Unbelievable

[Carl the Llama]

6 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Nah, it shouldn't be illegal to speculate about someone, just cos they have money.

I don't disagree, I was thinking more along the lines of addresses and financial or medical details with my comment. 

[BoyJones]

But it's ok for certain religious bodies to burn effigies of the Pope in central London in front of the police with no intervention whatsoever. 

 

I was was born a RC, although lapsed - I was in London at the time, but when I complained to the many police on duty, I was threatened with arrest and told in no uncertain terms to move on. 

[Vacamion]

 

Rowan Atkinson had it absolutely right that the right to insult should take precedence over the right to be offended.

 

Yes, that's right, the best and most insightful comments on "the outrage industry" and the intervention of the law on free speech come from Mr Bean.

 

This is remarkably well put:

 

 

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

8 hours ago, BoyJones said:

But it's ok for certain religious bodies to burn effigies of the Pope in central London in front of the police with no intervention whatsoever. 

 

I was was born a RC, although lapsed - I was in London at the time, but when I complained to the many police on duty, I was threatened with arrest and told in no uncertain terms to move on. 

Completely different issues. People have a right to protest the figurehead of a worldwide public body that is responsible for so much evil around the world that we barely even know the tip of the iceberg. Even the current Pope Frank who is well liked, is personally responsible of deeply questionable behaviour that again, we only know a little bit so far. 

[urban.spaceman]

4 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

Rowan Atkinson had it absolutely right that the right to insult should take precedence over the right to be offended.

 

Yes, that's right, the best and most insightful comments on "the outrage industry" and the intervention of the law on free speech come from Mr Bean.

 

This is remarkably well put:

 

 

Yeah, but, he defended Boris Johnson over the Burka so he is literally a fascist. 

[inckley fox]

9 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

Rowan Atkinson had it absolutely right that the right to insult should take precedence over the right to be offended.

 

Yes, that's right, the best and most insightful comments on "the outrage industry" and the intervention of the law on free speech come from Mr Bean.

 

This is remarkably well put:

I was debating whether or not burning a Grenfell replica could ever be funny, or satirical, or whether that was their intention. There's nothing wrong with humour causing offence if it's constructive, rather than intended to be cruel, or an insult to the innocent, and nothing more. I think this joke was cruel rather than any of the above.

 

But I don't believe they should be punished for it, other than by people telling them how dumb they are. Even if it were in broad daylight, on the Lancaster Road estate, they should have to live with the consequences of that decision, rather than consequences devised by a law which restricts their right to react.

 

Had they been doing this in a satirical protest at how the government, or local council, had treated the residents' concerns with contempt, then they would also have come up against the same legal problems, which is obviously wrong. Especially when these are the only Grenfell-related convictions we're going to see in a while.

 

There were people who satirised the reaction to Diana's death in 1997, or the glut of paedophilia cases in 2000, or the World Trade Centre in 2001, all terrible things. You have to be able to make fun of things - everyone from Shakespeare to Peter Cook mocked corruption, vice, hysteria, negligence, attitudes. It's a thin dividing line between constructive offensiveness and insult, and I'm not sure the law should wade into the debate.

 

That said, I agree that what these people did was insulting rather than cleverly provocative. But, of course, cruel humour can also be a sort of catharsis, even from caring people.

 

I remember many offensive outfits when people celebrated New Year in fancy dress. A few stand out. Someone went as Michael Hutchence with a noose around his head one year; I remember a group of four people going out - two with airplanes crudely stuck to their heads and two in boxes, as the Twin Towers (the airplane people spent the night pecking at the skyscraper people). I didn't see the satire in that either, or the guy who strapped a doll to his groin and told everyone he was a well-known child molesting MP, but I knew the people and they didn't wish any harm to those who suffered, they simply wanted to laugh rather than cry about what happened. In fact I spoke to the Hutchence guy, and he was quite a fan.

 

So we have to be very careful about our outrage, even though I can see that these people are probably d***heads.

 

Edit: And I should add that one of the skyscraper people had his cardboard box set on fire that night, while he was having a fag at the pub door.

Edited 7 November 2018 by inckley fox

[Guest MattP]

I still can't get my head what is happening now.

 

Four people were killed in the capital over the weekend and the police say they can't cope.

 

Whilst that happened we had a nationwide manhunt and a group were arrested for burning a cardboard box in a back garden. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

17 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

I don't disagree, I was thinking more along the lines of addresses and financial or medical details with my comment. 

Fair point.