Everyone is so offended.
Discussion
dandarez said:
popeyewhite said:
swiveleyedgit said:
techiedave said:
swiveleyedgit said:
An excellent album but one marred by including Strange kind of Woman - a disgusting label. 
No woman is strange - only different
I won't even mention the racist undertones of Black Night which sensibly did not appear on the original album but has been unpleasantly incorporated onto several compilations since.
I am also personally shocked at another of their albums. - Last Concert In Japan.
It is a confusing title as it was not their last concert in japan at all and there have been several trips since.
I cannot supress my feelings about this they range from feeling mistreated to being abused.
don't forget track 4 (The Mule) beastiality as wellMetaphorically, not literally.
Sweet had Little Willy Willy which was not something to be taken lightly
It was a horrific time for music. Slade were endorsing rape with the lyric "And I thought you might like to know
When a girl's meaning yes, she says no"
And that was just the top 20
Deep Purple - Knocking at Your Back Door (fnarr, fnarr). Have you heard the lyrics? Like "The log was in my pocket" and "Sweet Nancy was so fancy. But to get into her pants you had to be the aristocracy".
Well, really!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_kiDEGRq6g
Well, really!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_kiDEGRq6g
Edited by Langweilig on Thursday 9th January 11:50
The police response to an ex-officer's allegedly transphobic tweets was unlawful rules high court.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire...
kwits dreamt up these policies 
Excerpt from the judgement
"In his judgment handed down today, Mr Justice Julian Knowles concludes that HCOG is lawful as a policy both under domestic law and under Article 10 ([156], [237]). The policy draws upon many years of work on hate crime and hate incidents which began with the 1999 Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. The Court concludes that HCOG serves legitimate purposes and is not disproportionate.
However, Mr Justice Julian Knowles also finds that the police’s actions towards the Claimant disproportionately interfered with his right of freedom of expression on the particular facts of this case ([289]). The judgment emphasises the vital importance of free speech in a democracy and provides a reminder that free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, and that the freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth
having ([3]).
Mr Justice Julian Knowles concludes that the Claimant’s tweets were lawful and that there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet ([271]). He finds the combination of the police visiting the Claimant’s place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the Claimant’s right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect. In response to the Defendants’ submissions that any interference with the Claimant’s rights was trivial and justifiable, at [259] of his judgment the judge concludes that these arguments impermissibly minimise what occurred and do not properly reflect the value of free speech in a democracy.
He writes: “The effect of the police turning up at [the Claimant’s] place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”
To that extent, Mr Justice Julian Knowles upholds the Claimant’s claim."
"In his judgment handed down today, Mr Justice Julian Knowles concludes that HCOG is lawful as a policy both under domestic law and under Article 10 ([156], [237]). The policy draws upon many years of work on hate crime and hate incidents which began with the 1999 Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. The Court concludes that HCOG serves legitimate purposes and is not disproportionate.
However, Mr Justice Julian Knowles also finds that the police’s actions towards the Claimant disproportionately interfered with his right of freedom of expression on the particular facts of this case ([289]). The judgment emphasises the vital importance of free speech in a democracy and provides a reminder that free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, and that the freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth
having ([3]).
Mr Justice Julian Knowles concludes that the Claimant’s tweets were lawful and that there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet ([271]). He finds the combination of the police visiting the Claimant’s place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the Claimant’s right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect. In response to the Defendants’ submissions that any interference with the Claimant’s rights was trivial and justifiable, at [259] of his judgment the judge concludes that these arguments impermissibly minimise what occurred and do not properly reflect the value of free speech in a democracy.
He writes: “The effect of the police turning up at [the Claimant’s] place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”
To that extent, Mr Justice Julian Knowles upholds the Claimant’s claim."
JagLover said:
The police response to an ex-officer's allegedly transphobic tweets was unlawful rules high court.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire...
Finally a sensible decision. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire...
JagLover said:
The police response to an ex-officer's allegedly transphobic tweets was unlawful rules high court.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire...
I'm listening to some discussion linked with this on Jeremy Vine. I am utterly confused by all of the different makes an models that are now on offer, who can say what to who, who has been offended, and what is equipped with what.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire...
Not-The-Messiah said:
JagLover said:
The police response to an ex-officer's allegedly transphobic tweets was unlawful rules high court.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire...
Finally a sensible decision. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire...
Agammemnon said:
WinstonWolf said:
A good day for common sense.
A good day for freedom of speech.George Orwell said:
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occcured to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”
Composer62 said:
How can you reconcile the judgement in this case with the recent judgement in the Maya Forstater case ?
They seem to directly contradict each other do they not ?
Ones an employment tribunal and ones the high court. Also one is the actions of an employer and the other the actions of the police. They seem to directly contradict each other do they not ?
waynedear said:
Just been watching the man speaking about this on YouTube.
Is it correct that a hate crime report needs no evidence just a persons words ?
It's better than that Is it correct that a hate crime report needs no evidence just a persons words ?
After Mr Miller questioned why the complainant was being described as a “victim” if no crime had been committed, the officer told him: “We need to check your thinking”.
waynedear said:
Just been watching the man speaking about this on YouTube.
Is it correct that a hate crime report needs no evidence just a persons words ?
Evidence that it was said or evidence that what was said was a hate crime? Presumably the latter is down for the Police to interpret and decide.Is it correct that a hate crime report needs no evidence just a persons words ?
snuffy said:
waynedear said:
Just been watching the man speaking about this on YouTube.
Is it correct that a hate crime report needs no evidence just a persons words ?
Yes. If I say it's a hate crime then it's a hate crime.Is it correct that a hate crime report needs no evidence just a persons words ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff