Sickening attack on free speech, Veitch's arrest caught on camera Watch

Mess.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
Who says that most people believe utility to be an acceptable framework for society :lolwut:
0
reply
Kreuzuerk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
My "limits" are based on utility, rather than differing subjective opinions. Assuming that most people accept utility as an acceptable framework for society.
At least 500 million people watched the wedding. Lot of utility there which would have been ruined by a ******** spouting from a megaphone.
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
(Original post by Kreuzuerk)
At least 500 million people watched the wedding. Lot of utility there which would have been ruined by a ******** spouting from a megaphone.
You have to look at it in the long run. How about the money the royals cost the country? That has a negative affect on utility. What about the repercussions of only allowing actions that would directly increase utility in the short term? We'd have almost no protests, strikes or anything - decreasing utility.

Stopping protests based on subjective opinion is harmful to those who want to protest and leads to a slippery slope of authoritarianism. Surely the best solution would be to allow people the right to protest when they see fit, and in any way they see fit, as long as they do not directly harm people?
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#104
Report 7 years ago
#104
(Original post by Mess.)
Who says that most people believe utility to be an acceptable framework for society :lolwut:
On what framework do most people base their morality on then?
0
reply
Mess.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#105
Report 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
On what framework do most people base their morality on then?
I make no pretense into understanding most people as though we live by some sort of 'hive mind'. Each person is an individual and will make their own choices accordingly.

Edit: Although I would like to see your research and qualification for your utility statement.
0
reply
Scrubby
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
I'm confused. What's the problem? The police officer seemed ridiculously nice about it all and they were just *****ing meaninglessly. There's a warrant for his arrest because they suspect him of some sort of breach of the law. He must have done something to even provoke the arrest in the first place so he really shouldn't be complaining considering they have to have evidence before they can issue an arrest warrant. This is a non issue. This is hardly restricting free speech and is about as far from a sickening attack as you can get. The police officer wasn't even aggressive in terms of his tone ffs let alone physically aggressive. If anything this was more of an attack on the poor police officer trying to follow his orders and do his job. He should be happy he's not in China. His front door would have been kicked down and he'd have been dragged off without a word or a warning over there.
3
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#107
Report 7 years ago
#107
(Original post by Mess.)
I make no pretense into understanding most people as though we live by some sort of 'hive mind'. Each person is an individual and will make their own choices accordingly.

Edit: Although I would like to see your research and qualification for your utility statement.
What I should have said was: I assume most people accept maximising “happiness” as the goal of society. If that isn't the case then I can't really have a discussion on what would benefit society, since people are using the word 'benefit' to mean different things.

So when I say 'it won't harm someone', I assume society does not want to cause harm (overall).

I don’t have any evidence for that; it just seems to have face validity. And if that isn’t the case we can’t have any logical discussion on politics since we’re operating under different premises.
0
reply
Pickford
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#108
Report 7 years ago
#108
I don't see what was wrong. The police officers were very professional.

That woman sounds like one of those idiots who go onto X-Factor and sing bad, then make a fool of themselves saying "You don't know what you're missing out on. You'll regret this!"
0
reply
MXz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#109
Report 7 years ago
#109
Good, I'm a republican BUT this is not anything like the student protests, let the royalists have their cake.

He says all the evil in the world is concocted by the government to scare people into obeying orders, perhaps he would like to explain that to the family of the little 5-year old girl who was shot in Stockwell the other week?

"I study politics at Cambridge actually" Talk about big headed...
0
reply
jakemittle
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#110
Report 7 years ago
#110
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
It’s a tough one. There is a fine line between expressing a subjective opinion and causing psychological harm. I’m for freedom of speech, but I don’t think we should let bullies use verbal abuse to harm someone. I would possibly make an exception to freedom of speech in this case if there is evidence of psychological harm.

