Freedom Of Speech.

The police arrest people after a crime as been committed, obviously they sometimes arrest the wrong person, but they don't arrest people for crimes that haven't been committed.

They arrest people on suspicion of commiting a crime, quite often it turns out that no crime has been committed. This comes out either quickly, and they are released, or at some later stage when the CPS drop the prosecution or when the court acquits them.

 

Someone that commits a crime can be found not guilty, the fact they are found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime.

Yes, so what? You've also accepted that sometimes people are wrongly convicted. Which HAS to mean that they were wrong arrested. Something you previously claimed didn't happen.

 

I read and replied to the Opening post, that is the very reason you are now arguing with me.

Could you tell me what post number you replied to the OP in?

I can remember what I wrote but you appear to be having difficulty reading it.

 

So Britain a democratic country has free speech with limitations, North Korea not a democracy but also has free speech with limitations. Meaning the people in both countries can say whatever they like but will face prosecution if they say anything that the respective governments deem unacceptable.

So in realty the people have both countries do not have freedom of speech.

We have Freedom of Speech but with necessary curtailments on what people can say. I think it's quite sensible not to have absolutes.

Most (if not all) human rights have certain qualifications. For example you wouldn't say just because prisoners are locked up, British people don't have right to liberty.

They arrest people on suspicion of commiting a crime, quite often it turns out that no crime has been committed. This comes out either quickly, and they are released, or at some later stage when the CPS drop the prosecution or when the court acquits them.

Yes, so what? You've also accepted that sometimes people are wrongly convicted. Which HAS to mean that they were wrong arrested. Something you previously claimed didn't happen.

 

Could you tell me what post number you replied to the OP in?

But more often than not a crime was committed but the police can't gather enough evidence to secure a conviction.

I have never claimed that wrongful arrests don't happen.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10936297&postcount=7

and you responded to it, one post after I posted it.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10936357&postcount=9

---------- Post added 18-03-2015 at 13:18 ----------

We have Freedom of Speech but with necessary curtailments on what people can say. I think it's quite sensible not to have absolutes.

 

Most (if not all) human rights have certain qualifications. For example you wouldn't say just because prisoners are locked up, British people don't have right to liberty.

I also think it is quite sensible to restrict what people can say, but fail to see how it can be described as freedom of speech. North Korea also restrict what people can say, I would guess that every country restricts what its people can say, so if freedom of speech is freedom to speak with restrictions then every human on earth is afforded freedom of speech because everyone is free to speak with restrictions.

I can remember what I wrote but you appear to be having difficulty reading it.

Anyway, you've ridiculed yourself enough so far as I'm concerned, so enjoy the rest of the thread

But more often than not a crime was committed but the police can't gather enough evidence to secure a conviction.

I have never claimed that wrongful arrests don't happen.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10936297&postcount=7

and you responded to it, one post after I posted it.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10936357&postcount=9

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2015 at 13:18 ----------

 

 

I also think it is quite sensible to restrict what people can say, but fail to see how it can be described as freedom of speech. North Korea also restrict what people can say, I would guess that every country restricts what its people can say, so if freedom of speech is freedom to speak with restrictions then every human on earth is afforded freedom of speech because everyone is free to speak with restrictions.

Well I think British society can be described as one where broadly we have freedom of speech, and I guess most people would....I think it's only a descriptor, it's in practice that it's more important.

You mean, like your manifest inability to read the "democratic countries like Britain" bit in Cameron's statement?

 

Anyway, you've ridiculed yourself enough so far as I'm concerned, so enjoy the rest of the thread

I read democratic countries, but since every country affords its citizens the freedom to speak with limitation I couldn't see what point he was making.

if people said exactly what they thought most of them would be jailed?

It was this bit that I wanted your thoughts on specifically.

Well I think British society can be described as one where broadly we have freedom of speech, and I guess most people would....I think it's only a descriptor, it's in practice that it's more important.

If freedom of speech is the freedom to speak with limitations set by government, then everyone on the planet has freedom of speech. David Cameron appeared to be saying that the UK population has freedom of speech whilst some other countries do not.

---------- Post added 18-03-2015 at 14:42 ----------

It was this bit that I wanted your thoughts on specifically.

Since I have no idea what everyone thinks, I don't think it is possible to know one way or the other.

This could get interesting,

"The leading human rights barrister, employed by the Christian Institute to look into the implications of the bakers' case, argues action taken against the business could set a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/564762/Muslims-could-be-FORCED-print-Prophet-Mohammed-images-following-gay-marriage-cake-row

The other day David Cameron was on the television saying in a democratic country like Britain everybody was entitled to free speech.Who,s he trying to kid,if people said exactly what they thought most of them would be jailed?

Anna Soubry blames death threats on 'mutineers' headline

I think Anna Soubry is a poor politician, trying to appeal to everyone, yet people should not be allowed to make death threats.

People can says what they want online, but there needs to be 13 in front of a judge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42045175

This idiot in Scotland thought that it would be funny to teach his dog to raise his right paw when he hears "sieg heil".

The even bigger idiots in the Scottish police and CPS think it is a good use of their time and the public's goodwill to prosecute him for hate crime. https://www.timesofisrael.com/scottish-man-on-trial-for-teaching-pug-nazi-salute/

There's a difference between free speech and hate speech.

Free speech is me saying i don't believe gender-fluid exists.

Hate speech is me telling people to go out and beat up those who claim to be gender-fluid.

If someone wants discuss why they are a Nazi, that's up to them. If that person begins to promote attacking people who aren't the same as them, that's hate speech.

Unfortunately, we're now at a point where many SJWs are claiming that opinion is hatespeech and this is blurring the lines between what is and isn't free/hate speech.