Do we still live in a 'free' society?
Discussion
Now doubt I, and a number of other PH's, will soon be sent to Labour 're-education' camps.
Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
Telegraph article
Police warn author over gay comments
By Sally Pook
(Filed: 10/12/2005)
An author and broadcaster condemned as "sinister" yesterday an inquiry conducted by police over comments she made about homosexuals on a live radio programme.
Lynette Burrows, an author on children's rights and a family campaigner, took part in a discussion on the Victoria Derbyshire show on Radio Five Live about the new civil partnerships act.
During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."
A member of the public complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a "homophobic incident" had been reported against her.
"I was astounded," she said. "I told her this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.
"They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable."
Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme.
A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were "priority crimes".
It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. "It is all about reassuring the community," said the spokesman. "We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.
"All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed."
Mrs Burrows, of Cambridge, the author of Fight For The Family, is the mother of six children and the sister of Victoria Gillick, who unsuccessfully campaigned for parents to have to consent before underage girls could be prescribed the contraceptive pill.
She said she would not allow the investigation to stop her expressing her views.
Radio Five said: "In the context of a live radio programme it sometimes happens that challenging and unpleasant opinions are expressed. Neither Victoria nor the BBC as a whole endorse any of the views of outside contributors to the phone-in debate."
Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
Telegraph article
Police warn author over gay comments
By Sally Pook
(Filed: 10/12/2005)
An author and broadcaster condemned as "sinister" yesterday an inquiry conducted by police over comments she made about homosexuals on a live radio programme.
Lynette Burrows, an author on children's rights and a family campaigner, took part in a discussion on the Victoria Derbyshire show on Radio Five Live about the new civil partnerships act.
During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."
A member of the public complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a "homophobic incident" had been reported against her.
"I was astounded," she said. "I told her this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.
"They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable."
Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme.
A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were "priority crimes".
It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. "It is all about reassuring the community," said the spokesman. "We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.
"All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed."
Mrs Burrows, of Cambridge, the author of Fight For The Family, is the mother of six children and the sister of Victoria Gillick, who unsuccessfully campaigned for parents to have to consent before underage girls could be prescribed the contraceptive pill.
She said she would not allow the investigation to stop her expressing her views.
Radio Five said: "In the context of a live radio programme it sometimes happens that challenging and unpleasant opinions are expressed. Neither Victoria nor the BBC as a whole endorse any of the views of outside contributors to the phone-in debate."
Free speech is one thing Jaglover and disagreeing with gay adoption is another (I don't wish to reopen that debate 
)
However having read the following:
I find her views much more "sinister" than the actions of the Police in this instance.
>> Edited by Frik on Saturday 10th December 13:19
) However having read the following:
Article said:Her logic is warped to say the least.
During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."
I find her views much more "sinister" than the actions of the Police in this instance.
>> Edited by Frik on Saturday 10th December 13:19
Frik said:
Free speech is one thing Jaglover and disagreeing with gay adoption is another (I don't wish to reopen that debate
However having read the following:Article said:Her logic is warped to say the least.
During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."
You think so?
I agree with er, whats the difference in the two scenario's she describes? Just because you are gay, does not mean you are not a pedophile.
If they won't give little girls to straight men incase they are pedo's why shouldn't the same care be taken when dealing with gay men / women?
Frik said:
Free speech is one thing Jaglover and disagreeing with gay adoption is another (I don't wish to reopen that debate
Neither do I
Frik said:
However having read the following:Article said:Her logic is warped to say the least.
During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."
I find her views much more "sinister" than the actions of the Police in this instance.
It is not an exact comparison, because two heterosexual men would not be in a position to adopt children. The key issue here is what she was saying was by no means a 'hate' crime. She did not advocate that we should 'stone the gays' or what have you. She made an reasoned argument on a radio phone in show.
You may disagree with her argument, but should it be a crime to make that argument?.
After all to roughly quote "I disagree with your argument but I would defend to the death your right to say it". Have we forgotten the fundamental importance of free speech?
I can't for an instant imagine a scenario where two straight men go forward to adopt a girl between them.
Her rather revolting implication is that two homosexual men have pedophile tendencies and shouldn't be allowed access to a little boy. It's a shocking view and I agree the Police are right to follow it up.
Her rather revolting implication is that two homosexual men have pedophile tendencies and shouldn't be allowed access to a little boy. It's a shocking view and I agree the Police are right to follow it up.
surely that is blatant hetrosexual discrimination??? 
GingerNinja said:
Her rather revolting implication is that two homosexual men have pedophile tendencies and shouldn't be allowed access to a little boy. It's a shocking view and I agree the Police are right to follow it up.
She said it was a 'risk' not a certainty.
Would you be happy for people to be jailed for such 'thought crimes'.
GingerNinja said:That's the crux of it.
I can't for an instant imagine a scenario where two straight men go forward to adopt a girl between them.
Her rather revolting implication is that two homosexual men have pedophile tendencies and shouldn't be allowed access to a little boy.
I'm glad it's newsworthy, simply to highlight her views which I find deeply unpleasant. However I don't believe she has done anything wrong per se by expressing those views.
I think she has more than a meal out of the police intervention though - someone objected to her comments and the police are obliged to follow them up, which they did, but didn't bring any charges. End of AFAIAC.