In the case of the royal wedding no such claim can be reasonably made. It’s simply 'we don’t want our country to look bad’. Which is a point of view no more right than wanting to protest.
So you would be okay with people going into random weddings and crashing, because they can?
Dont you think it'll cause psychological damage to the woman who is meant to be going through the "best memory/day" of her life?
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#111
Report 7 years ago
#111
(Original post by jakemittle)
So you would be okay with people going into random weddings and crashing, because they can?
Dont you think it'll cause psychological damage to the woman who is meant to be going through the "best memory/day" of her life?
Peacefully protesting =/= Crashing a wedding.
0
reply
lonelykatana
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112
(Original post by Bellrosk)

Whether or not you agree with this guy's motives, his methods are entirely peaceful and inoffensive and he poses absolutely no threat to anybody.

Thoughts on his arrest? Justified or not?
This is about as sickening as seeing a kitten and a puppy playfight.


Like the comment on youtube states:
An anarchist with a tesco? club card, love it hahahha
Hilarious! How can he take him self seriously.
0
reply
jakemittle
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#113
Report 7 years ago
#113
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Peacefully protesting =/= Crashing a wedding.
Peacefully protesting?
Err they have you seen his other vids?..
They wanted to spoil that wedding dude
0
reply
username547863
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
Ive seen most of Veitchs videos. Most of them are pretty laughable seems like him, his girlfriend and followers are all brainwashed and live in a dream world
0
reply
EggmanD
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
My "limits" are based on utility, rather than differing subjective opinions. Assuming that most people accept utility as an acceptable framework for society.


Wanting to “look good” is subjective. No reason to limit freedoms.


I and many other people wouldn’t give a ****. Another opinion.


This isn’t fact. And even if we where to take it as fact, increased TV ratings would be weighed against the cost of the monarchy. Even if we where to loose money through protests that’s no reason to stop people expressing opinions.


Opinions, opinions and more opinions. Your frankly insulting and narrow view of anarchists is obviously unrepresentative and in no way justifies limiting what they have to say.
If you mean something other than anarchists then please say and ill take that back. The fact is anyone who thinks a stateless society will be anything other than pure chaos full of crime and death is a fool, as is anyone who hides behind laws they claim to be against.

Like these morons;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4yn1RBxHs

Nothing like changing attitudes by getting high, singing in a park then crying 'assault' when the police touch you....

If you want to do something chuck the 'sheeple' a George Carlin CD or a Bill Hicks book or actually do something positive. Highlighting others flaws in such a blunt way is insulting to their intelligence and will not earn their respect.


Back to free speech... well..

Would you put your name down on Gary Glitters 'ban the age of consent' petition?

No, you wouldn't. Please, try and morally justify how free speech covers that..

Free speech relating to the Royal Wedding.. well...seeing how free speech isn't what you think it is (unless you want murderers, paedos, criminals, racists, homophobes etc to have an equal voice to say what they like as apparently thats the law) judging by how excited the country seemed and the huge amount of people who celebrated it i guess the people who put it on wanted the ceremony to go undisrupted.. in this day and age that is how the world works and thats how it will always work until someone offers a reasonable, morally sound and logical solution (such as zeitgeist although it has its flaws)

Yes, the public are stupid, yes people are easily swayed, yes most people are confused consumers wandering around in a materialistic daze not doing anything with their lives until death, yes the world is a dark and horrible place full of injustice and evil.. but the point is.. if you cannot get your fairer world message out that promises prosperity and peace to everyone in an easy to swallow format and easy to adopt system to people you think are shallow, fickle and stupid... well... how stupid are you?

If you dont like this system your more than welcome to move to North Korea or somewhere else where you would be shot/beaten/locked up for even hinting at protesting. If you dont like that then figure out a way to make this world a better place with proactive and positive thought rather than reactive taunts and selfish ideals.
0
reply
IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
(Original post by EggmanD)
If you mean something other than anarchists then please say and ill take that back. The fact is anyone who thinks a stateless society will be anything other than pure chaos full of crime and death is a fool, as is anyone who hides behind laws they claim to be against.

Like these morons;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4yn1RBxHs

Nothing like changing attitudes by getting high, singing in a park then crying 'assault' when the police touch you....

