Page 4 of 6

Re: The BBC

Posted: 11:23 27 Mar 2015
by Frank_Butcher
spowell92 wrote:
greeneagle wrote:
Frank_Butcher wrote: That said, the progress we have made in those 30 years has been for very good reasons. But it comes with a big downside - that we now live in a very sanctimonious world. Here, I agree with mike_gss's comments about moral indignancy.

In fact, contrarily, I suspect there's a healthy percentage of our nation who are simply too scared to say what they really think for fear of retribution. .


Very noticeable coming back to the UK. Both my wife and I have made the point to friends and relatives. Their reaction has been exactly as you say Frank. However in private they certainly voice their frustrations.


Are you trying to say that racism, sexism, homophobia being pushed out is a negative? Are those who hold those views really upset that their narrow minded bigotry is being oppressed by the wider less ignorant of society? :funny:


"Frank_Butcher" wrote:

"That said, the progress we have made in those 30 years has been for very good reasons."


As you quoted my post, or rather the part that greeneagle was commenting upon, I suggest reading it properly rather than twisting and distorting what was said.

A rather apt demonstration of the point being made. Congratulations.

Re: The BBC

Posted: 11:26 27 Mar 2015
by SwimWithTheTide
I meant suppressed, my bad. You think to force out racism, homophobia and sexism is cruel or unjust?

Re: The BBC

Posted: 11:31 27 Mar 2015
by SwimWithTheTide
Frank_Butcher wrote:
spowell92 wrote:
greeneagle wrote:
Frank_Butcher wrote: That said, the progress we have made in those 30 years has been for very good reasons. But it comes with a big downside - that we now live in a very sanctimonious world. Here, I agree with mike_gss's comments about moral indignancy.

In fact, contrarily, I suspect there's a healthy percentage of our nation who are simply too scared to say what they really think for fear of retribution. .


Very noticeable coming back to the UK. Both my wife and I have made the point to friends and relatives. Their reaction has been exactly as you say Frank. However in private they certainly voice their frustrations.


Are you trying to say that racism, sexism, homophobia being pushed out is a negative? Are those who hold those views really upset that their narrow minded bigotry is being oppressed by the wider less ignorant of society? :funny:


"Frank_Butcher" wrote:

"That said, the progress we have made in those 30 years has been for very good reasons."


As you quoted my post, or rather the part that greeneagle was commenting upon, I suggest reading it properly rather than twisting and distorting what was said.

A rather apt demonstration of the point being made. Congratulations.


Not trying to twist anything Frank. Just picking up on Greeneagle's point about how these people he knows are upset that they can only voice their bigoted views in private. I'm unsure what the point he's trying to make there is? Because it doesn't really tie in with your first sentence, which I agree with you on - I didn't ignore it.

Re: The BBC

Posted: 11:37 27 Mar 2015
by mike_gss
spowell92 wrote: I meant suppressed, my bad. You think to force out racism, homophobia and sexism is cruel or unjust?


Fair enough.

Your second bit is an interesting question. To "force out" something (as determined by the majority) can be - I'm not saying "is" - as reprehensible as outright oppression. Tyranny of the Majority, as it is sometimes called, is an interesting debating point in democracies which perport to allow complete freedom of speech. Discussion of certain topics is attracting unacceptable levels of suppression (your word) leading to a retreat into private forums. Incitement of racism, homophobia and sexism - now there's a horse of a different colour.

Re: The BBC

Posted: 11:43 27 Mar 2015
by Ceebs
It's not the discussion of certain topics that is or should be suppressed, but the expression of certain oppressive views that should. Freedom of thought exists, but I'm not sure freedom of speech does or should.

Re: The BBC

Posted: 11:45 27 Mar 2015
by mike_gss
Ceebs wrote: It's not the discussion of certain topics that is or should be suppressed, but the expression of certain views that should. Freedom of thought exists, but I'm not sure freedom of speech does or should.


So, who decides what views are acceptable and which should be suppressed. You?

Re: The BBC

Posted: 11:46 27 Mar 2015
by Ceebs
Society decides on those that are oppressive.

Re: The BBC

Posted: 12:00 27 Mar 2015
by crownhillpilgrim
Of course we have freedom of speech. Unless they're advocating violence, no one is going to jail in this country for their opinions.

Re: The BBC

Posted: 12:03 27 Mar 2015
by Frank_Butcher
Ceebs wrote: Society decides on those that are oppressive.


That's a romantic view if I may say. Do you really not believe there would be more open sexism, racism etc. in our society without the legislation we have in place today ?

Re: The BBC

Posted: 12:05 27 Mar 2015
by Quinny
The very fact we have libel and slander laws in this country proves we don't have freedom of speech. Just ask certain Blackpool fans being sued by Oyston at the moment after comments posted on their version of PASOTI.

Re: The BBC

Posted: 12:05 27 Mar 2015
by Ceebs
crownhillpilgrim wrote: Of course we have freedom of speech. Unless they're advocating violence, no one is going to jail in this country for their opinions.


Your caveat is exactly my point. True freedom of speech does not exist and rightly so.

Re: The BBC

Posted: 12:07 27 Mar 2015
by Ceebs
Frank_Butcher wrote:
Ceebs wrote: Society decides on those that are oppressive.


That's a romantic view if I may say. Do you really not believe there would be more open sexism, racism etc. in our society without the legislation we have in place today ?


AAbsolutely, but ultimately it is society that forms, or informs, the laws.

Re: The BBC

Posted: 14:04 27 Mar 2015
by greeneagle
spowell92 wrote:
greeneagle wrote:
Frank_Butcher wrote: That said, the progress we have made in those 30 years has been for very good reasons. But it comes with a big downside - that we now live in a very sanctimonious world. Here, I agree with mike_gss's comments about moral indignancy.

In fact, contrarily, I suspect there's a healthy percentage of our nation who are simply too scared to say what they really think for fear of retribution. .


Very noticeable coming back to the UK. Both my wife and I have made the point to friends and relatives. Their reaction has been exactly as you say Frank. However in private they certainly voice their frustrations.


Are you trying to say that racism, sexism, homophobia being pushed out is a negative? Are those who hold those views really upset that their narrow minded bigotry is being oppressed by the wider less ignorant of society? :funny:



Certainly not. You are assumptions are totally incorrect. I suggest you re-read Frank's post. I was, for clarity, referring to aspects of government, the NHS, the BBC, transport and infrastructure, benefits and the whole gamut of the British way of life. Mainly in comparison to the Australian way of life. Hope that puts your mind at rest.