Freedom Of Speech.

[Cyclone]

I have different experiences, in my world the police tend not to arrest people that haven't broken the law, but they do arrest lawbreakers but then fail to secure a conviction because the evidence is deemed insufficient to secure a conviction. If what he was claimed to have said was lawful he wouldn't have been arrested, charged and sent to court.

 

That's a massive assumption you're making, and not one supported by the evidence.

The police aren't infallible (and often don't even know what the law is), they regularly arrest people who haven't broken the law. Which is fine, they arrest on suspicion of breaking it. Only a court can determine guilt or innocence. If the CPS drop the case though, the chances are that they were innocent and indeed legally speaking, always were and are.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 15:45 ----------

 

Still no opinion on the original post though, is there some reason you won't/can't comment on it?

[truman]

I have different experiences, in my world the police tend not to arrest people that haven't broken the law, but they do arrest lawbreakers but then fail to secure a conviction because the evidence is deemed insufficient to secure a conviction. If what he was claimed to have said was lawful he wouldn't have been arrested, charged and sent to court.

 

So you reckon everyone who the police arrest is guilty?

[L00b]

Everyone means everyone not just the majority, and free speech is the freedom to say what you want without limitation, otherwise it isn't free speech.

To simpletons who see everything in monochromatic terms and fail entirely to understand context, that is undoubtedly true

David Cameron was on the television saying in a democratic country like Britain everybody was entitled to free speech.

But lets assume for one moment that free speech means free to say what you want with limitations, that would apply to all humans, everyone on the planet is free to say what they want with limitations. So Cameron's version of free speech would apply to all people and in countries and wouldn't make Britain very special.

"Democratic countries like Britain" are, regrettably, still the exception rather than the rule, so I've emboldened the bit which you're clearly having some severe difficulties to understand. Edited March 17, 2015 by L00b

[skinz]

To simpletons who see everything in monochromatic terms and fail entirely to understand context, that is undoubtedly true

 

 

Where's the love button.

[Mister M]

It's...wait for it - wait for it.....................Smiffy

 

I likes how he returns under a female pseudonym. Hoping that'll throw us off the scent

[JFKvsNixon]

I think that he's taking his Agent Smith personal a little too far!

[Lucy75]

That's a massive assumption you're making, and not one supported by the evidence.

The police aren't infallible (and often don't even know what the law is), they regularly arrest people who haven't broken the law. Which is fine, they arrest on suspicion of breaking it. Only a court can determine guilt or innocence. If the CPS drop the case though, the chances are that they were innocent and indeed legally speaking, always were and are.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 15:45 ----------

 

Still no opinion on the original post though, is there some reason you won't/can't comment on it?

 

Its not an assumption, but I will assume that you can't support your claim with evidence. I know the police aren't invaluable and do occasionally arrest people that haven't broken the law, they are usually later released without charged and are not taken to court. The CPS didn't make such a claim, they said that there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, meaning had there been more evidence to support what he was claimed to have said, he would have gone to court and very likley would have been found guilty.

 

I responded to the OP and expressed an opinion.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 17:21 ----------

 

So you reckon everyone who the police arrest is guilty?

 

No..............................

[Halibut]

Its not an assumption, but I will assume that you can't support your claim with evidence. I know the police aren't invaluable and do occasionally arrest people that haven't broken the law, they are usually later released without charged and are not taken to court. The CPS didn't make such a claim, they said that there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, meaning had there been more evidence to support what he was claimed to have said, he would have gone to court and very likley would have been found guilty.

 

I responded to the OP and expressed an opinion.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 17:21 ----------

 

 

No..............................

 

The word you were trying to use was infallible, which has a rather different meaning to invaluable.

[Lucy75]

To simpletons who see everything in monochromatic terms and fail entirely to understand context, that is undoubtedly true

"Democratic countries like Britain" are, regrettably, still the exception rather than the rule, so I've emboldened the bit which you're clearly having some severe difficulties to understand.

 

In which country are people not free to speak with limitations?

 

Resorting to insults when you can't support your own opinion says a lot about you.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 17:26 ----------

 

The word you were trying to use was infallible, which has a rather different meaning to invaluable.

 

You are so right, thank you for the correction.

[ronthenekred]

In which country are people not free to speak with limitations?

 

Resorting to insults when you can't support your own opinion says a lot about you..

 

Resorting to reinvent yourself under a different guise is an insult to those in debate with you, especially if the guise is paper thin. Playing the victim doesn't cut it especially when he didn't insult you. You see how easy it is to play with words?