Illegal for landlord to refuse on food preference?
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
cmaguire said:
I doubt we'll agree on that.
There are many things said openly and freely 30 years ago that could very easily result in prosecution now, and they are opinions and views rather than incitement of any kind. And whilst some views expressed freely back then may well be unreasonable under scrutiny, the reality now is that certain subjects are not now open for free discussion as those that feel they have the moral high ground shout everyone else down with accusations of racism or bigotry.
Meanwhile those self same moralists can tout their propaganda without scrutiny. Welcome to the age of enlightenment.
Didn't we do this last week...?There are many things said openly and freely 30 years ago that could very easily result in prosecution now, and they are opinions and views rather than incitement of any kind. And whilst some views expressed freely back then may well be unreasonable under scrutiny, the reality now is that certain subjects are not now open for free discussion as those that feel they have the moral high ground shout everyone else down with accusations of racism or bigotry.
Meanwhile those self same moralists can tout their propaganda without scrutiny. Welcome to the age of enlightenment.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Bacon Is Proof said:
That post makes you sound like a racist and an apologist, just so you know.
I'm sure you're not, but as someone with no interest in getting involved in the discussion, I just thought you'd like to know how you're coming across.
Yes, we definitely did that bit...I'm sure you're not, but as someone with no interest in getting involved in the discussion, I just thought you'd like to know how you're coming across.
And you can link to all the legal jargon you like, but actions speak louder than words on both sides, and those words frequently don't represent the practical reality.
There are some parallels with the fox-hunting debate/protesters, where many of those claiming to be on the 'right' side were often guilty of behaviour far more questionable than that of their protagonists on the supposed 'wrong' side.
StairDominator appears to hold some entertainment value.
cmaguire said:
StairDominator appears to hold some entertainment value.
Not any more.https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/profile.asp?h=...
cmaguire said:
I doubt we'll agree on that.
There are many things said openly and freely 30 years ago that could very easily result in prosecution now, and they are opinions and views rather than incitement of any kind. And whilst some views expressed freely back then may well be unreasonable under scrutiny, the reality now is that certain subjects are not now open for free discussion as those that feel they have the moral high ground shout everyone else down with accusations of racism or bigotry.
Meanwhile those self same moralists can tout their propaganda without scrutiny. Welcome to the age of enlightenment.
Such as? provide real world examples?There are many things said openly and freely 30 years ago that could very easily result in prosecution now, and they are opinions and views rather than incitement of any kind. And whilst some views expressed freely back then may well be unreasonable under scrutiny, the reality now is that certain subjects are not now open for free discussion as those that feel they have the moral high ground shout everyone else down with accusations of racism or bigotry.
Meanwhile those self same moralists can tout their propaganda without scrutiny. Welcome to the age of enlightenment.
The fact is, none of that is happening. If anything, saying things that would have gotten the crap beaten out of your 30 years ago (that was 1988 for those playing along at home) can be said today without consequence.
Say after me "Free speech does not compel everyone to silently agree with me, free speech does not protect me from criticism".
TooMany2cvs said:
Breadvan72 said:
A coda to the story -
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/...
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/...
<chuckle> It couldn't happen to a better "bum-splat".https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/...
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/...
What a sound chap Mr Hyde's barrister appears to be, to take on a case like that for free - his reported comments on the video and blogger appear to be bob-on, too...
Bravo!
I only wish the judge gave a higher ££ figure to be given to the legal access charity...
captain_cynic said:
Such as? provide real world examples?
The fact is, none of that is happening. If anything, saying things that would have gotten the crap beaten out of your 30 years ago (that was 1988 for those playing along at home) can be said today without consequence.
Say after me "Free speech does not compel everyone to silently agree with me, free speech does not protect me from criticism".
Where exactly is it you hear people saying these things that would have resulted in a beating 30 years ago but goes of without a hitch now?The fact is, none of that is happening. If anything, saying things that would have gotten the crap beaten out of your 30 years ago (that was 1988 for those playing along at home) can be said today without consequence.
Say after me "Free speech does not compel everyone to silently agree with me, free speech does not protect me from criticism".
It's you that is making stuff up.
Bacon Is Proof said:
That post makes you sound like a racist and an apologist, just so you know.
I'm sure you're not, but as someone with no interest in getting involved in the discussion, I just thought you'd like to know how you're coming across.
