? Hopefully not.

 

[catsmate]

Then why haven't the books already sold by the publisher been withdrawn? If the law actually was interpreted as they claim then the book retailers would also be breaking the law. They have taken an extreme stance as a publicity stunt.

Because no payments to her are outstanding.

 

[catsmate]

https://www.rdj.ie/insights/when-public-interest-meets-a-risk-to-life-the-media-injunction-case

An anonymity order has already been made, which I suppose it has to be if the person saying they have a legal reason for keeping his name secret, hardly be fair if the name was revealed prior to the injunction hearing.

Of course such allegations will be stressful to any normal human, but I wonder if the Arday case will make the courts more likely to be sympathetic to such claims? Hopefully not.

So am I allowed to say who it is?

 

[Darat]

Because no payments to her are outstanding.

I don't think that removes the liabilty for others.

So am I allowed to say who it is?

As Admin: This is not a UK forum so reporting restrictions don't apply.

 

[Pixel42]

I have no idea who it is. Should I?