Jane Collins MEP (Ukip) sent death threats over Rotherham pedophile abuse scandal

[-:Undertaker:-]

So a death threat to a UKIP MEP is a direct threat, but someone saying they have a bomb in an airport isn't a direct threat?

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...76#post8044276

Interesting to see how your views change when you need to defend a UKIP MEP

I don't see how my view has changed at all.

I've said pretty clearly that if a threat can be identified as a genuine threat (which would require investigation) then of course action should be taken - in the case of Jane Collins, if the Police have installed buttons then that would suggest that is the case. In the case of an idiot or drunken lout shouting it in an airport as a joke, of course they should be looked at: but I don't see why that should require a heavy handed arrest when they were just being idiotic.

[Kardan]

I don't see how my view has changed at all.

I've said pretty clearly that if a threat can be identified as a genuine threat (which would require investigation) then of course action should be taken - in the case of Jane Collins, if the Police have installed buttons then that would suggest that is the case. In the case of an idiot or drunken lout shouting it in an airport as a joke, of course they should be looked at: but I don't see why that should require a heavy handed arrest when they were just being idiotic.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...65#post8044265

So yeah on reflection, i'm for all speech being allowed.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...20#post8266720

If something is a direct threat and can be judged to be serious, then action should be taken by the state.

That's quite clearly a change of view.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...65#post8044265

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...20#post8266720

That's quite clearly a change of view.

No it's not.

There's clearly a world of difference between a druken lout in an airport standing with his mates who shouts "BOMB" and laughs about it and phone calls and letters being addressed to a residence threatening to kill somebody for speaking out over something.

In the case with the airport, do I think it wise to have the airport go over and investigate? Sure. But do I think it correct and appropiate for a team of airport Police to go over with their machine guns and wrestle the man to the ground and detain under the Terrorism Act? No.

In the case with Jane Collins, do I think it wise for the Police to investigate? Absolutely. Do I think it is appropiate for the Police to make an arrest if they feel the threats are genuine and pose a risk to the safety of an individual? Yes.

Those are pretty clear differences to me.

[Kardan]

No it's not.

There's clearly a world of difference between a druken lout in an airport standing with his mates who shouts "BOMB" and laughs about it and phone calls and letters being addressed to a residence threatening to kill somebody for speaking out over something.

In the case with the airport, do I think it wise to have the airport go over and investigate? Sure. But do I think it correct and appropiate for a team of airport Police to go over with their machine guns and wrestle the man to the ground and detain under the Terrorism Act? No.

In the case with Jane Collins, do I think it wise for the Police to investigate? Absolutely. Do I think it is appropiate for the Police to make an arrest if they feel the threats are genuine and pose a risk to the safety of an individual? Yes.

Those are pretty clear differences to me.

Ignore the airport example. It's irrelevant now.

You said a year ago you think all speech should be allowed. All. You even italicised 'all' to emphasise it.

Now you are saying you think some speech should have action taken upon it. Some = Not All. Therefore your view has changed. It's pretty obvious.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ignore the airport example. It's irrelevant now.

You said a year ago you think all speech should be allowed. All. You even italicised 'all' to emphasise it.

Now you are saying you think some speech should have action taken upon it. Some = Not All. Therefore your view has changed. It's pretty obvious.

No my friend, I just think you're disappointed because you thought you had me yet on hearing me explain the differences and circumstances you've realised that actually one can take a balanced view of civil liberties and law and order. Nice try though!

What I just said makes absolute sense and strikes a balance between a genuine threat (which FoS doesn't cover) and a non-threat (which FoS does cover) ... which is why you've dropped the airport example because my explanation was so good at explaining the differences to you.

[Kardan]

No my friend, I just think you're disappointed because you thought you had me yet on hearing me explain the differences and circumstances you've realised that actually one can take a balanced view of civil liberties and law and order. Nice try though!

What I just said makes absolute sense and strikes a balace between a genuine threat (which FoS doesn't cover) and a non-threat (which FoS does cover) ... which is why you've dropped the airport example because my explanation was so good at explaining the differences to you.

Are you reading my posts?

Let me explain this point by point.

I linked you to a post of you saying:

So yeah on reflection, i'm for all speech being allowed.

Yes?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you reading my posts?

Let me explain this point by point.

I linked you to a post of you saying:

Yes?

It should be allowed, yeah because after all you can interpret many things as a death threat but as I said earlier (imagine two people arguing and one shouts in anger "I'LL KILL YOU IF YOU DO THAT AGAIN"), these things should be judged on a case by case basis as clearly some threats don't endanger life where as some threats are genuine and do. But if it's a genuine death threat where by somebody is about to take a life and act on that threat, and the Police have found that to be the case, then obviously that's where the state steps in.

Jesus F Christ, it's not that hard to understand.

[Kardan]

It should be allowed, yeah because after all you can interpret many things as a death threat but as I said earlier, these things should be judged on a case by case basis as clearly some threats don't endanger life where as some threats are genuine and do. But if it's a genuine death threat where by somebody is about to take a life and act on that threat, and the Police have found that to be the case, then obviously that's where the state steps in.

Jesus F Christ, it's not that hard to understand.

So your views have changed, you no longer think that all speech should be allowed?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So your views have changed, you no longer think that all speech should be allowed?

All speech should be allowed, although when a genuine threat of murder can be identified via speech then the Police should of course act to pre-empt such violence taking place. The speech is merely the indicator of what may be about to happen, not the actual crime itself. I am worried about the genuine threat of violence taking place rather than the speech itself.

I'd have more luck debating this with a new-born chimp, I mean honestly.

[Kardan]

All speech should be allowed, although when a genuine threat of murder can be identified via speech then the Police should of course act to pre-empt such violence taking place. The speech is merely the indicator of what may be about to happen, not the actual crime itself. I am worried about the genuine threat of violence taking place rather than the speech itself.

I'd have more luck debating this with a new-born chimp, I mean honestly.

Are you being serious? Do you realise when you say 'although' and say the exact opposite, that actually means something, right?

How can you say all speech should be allowed, and then say in the same thread that action should be taken on serious death threats?

I'm literally astounded.
@djclune; @Jellyfish; @FlyingJesus; @scottish; @buttons; - It's not just me, is it?

"I'm not homophobic, but..."

"I'm not racist, but..."