Your post illustrates his view rather well I'm sure you're not, but as someone with no interest in getting involved in the discussion, I just thought you'd like to know how you're coming across.
Here is a real-life example: I think all religion is illogical and is not beyond criticism and reproach. I once made the mistake of talking about the "Nativity myth" in a discussion with a Christian friend, he explained he found that disrespectful but after i apologised for the offence caused and explained my stance that he would think nothing of talking about the "myths"of the ancient Greeks he was happy.
But, when I voiced my disapproval of stunless slaughter as cruel and unacceptable I am told by that same friend that is islamophobic. How? Islam doesn't forbid it, many Muslims are happy for halal meat to be stunned, I was told that by an imam. But, virtue signalling has become a big thing for some and these are the people who cry "you're being <>-cist/phobic"
There are still bigots, racists, homophobes etc out there. We all accept that.
Why is it hard to accept that there is also SJW bigotry too?
donkmeister said:
Your post illustrates his view rather well
Here is a real-life example: I think all religion is illogical and is not beyond criticism and reproach. I once made the mistake of talking about the "Nativity myth" in a discussion with a Christian friend, he explained he found that disrespectful but after i apologised for the offence caused and explained my stance that he would think nothing of talking about the "myths"of the ancient Greeks he was happy.
But, when I voiced my disapproval of stunless slaughter as cruel and unacceptable I am told by that same friend that is islamophobic. How? Islam doesn't forbid it, many Muslims are happy for halal meat to be stunned, I was told that by an imam. But, virtue signalling has become a big thing for some and these are the people who cry "you're being <>-cist/phobic"
There are still bigots, racists, homophobes etc out there. We all accept that.
Why is it hard to accept that there is also SJW bigotry too?
As much as you’re trying to make out that you’re making a valid point, the use of “SJW” and “virtue signalling” shows what your thoughts really are. Here is a real-life example: I think all religion is illogical and is not beyond criticism and reproach. I once made the mistake of talking about the "Nativity myth" in a discussion with a Christian friend, he explained he found that disrespectful but after i apologised for the offence caused and explained my stance that he would think nothing of talking about the "myths"of the ancient Greeks he was happy.
But, when I voiced my disapproval of stunless slaughter as cruel and unacceptable I am told by that same friend that is islamophobic. How? Islam doesn't forbid it, many Muslims are happy for halal meat to be stunned, I was told that by an imam. But, virtue signalling has become a big thing for some and these are the people who cry "you're being <>-cist/phobic"
There are still bigots, racists, homophobes etc out there. We all accept that.
Why is it hard to accept that there is also SJW bigotry too?
You need to learn to make a point without getting all offended that others might get offended.
Breadvan72 said:
Wilson was represented by a hapless young woman working on a low paid gig basis for a company which is a sort of Uber of the legal system, sending unqualified advocates to court. She had an impossible gig. The Judge was unimpressed by Wilson's failure to show up at court.
I don't understand why a reputed multi-millionaire would leave the handling of this case to such a company rather than instructing a proper law firm. Bizarre.Flibble said:
Breadvan72 said:
Wilson was represented by a hapless young woman working on a low paid gig basis for a company which is a sort of Uber of the legal system, sending unqualified advocates to court. She had an impossible gig. The Judge was unimpressed by Wilson's failure to show up at court.
I don't understand why a reputed multi-millionaire would leave the handling of this case to such a company rather than instructing a proper law firm. Bizarre.Knows the cost of everything, but not the value
Gavia said:
donkmeister said:
Your post illustrates his view rather well
Here is a real-life example: I think all religion is illogical and is not beyond criticism and reproach. I once made the mistake of talking about the "Nativity myth" in a discussion with a Christian friend, he explained he found that disrespectful but after i apologised for the offence caused and explained my stance that he would think nothing of talking about the "myths"of the ancient Greeks he was happy.
But, when I voiced my disapproval of stunless slaughter as cruel and unacceptable I am told by that same friend that is islamophobic. How? Islam doesn't forbid it, many Muslims are happy for halal meat to be stunned, I was told that by an imam. But, virtue signalling has become a big thing for some and these are the people who cry "you're being <>-cist/phobic"
There are still bigots, racists, homophobes etc out there. We all accept that.
Why is it hard to accept that there is also SJW bigotry too?