If you want to do something chuck the 'sheeple' a George Carlin CD or a Bill Hicks book or actually do something positive. Highlighting others flaws in such a blunt way is insulting to their intelligence and will not earn their respect.
You obviously have no clue when it comes to anarchist political philosophy. Instead of a minority ruling over the majority, you would have the majority making decisions by themselves, for themselves via direct democracy. There is absolutely no reason or evidence to assume anarchy = chaos. I suggest you actually read a book on the philosophy before conforming to common and stupid misconceptions.

(Original post by EggmanD)
Back to free speech... well..

Would you put your name down on Gary Glitters 'ban the age of consent' petition?

No, you wouldn't. Please, try and morally justify how free speech covers that..
What in the hell does that have to do with free speech? He has the right to say what he wants. Having sex with children or singing a petition for this has nothing do with speech.

(Original post by EggmanD)
Free speech relating to the Royal Wedding.. well...seeing how free speech isn't what you think it is (unless you want murderers, paedos, criminals, racists, homophobes etc to have an equal voice to say what they like as apparently thats the law) judging by how excited the country seemed and the huge amount of people who celebrated it i guess the people who put it on wanted the ceremony to go undisrupted.. in this day and age that is how the world works and thats how it will always work until someone offers a reasonable, morally sound and logical solution (such as zeitgeist although it has its flaws)
Of course a paedo or a racist can have their views as long as they don’t act upon them. Are you seriously suggesting banning anyone who isn’t liberal from speaking?

Saying ‘that’s the way it works’ isn’t and never will be a moral argument.

(Original post by EggmanD)
Yes, the public are stupid, yes people are easily swayed, yes most people are confused consumers wandering around in a materialistic daze not doing anything with their lives until death, yes the world is a dark and horrible place full of injustice and evil.. but the point is.. if you cannot get your fairer world message out that promises prosperity and peace to everyone in an easy to swallow format and easy to adopt system to people you think are shallow, fickle and stupid... well... how stupid are you?
I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about here. I’m sure anarchists would blame capitalism for materialism and many social injustices E.G. class hierarchy. Thus, they spread the message of what they believe to be the solution. Anarchists don’t think people are all stupid sheep (or at least I don’t).

(Original post by EggmanD)
If you dont like this system your more than welcome to move to North Korea or somewhere else where you would be shot/beaten/locked up for even hinting at protesting. If you dont like that then figure out a way to make this world a better place with proactive and positive thought rather than reactive taunts and selfish ideals.
Anarchism is the complete opposite of selfish; it endorses complete social equality and liberty for all members of society.

Despite your complete lack of understanding of anarchism you’ve also failed to address why freedom of speech shouldn’t be allowed. Everything you’ve said is based on your subjective opinion. Why should the anarchists be oppressed but your opinion is allowed? The logical solution is to let everyone have a say.
1
reply
beepbeeprichie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#117
Report 7 years ago
#117
(Original post by sollythewise)
slippery slope fallacy.
Nope. I was just demonstrating that being nice whilst doing x does not justify x.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#118
Report 7 years ago
#118
The coverage of this in the various far-left publications is ridiculous. He was not arrested preemptively, he was arrested was conspiracy to commit an offence - which is an offence in itself and involves taking real action in furtherance of an offence. Moreover, trespass in Fortnum and Mason is a crime very much worth arresting someone for - and I just wish they arrested a few more people for it.

The police behaved admirably here.
2
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#119
Report 7 years ago
#119
(Original post by L i b)
The coverage of this in the various far-left publications is ridiculous. He was not arrested preemptively, he was arrested was conspiracy to commit an offence - which is an offence in itself and involves taking real action in furtherance of an offence.

The police behaved admirably here.
+rep
0
reply
neillya1
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#120
Report 7 years ago
#120
So that woman agreed to being present at Fortnum and Mason that day? So she admitted to criminal trespass? She should have been arrested too then.

I don't care if he's an "activist", because that's not why he's "targeted". He was arrested because he committed an offence, simple.

I actually thought the officers were very pleasant and dealt well with being confronted by them.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (442)
37.81%
No - but I will (88)
7.53%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.84%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (559)
47.82%

Watched Threads

View All