Banned from the UK

[ElephantGuts]

I laughed at "Jewish militant" but good for Britain. Not only do they have the right to keep certain people out of their country, I'd say they have a responsibility to do so if they feel those people will be causing serious problems. I sure as hell want those kinds of people as far away from me as possible.

 

[cjbos81]

Its not enough people we should kick out lots of the nutty racist/extremists who are already in our country. But yes I think they should be allowed to ban these people from entering our fair isle. I would ban David Cameron because he's a slimy git, also all chavs.

i like your way of thinking

but it could take years to round up all the chavs... XD

What the hell is a chav?

 

[LANCE420]

The UK has just proved themselves the most dickhead first world country in the world. This sounds a few steps off the USSR or Nazi Germany.

It's almost like a way of life for our politicians or something.

On topic; I'm all for freedom of speech, as long as that doesn't harm other people. As we can learn from history, both ends of the extreme political spectrum can be a very bad thing for a country. As much as this seems like a move against freedom of speech, I think it's justified.

I'd ban chavs from Britain. It wouldn't leave a lot of people, but at least things would be much more pleasant.

But my issue is that while this is made to be preventive, it breeds more in the opposite direction. Soon, people will be reporting their neighbors for radical behavior just because they don't brush their teeth in the morning. People who subject to abuse laws, and this is easily abused.

It also encourages the government to crush opposition to their beliefs. Its a proven method of government testing the censorship waters. The point of "Freedom of speech" is to protect offensive speech from people who disagree. IT protects the very right and very left(ooh big fascist difference!) opinions no matter what they say. Of course, European "FOS" laws are sketchy at best. It comes down as a matter of trust. Do you trust the general population's sensibility? If not, scrap your Freedom of speech laws fast like Britain or MICHAEL ATKINSON. If you do, go ahead. But don't be surprised or expect to do anything when your people turn out to be a bunch of hollering dickheads(like us USA types).

 

[Sparrow]

Its not enough people we should kick out lots of the nutty racist/extremists who are already in our country. But yes I think they should be allowed to ban these people from entering our fair isle. I would ban David Cameron because he's a slimy git, also all chavs.

i like your way of thinking

but it could take years to round up all the chavs... XD

What the hell is a chav?

Dude. Be more English.

 

[ILPPendant]

I refuse to believe Wacki Jaqui does anything that is actually right without enormous prompting from the unwashed masses so I'm wondering if this isn't some attempt to set a precedent in order to ban people who won't be inciting hatred but the UK just doesn't like at some point in the future.

How come Shirley Phelps-Roper is on the exclusions list? She's about as mouthy and bigotted as Fred Phelps is, I mean, she's probably the only woman I've ever wanted to smack before they hit me first.

Did you perhaps mean "isn't"? Otherwise you've just answered your own question.

 

[lordsandro]

After hearing this I am liking UK even more. No skinheads and religios/nazi/screw up nutjobs. Trowing away the trash is never a bad thing.

 

[cjbos81]

Its not enough people we should kick out lots of the nutty racist/extremists who are already in our country. But yes I think they should be allowed to ban these people from entering our fair isle. I would ban David Cameron because he's a slimy git, also all chavs.

i like your way of thinking

but it could take years to round up all the chavs... XD

What the hell is a chav?

Dude. Be more English.

Cheerio! Guvnor!! ello-ello. What's all this then?

I spell colour with a "u".

 

[Sparrow]

Its not enough people we should kick out lots of the nutty racist/extremists who are already in our country. But yes I think they should be allowed to ban these people from entering our fair isle. I would ban David Cameron because he's a slimy git, also all chavs.

i like your way of thinking

but it could take years to round up all the chavs... XD

What the hell is a chav?

Dude. Be more English.

Cheerio! Guvnor!! ello-ello. What's all this then?

I spell colour with a "u".

Nearly there! Now all you have to do is insult a couple of French people and make snide comments about the English gorvernment.