Jaglover said:
Her rather revolting implication is that two homosexual men have pedophile tendencies and shouldn't be allowed access to a little boy. It's a shocking view and I agree the Police are right to follow it up.
She said it was a 'risk' not a certainty.
Would you be happy for people to be jailed for such 'thought crimes'.
That's just sophistry.
There's as much risk of a homosexual couple interfering with their adopted child as a heterosexual couple - yet she expresses her disagreement with homosexual adoption based on a her obviously bigoted/biased view of homosexuals - she's effectively saying she thinks homosexuals have a greater deviant/pedophile likelihood than heterosexuals.
The world's gone mad JL. It's ridiculous that someone expressing an opinion on a very important subject is subject to a police investigation. As such, in answer to your question, NO we don't live in a free society. As such, it won't be long before we all get knocks on the door because of an opinion expressed on PH and/or other internet forums.
Frik said:
I can't for an instant imagine a scenario where two straight men go forward to adopt a girl between them.
Her rather revolting implication is that two homosexual men have pedophile tendencies and shouldn't be allowed access to a little boy.
I'm glad it's newsworthy, simply to highlight her views which I find deeply unpleasant. However I don't believe she has done anything wrong per se by expressing those views.
I think she has more than a meal out of the police intervention though - someone objected to her comments and the police are obliged to follow them up, which they did, but didn't bring any charges. End of AFAIAC.
To most people, a visit from the police is quite a big deal and whevever happens about charges is kind of secondary. To have a couple of police go round just cause someone didn't like what someone said seems a bit babyish on the part of whoever complained, and a bit of a waste of police time. If I called someone a 'ginger t
t' would I get a visit for offending the ginger race? it's all just a bunch of crybabies throwing their toys out the pram because they know someone will listen. (Obviousley if someone commits an actual crime against someone for any reason then by all means lock them up)
Lets not live life on tip-toes, afraid of saying what we love and what we hate or of having a discussion.
GingerNinja said:
Her rather revolting implication is that two homosexual men have pedophile tendencies and shouldn't be allowed access to a little boy. It's a shocking view and I agree the Police are right to follow it up.
She said it was a 'risk' not a certainty.
Would you be happy for people to be jailed for such 'thought crimes'.
That's just sophistry.
There's as much risk of a homosexual couple interfering with their adopted child as a heterosexual couple - yet she expresses her disagreement with homosexual adoption based on a her obviously bigoted/biased view of homosexuals - she's effectively saying she thinks homosexuals have a greater deviant/pedophile likelihood than heterosexuals.
We are getting side-tracked here, I have not said on this thread whether I agree with her argument of not. What I have said is that expressing such an opinion should not be unlawful, and the Police have no business interviewing her on the basis of the comments reported.
I wonder if this police force in question ignores burglaries and car thefts while lavishing its resources on a crack 'thought crimes' unit.
Jaglover said:
Perhaps the advocates of Political correctness feel that their arguments won't stand up to rational scrutiny and so they seek to win the argument by making opposing opinions unlawful.
I believe this is the way for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
GingerNinja said:
I believe this is the way for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
Even the paranoid have enemies
Jaglover said:
Her rather revolting implication is that two homosexual men have pedophile tendencies and shouldn't be allowed access to a little boy. It's a shocking view and I agree the Police are right to follow it up.
She said it was a 'risk' not a certainty.
Would you be happy for people to be jailed for such 'thought crimes'.
That's just sophistry.
There's as much risk of a homosexual couple interfering with their adopted child as a heterosexual couple - yet she expresses her disagreement with homosexual adoption based on a her obviously bigoted/biased view of homosexuals - she's effectively saying she thinks homosexuals have a greater deviant/pedophile likelihood than heterosexuals.
We are getting side-tracked here, I have not said on this thread whether I agree with her argument of not. What I have said is that expressing such an opinion should not be unlawful, and the Police have no business interviewing her on the basis of the comments reported.
I wonder if this police force in question ignores burglaries and car thefts while lavishing its resources on a crack 'thought crimes' unit.
I will happily be corrected here, but my understanding is that Free Speech does not grant us the liberty to go on air spouting whatever we choose.
The European Convention on Human Rights has this to day:
(1)
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
(2)
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
...I think you could at least have her up for slander, and she's clearly not advocating equal rights for all.
Jaglover said:
I believe this is the way for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
Even the paranoid have enemies
Just because you think they are out to get you doesnt mean that they arent :P
Now where is my tinfoil beanie?
In all seriousness though, we are entering the "thought crimes" age - so long as one expresses those views. Rational discussion on many subjects is pretty much taboo - as having that discussion can lead one to be actionable in law.
Those topics at the moment appear to be racial, sexual (whether via sexual orientation or differences between the sexes), religious or disability.
Some of these thought crimes (perhaps "Discussion Crimes" may be a more accurate label, as they cant as yet read our minds) are enshrined in law, or other laws can be used to enforce them.
Whats utterly shocking is that these are considered "priority" shouts. Let me get this straight, this is a higher priority for investigation than assault, robbery, theft, fraud, any other crime against the person or the property?
Last time my car was stolen, throughout the whole process I didnt even SEE a police officer, yet her comments are a priority for investigation?
Now THAT is sick.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff