Originally Posted by :
The victims were the people put at increased risk of unrest in society by her acting in a way that had the potential to cause a greater risk of disorder.

The victims were all of us since a woman was blatantly breaking the law of the land. She deserved to be prosecuted.

No there was no risk of unrest what a load of rubbish, I feel you are trying to justify your stance as the above illustrates the stupidity of your previous comments.

No we where not victims of her, the SOCPA legislation was introduced by a corrupt government who decided to remove our right to protest and assemble at will from one area of the country. It is worth noting the police did exactly the same and broke the same legislation (i.e. not seeking permission from the Met) and where not held accountable for this.
One week you could protest freely, the next you couldn't without asking the police first. A lone vigil at the Cenotaph became a crime. Had people not protested this then the zone would still be in place Bear. The fact of the matter is the law has not been repealed but the zone simply lifted.

Originally Posted by :
The attendees at the conference who were constrained from doing the same and the people outside who were put at increased risk of unrest in society by his acting in a way that had the potential to cause a greater risk of disorder.

Technically no they where not, and never have been in the past. No crime was actually comitted, in fact it was not even considered harssement as he only said the phrase once.
Nobody in the Labour conference was placed at risk by the act of an 80 year old holocaust survivor expressing his outrage at a real criminal... Jack Straw.
Once again you above comment looks foolish to the extreme.
Can you tell me why terrorism legislation was used to arrest him then Bear (since you support it being used willy nilly)? When did the "law of the land" dictate free speech was a terrorist offence?

Originally Posted by :
In EVERY case where a law exists that people are obeying the actions of someone disobeying that law raises the risk of others who felt constrained by that law from being encouraged to cause trouble.

I guess it is a good job the women fighting for sufferage didn't have you as their leader :-)

Originally Posted by :
Are there times when laws should be broken for the greater good and so are entitled to take the law into our own hands as WE see fit?

Or do we live in a democratic society where our form of government decide on our behalf which laws should or should not be in place?

Yes there are first though.... technically Bear you have broken the "law" with some of your anti-muzza rants on here. Should a member of the public submit that to the local police with a complaint you could be liable for your posts. It happened to that chap who ran the Lionheart blog, what makes you special?
So much for freedom of speech eh?

As for your comment about the government, they seem to implement laws in this country and obey them when they feel like it while the rest of us are expected to obey 100% of the time. One rule for them, one for the rest of us.
I wonder how many police provocetuers have been nicked for breach of the peace :-)

Originally Posted by :
The solution is not to break laws if wrong or imperfect laws are in place and are not being repealed or corrected, it is to correct the lawmaking processes.

History has shown this is not always possible as those with a special interest will use the state against those who trying to change the situation.
Whilst I of course agree people should not go around stealing things, murdering etc. when the government goes out of its way to stem dissent by criminalising members of the public who are exercising their basic rights then what do you expect people to do? Sit and write a letter to their MP, sign a petition on the Downing Street website :-)? Sure great go a head and do that and watch it get ignored.

Originally Posted by :
The people prosecuted were not prosecuted for their sexuality, they were prosecuted for breaking the law of the land.

They where persecuted because of their sexuality, which resulted in a law being enforced that took away in my opinion their basic human right. Should they have broken the law, yes because it was wrong and this was not a case of moral terpitude.
The fact of the matter was by proxy they where breaking the law simply by being gay and it does not matter how people try to dress that up.

Should Germans who helped Jews escape during World War 2 have to declare themselves as criminals when they visit other countries, because it was against the law under Hitlers government btw?

Originally Posted by :
The government can not make punitive laws at will, we have the parliamentary process.

Parliament can make punitive laws, and when the make up of parliament changes the opportunity to repeal laws occurs and repealing of many unpopular or outdated or simply incorrect or inappropriate legislation does take place.

Errrr when I last checked parliament was an aspect of government so yes the government can make punative laws as it passes them through parliament then expects the workings of government i.e. the civil service to enact them.
Yes laws are repealed, but this is usually because of the pressure placed upon government before a change of ruling party.
What happens when the government also uses existing laws on purpose to silence dissent etc? Laws designed for other purposes?

Originally Posted by :
That people who did break the law when the law was in place must declare that they did so is not about their sexuality, it is about their disregard for the law of the land. THAT is what is at issue.

Wrong it was about their sexuality, the law was in place because of out moded ideas about sexuality. Laws are passed for a reason not at the role of a dice. If you believe all laws are right simply because they have been laws then you are crazy.

Originally Posted by :
As for thinking in black and white, as far as the law is concerned it IS a matter of black and white, you either obey it, or you break it.

If you break it you ARE a criminal, not for the act that you undertake, but for breaking the law, and that makes you a CRIMINAL.

Adding the word criminal in capitals does not make your point any more right. You are probably a hypocrit (I wonder how many times you have broken a law eh Bear and never been caught) you do have a fascist view of the system I am afraid one that helps to contribute to not curing the problem of crime in this country.

What happens when one person is fined as a criminal for forgetting to put a seatbelt on, and another is let off with a warning? People can and do make mistakes and break a law without realising or without doing it on purpose. Are they a criminal or simply human for slipping up?

When governments have enacted laws against their populace designed to ensnare them, persecute them or criminalise them then you will get just that.
Is it any wonder though that our country is in such a mess when your generation decided to take the above approach to the law and government and sat back merrily whilst our freedoms have been handed away and our society has rotted to bits.
The socialists destruction of society aided by the Tories and the finger waggling brigade and created an almighty mess. It is going to take some hard work to clear it up.


Ea of dune
[Rep]

It's almost tragic how criminals do so hate being reminded of the fact.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
It's almost tragic how criminals do so hate being reminded of the fact.

If you are aiming that at me I have never been to prison etc. I merely believe the current system and societies approach to it is wrong.

Ea of dune
[Rep]

Quote

"You are probably a hypocrit (I wonder how many times you have broken a law eh Bear and never been caught)"

I will pick up on that point.

I have NEVER broken the law.

I do not exceed the speed limit when driving, I do not park where I should not, I do not keep anything of any value that I find, I have NEVER stolen anything in my life, in fact, like probably the majority of people in the country, certainly like all decent people I really am law abiding.

I am well aware that just as drug addicts will so often reply when asked about their addiction “everybody does it”, in fact everybody does NOT, and nor do decent people break the law, even laws they consider silly or vexatious.

It’s what decent people do, it’s how decent people live.
[Rep]

Bear> I think you missed my point, as I had said earlier in the article the very fact you have spoken strong words on this forum against muslims could be considered breaking the law. You may not like that fact, but a fact it is.

Ea of dune
[Rep]

Bear> Just to add to the above, you for example posted the following:

Originally Posted by :
The Straits of Dover really should have been the 20th. century “Gates of Vienna” to Islam but unfortunately rather than shutting them New Labour has even removed the gateposts.

Unfortunatly in modern Britain comments like can get people into a lot of trouble with the law. I think this is totally wrong and freedom of speech should mean exactly that. However Labours hate crime legislation has made the comment you made above for example sit in a very hazy grey area (one you said does not exist in law as it is merely black and white).
Do you not think it would be wrong for you to criminalised for simply expressing your opinion? Thankfully people on this forum can debate such things without running of to the coppers and saying "hate speech" etc. It would seem though in modern Britain this is not always the case.

Hypothetical situation: Now lets consider you where arrested and fined for such a statement and others you posted here where used as further evidence. I personally would think that wrong, however by your own comments you would condemn yourself for ever more to state when applying for a job that you had been convicted of a "hate crime".

Can you not see the crazyness of this?

Ea of dune
[Rep]

The comment that I made is not racist nor inclined to promote hate.
[Rep]

Bear> In your opinion. Remember we have a Labour government. The term racist is now used to cover religion as well (which is thoroughly stupid in my opinion but there we go).
Just because you don't think your comment is racist is simply your opinion and there are plenty of lefties who would def call you a racist for that I am afraid.

Also you said the following on the thread about Home Schooling:

Originally Posted by :
tried several “certain substances”, (and DID inhale!)

Where these legal at the time out of interest? :-)

Ea of dune
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Ea of Dune:
Bear> In your opinion. Remember we have a Labour government. The term racist is now used to cover religion as well (which is thoroughly stupid in my opinion but there we go).
Just because you don't think your comment is racist is simply your opinion and there are plenty of lefties who would def call you a racist for that I am afraid.

Also you said the following on the thread about Home Schooling:



Where these legal at the time out of interest? :-)

Ea of dune

That legislation is not yet fully in place.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
That legislation is not yet fully in place.

Which one, for the Hate Crimes or for the stuff you smoked?

Ea of dune
[Rep]