As much as you’re trying to make out that you’re making a valid point, the use of “SJW” and “virtue signalling” shows what your thoughts really are. Here is a real-life example: I think all religion is illogical and is not beyond criticism and reproach. I once made the mistake of talking about the "Nativity myth" in a discussion with a Christian friend, he explained he found that disrespectful but after i apologised for the offence caused and explained my stance that he would think nothing of talking about the "myths"of the ancient Greeks he was happy.
But, when I voiced my disapproval of stunless slaughter as cruel and unacceptable I am told by that same friend that is islamophobic. How? Islam doesn't forbid it, many Muslims are happy for halal meat to be stunned, I was told that by an imam. But, virtue signalling has become a big thing for some and these are the people who cry "you're being <>-cist/phobic"
There are still bigots, racists, homophobes etc out there. We all accept that.
Why is it hard to accept that there is also SJW bigotry too?
You need to learn to make a point without getting all offended that others might get offended.
Not getting the response you'd like from your audience is not an indication that your freedom of speech is being curtailed. It tells you that people disagree with you. You don't need protection from that.
ATG said:
Gavia said:
donkmeister said:
Your post illustrates his view rather well
Here is a real-life example: I think all religion is illogical and is not beyond criticism and reproach. I once made the mistake of talking about the "Nativity myth" in a discussion with a Christian friend, he explained he found that disrespectful but after i apologised for the offence caused and explained my stance that he would think nothing of talking about the "myths"of the ancient Greeks he was happy.
But, when I voiced my disapproval of stunless slaughter as cruel and unacceptable I am told by that same friend that is islamophobic. How? Islam doesn't forbid it, many Muslims are happy for halal meat to be stunned, I was told that by an imam. But, virtue signalling has become a big thing for some and these are the people who cry "you're being <>-cist/phobic"
There are still bigots, racists, homophobes etc out there. We all accept that.
Why is it hard to accept that there is also SJW bigotry too?
As much as you’re trying to make out that you’re making a valid point, the use of “SJW” and “virtue signalling” shows what your thoughts really are. Here is a real-life example: I think all religion is illogical and is not beyond criticism and reproach. I once made the mistake of talking about the "Nativity myth" in a discussion with a Christian friend, he explained he found that disrespectful but after i apologised for the offence caused and explained my stance that he would think nothing of talking about the "myths"of the ancient Greeks he was happy.
But, when I voiced my disapproval of stunless slaughter as cruel and unacceptable I am told by that same friend that is islamophobic. How? Islam doesn't forbid it, many Muslims are happy for halal meat to be stunned, I was told that by an imam. But, virtue signalling has become a big thing for some and these are the people who cry "you're being <>-cist/phobic"
There are still bigots, racists, homophobes etc out there. We all accept that.
Why is it hard to accept that there is also SJW bigotry too?
You need to learn to make a point without getting all offended that others might get offended.
Not getting the response you'd like from your audience is not an indication that your freedom of speech is being curtailed. It tells you that people disagree with you. You don't need protection from that.
Flibble said:
I don't understand why a reputed multi-millionaire would leave the handling of this case to such a company rather than instructing a proper law firm. Bizarre.
A cynic might point to the likelihood of his property empire being massively indebted, having been built up rapidly from nothing pre-crash, and at the myriad press reports of impending sale of the portfolio which have been rife for quite a few years since.If you follow that logic through, then you could infer that somebody may be nominally asset-rich but not necessarily cash-rich, because of the enormous mortgage monkey on his back.
Just think about what might happen in a theoretical situation where a lender repossessed, and the effect it would have on the local market - and on the lender's bottom line. It may mean such a lender was somewhat reluctant to take such action, to the point they could consider a scenario where there was a nominal frontman continuing to trade despite borderline insolvency.
Flibble said:
Breadvan72 said:
Wilson was represented by a hapless young woman working on a low paid gig basis for a company which is a sort of Uber of the legal system, sending unqualified advocates to court. She had an impossible gig. The Judge was unimpressed by Wilson's failure to show up at court.
I don't understand why a reputed multi-millionaire would leave the handling of this case to such a company rather than instructing a proper law firm. Bizarre.eta just noticed 2cv puts it more eloquently than me
Edited by alfie2244 on Thursday 22 February 15:31
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff