Gay Nazi Thugs attack ex-UKIP councillor

First topic message reminder :

The home of UKIP councillor David Silvester, who blamed recent floods on gay marriage, has been targeted by protesters.

Mr Silvester did not wish to comment but Henley Town Council said eggs had been thrown at his house this week.

Insp Mark Harling told the Henley Standard police were investigating and condemned the act as "pointless".

An online petition demanding Mr Silvester's resignation has attracted more than 24,000 signatures.

As well as being hit by eggs, the town council said a "rainbow banner" had also been attached to the wall of Mr Silvester's house.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25977349





These Gay Nazi's should not be tolerated

sphinx wrote:So the general consensus of opinion is that a Christian man may not express his opinions based on his beliefs and that if he does criminals who vandalize his house should be congratulated.

This from people who spent the other week claiming they supported freedom of speech - it seems they supported it right up until someone said something they did not like.  It is sickening.

Get this straight - I do not for a microsecond agree with what the man said - I think he is a uneducated idiot.  However I do believe he has the right to speak his opinion without fear of criminal reprisals and that he also has the right to the protection of the law.

Anyone thinking this man got what he deserved is a dictatorial hypocrite who should hand their head in shame but wont because they are too caught up in their own grandiosity to actually realize that they can quote the immortal "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
without understanding it yet alone practising it.

Anyone who truly believes in freedom of speech and that quote would stand in front of this man and take the abuse and eggs thrown at him onto themselves not shake the hands of the criminals trying to force this man to stop speaking his opinions.

Excellent post, very well said.

Actually it was very poor as seen by my previous replies and to her latest!


Anyway have fun!

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:


Never doubted for a minute that the Wankstain was indigenous and now the ultimate from another WANKSTAIN , '' Cock sucker '' is a Homophobic insult ..



    

Now was nothing short of complete rubbish, you stated a Texas cock sucker, very illogical, so you were saying now the state of Texas, being land and industrialization, animals and people can actually sock cocks.

I suggest you quite before you further embarrass yourself, even worse you keep replying with even more absurd notions

TEXARSE.



    

PhilDidge wrote:Actually it was very poor as seen by my previous replies and to her latest!


Anyway have fun!

No it was excellent its just you don't agree with it..

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Actually it was very poor as seen by my previous replies and to her latest!


Anyway have fun!

No it was excellent its just you don't agree with it..

I concur; Sphinx's post was first class and reflected my views entirely.

2-1.....new balls, please.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

No it was excellent its just you don't agree with it..

I concur; Sphinx's post was first class and reflected my views entirely.

2-1.....new balls, please.

She made grave errors me Lord, one being emotive semantics over people suggesting just rewards to people who do wrongs.


Second absurd point, that people should be able to say as they please, the law says otherwise and for good reason because of the danger and affects of hate speech and where it can lead to

I know your views on free speech, but we do not have free speech as they are consequences, within the work place, schools, society etc. The very notion of defending someone have the right to say "we are going to kill all Jews", is in essence defending them to say this, because you believe hate speech should defended through the guise of free speech. Sadly whoever wrote this do not understand for one second how hate speech affects people so who ever wrote that shows very much how it is dated for today.
Until people are responsible Me Lord, there will be rules and laws to protect people from hate


Right missing all the sport have a good day me Lord

still to point, that this should be treat as a hate crime.

heavenly father wrote:still to point, that this should be treat as a hate crime.

No it shouldnt it should be treated as stupid vandalism.

PhilDidge wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I concur; Sphinx's post was first class and reflected my views entirely.

2-1.....new balls, please.

She made grave errors me Lord, one being emotive semantics over people suggesting just rewards to people who do wrongs.


Second absurd point, that people should be able to say as they please, the law says otherwise and for good reason because of the danger and affects of hate speech and where it can lead to

I know your views on free speech, but we do not have free speech as they are consequences, within the work place, schools, society etc. The very notion of defending someone have the right to say "we are going to kill all Jews", is in essence defending them to say this, because you believe hate speech should defended through the guise of free speech. Sadly whoever wrote this do not understand for one second how hate speech affects people so who ever wrote that shows very much how it is dated for today.
Until people are responsible Me Lord, there will be rules and laws to protect people from hate


Right missing all the sport have a good day me Lord

Most people recognise and accept that there are laws about "hate" speech that is specifically designed and intended to incite reaction and inflame extremist opinion because saying something like "we are going to kill all Jews" would almost certainly lead to a serious breach of the peace.

Idiots ranting and raving through a megaphone and manipulating and provoking a mob into baying for blood have caused wars in the past.

But that is not the point that Sphinx is making. What that clown Silvester said may well have been both illogical and utterly stupid, but for someone to entertain and publicly express honestly held though wild theories, more often than not based on extreme religious conviction, is not a legitimate provocation for violence.

Public ridicule, maybe; but death threats and physical attacks on persons or property never.

In my view, the development of social media has much to answer for, and I suggest that those who deliberately whip up frenzy and real hatred and who call for (unspecified, of course, because they are clever) revenge on sites such as Twitter and Facebook are no better than a Right wing extremist screaming through a microphone for the enforced repatriation of black people or a Left wing trade union extremist urging cowardly physical attacks on workers who have spoken up against strikes or defied pickets.

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:still to point, that this should be treat as a hate crime.

No it shouldnt it should be treated as stupid vandalism.

no it's a hate crime, what other reason was there for the attack.

heavenly father wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No it shouldnt it should be treated as stupid vandalism.

no it's a hate crime, what other reason was there for the attack.

What other reason is there for any crime?

Hate crimes refer to crimes indicating hate of an entire group with a victim of that group chosen at random. So someone hates Blacks they select a random black person and attack them, someone hates gays they select a person they believe to be gay at random and attack them.

For this to be a hate crime you would have to show that the attackers hated either Christians, White people, or possibly UKIP, and had selected this man at random because he is a member of that group and to be brutally honest I do not think anyone believes that for a microsecond.

When a crime is personal it is not a hate crime. This was most definitely personal.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


She made grave errors me Lord, one being emotive semantics over people suggesting just rewards to people who do wrongs.


Second absurd point, that people should be able to say as they please, the law says otherwise and for good reason because of the danger and affects of hate speech and where it can lead to

I know your views on free speech, but we do not have free speech as they are consequences, within the work place, schools, society etc. The very notion of defending someone have the right to say "we are going to kill all Jews", is in essence defending them to say this, because you believe hate speech should defended through the guise of free speech. Sadly whoever wrote this do not understand for one second how hate speech affects people so who ever wrote that shows very much how it is dated for today.
Until people are responsible Me Lord, there will be rules and laws to protect people from hate


Right missing all the sport have a good day me Lord

Most people recognise and accept that there are laws about "hate" speech that is specifically designed and intended to incite reaction and inflame extremist opinion because saying something like "we are going to kill all Jews" would almost certainly lead to a serious breach of the peace.

Idiots ranting and raving through a megaphone and manipulating and provoking a mob into baying for blood have caused wars in the past.

But that is not the point that Sphinx is making. What that clown Silvester said may well have been both illogical and utterly stupid, but for someone to entertain and publicly express honestly held though wild theories, more often than not based on extreme religious conviction, is not a legitimate provocation for violence.

Public ridicule, maybe; but death threats and physical attacks on persons or property never.

In my view, the development of social media has much to answer for, and I suggest that those who deliberately whip up frenzy and real hatred and who call for (unspecified, of course, because they are clever) revenge on sites such as Twitter and Facebook are no better than a Right wing extremist screaming through a microphone for the enforced repatriation of black people or a Left wing trade union extremist urging cowardly physical attacks on workers who have spoken up against strikes or defied pickets.

Have time to answer this before I go


I never claimed what was done to him was right the point being addressed in her own post was on again whether it is ever right to claim just regards to people and the only reason she has been so worked up over all this is an association to UKIP, even though they have distance themselves from this loon. So my point was never over people being justified to egg his house but over how some take on stories different dependent on who commits the act. As stated if that had to do with fathers seeking justice to have more time with their children, nobody would bat an eyelid over who it was on the receiving end of the egging. Throw in some militant Homosexuals and then it is a free for all for more gay bashing. The fact is as you and I both know people who are victims of crime in the main would say if those who made them suffer also ended up with suffering and people say they got their just reqards, you cannot argue over one situation where it maybe okay and others where not. You either back the view you can or you cannot!

The point is what he did say was so absurd and on the fringes of lunacy that how in fact he is in a position of responsibility in the first place. It is one to hold views, but to claim now the weather is the result of Gay marriage, is nothing short of promoting hate against Homosexuals, it matters not that he is a loon or that many will not take him seriously, the fact and reality is many homosexuals still face discrimination and have a constant battle to change this. The method used was wrong, because now he is seen as a victim, when the case is his views are so backward they would find better parity in Saudi.

I completely agree and have stated as such on social media and even more so the internet, now people do have a green light near enough to post anything they like which in the real world would never actually say to people to their face.

As I say this thread was about the homophobic brigade using this as a means to get at once again homosexuals and we both know that to be true and Sphinx taking issue with the fact now she has to become used to the fact they will be more and more in the media in the head up to the next election

Have a good evening Me Lord

yet again...never mind the REALITY

did the fruitcake break the law.....no
did the gay supporters break the law...yes

do we have a rulke of law or not....

NOW GET THIS.....I dont want to know what "ought to be" I dont want to know any if and buts
I dont want to hear the spurious argument that they only broke the law "a little bit"

do you understand our (british) advertising laws

It is unlawful to LIE in the naming and description of an item (ok so politicians it seems are exempt however)

BUT if the statement is so OBVIOUSLY RIDICULOUS it is in fact lawful. to take advantage of this you need to show that what you are saying is so carzy that the reasonable person (here he is again) would not believe it to be true

so it is perfectly legal to advertise a chocolate bar as "giving you the strength of 10,000 men"

Now apply THAT to the statement the nut job made....

Dont you recon its reasonable to assume that anyone of reasonable intelligence would see that his claim that gay marriage caused the floods is EXACTLY that level...so ridiculous no reasonable person would take it seriously???

are you lot thats taking it (the nut jobs statment) seriously so bereft of brains that you cant see that

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

No it was excellent its just you don't agree with it..

I concur; Sphinx's post was first class and reflected my views entirely.

2-1.....new balls, please.

Mine too, I have said it many times, freedom of speech is not just for those we agree with. That's a fact, no matter what and those trying to battle for the moral high ground whilst denying others a say are deluded