 

[spuddyt]

snip

Hence the absolute need for oversight - I want it so damn open that its easier to subvert free speech somewhere else

 

[Doug]

I could care less if it is a freedom of speech infigement this isnt america we dont have set rules on speech here. Frankly im glad these arseholes will never see our shores extremists do nothing to society what good does letting a man who spreaches death, hate and bigotry and disgust for the country that houses him have, none. People are smart enough to make there own decisions about what they hear? I would like to beleive so but no indoctrination has shown time and time again that what you are raised with is what you will likeley beleive. If it saves even a few children from dying in a terror attack or stupid arseholes from going down the wrong path making it worse for the rest of us then fine infringe free speech alittle.

QFT!

 

[Jharry5]

The UK has just proved themselves the most dickhead first world country in the world. This sounds a few steps off the USSR or Nazi Germany.

It's almost like a way of life for our politicians or something.

On topic; I'm all for freedom of speech, as long as that doesn't harm other people. As we can learn from history, both ends of the extreme political spectrum can be a very bad thing for a country. As much as this seems like a move against freedom of speech, I think it's justified.

I'd ban chavs from Britain. It wouldn't leave a lot of people, but at least things would be much more pleasant.

But my issue is that while this is made to be preventive, it breeds more in the opposite direction. Soon, people will be reporting their neighbors for radical behavior just because they don't brush their teeth in the morning. People who subject to abuse laws, and this is easily abused.

It also encourages the government to crush opposition to their beliefs. Its a proven method of government testing the censorship waters. The point of "Freedom of speech" is to protect offensive speech from people who disagree. IT protects the very right and very left(ooh big fascist difference!) opinions no matter what they say. Of course, European "FOS" laws are sketchy at best. It comes down as a matter of trust. Do you trust the general population's sensibility? If not, scrap your Freedom of speech laws fast like Britain or MICHAEL ATKINSON. If you do, go ahead. But don't be surprised or expect to do anything when your people turn out to be a bunch of hollering dickheads(like us USA types).

I don't agree with this underhanded censorship as far as everyday cases go. But the people on the list aren't exactly everyday people - especially that Fred Phelps. I think we're some way off of people ratting on each other for trivial things (unless there's money in it, like a lawsuit).
I can understand why the politicians are implementing it though, and its because they're trying to make themselves out to be all-loving, all-caring benevelant nanny government. That's why these people are being banned from entering. It's not a good thing; it just is. Not bad for a Prime Minister who wasn't even voted into power by the electorate...

 

[Bretty]

The UK is going to shit regardless of how many people they put on this list. Until they stop letting anyone claiming asylum into the UK and paying all their medical bills and housing needs the country is going to get worse.

Britain is not the US hate and discord hidden as speech is not something us Brits need.

 

[cjbos81]

Its not enough people we should kick out lots of the nutty racist/extremists who are already in our country. But yes I think they should be allowed to ban these people from entering our fair isle. I would ban David Cameron because he's a slimy git, also all chavs.

i like your way of thinking

but it could take years to round up all the chavs... XD

What the hell is a chav?

Dude. Be more English.

Cheerio! Guvnor!! ello-ello. What's all this then?

I spell colour with a "u".

Nearly there! Now all you have to do is insult a couple of French people and make snide comments about the English gorvernment.

I have nothing to say about the English gorvernment.

As for the French. Everyone knows French people don't bathe.

 

[Virus017]

should a governement be allowed to ban people who haven't committed a crime, just because they have unpopular views?

The second question is who would you ban from your country and why?

It's not the fact that they have unpopular views, its the fact that those views may motivate people to commit crimes.

 

[Chilliman]

Didn't really read the whole thing but....What's wrong with radio hosts?

For your second question, extreme douchebags. Not people who are minor douchebags but EXTREME ones. That is all. lulz

 

[bue519]

Yeah, fuck freedom of speech. Let's just ban everyone we don't agree with.

We dont have freedom of speech. There is no constitution on the UK protecting freedom of speech. Our laws are based on being able to do anything as long as the government doesn't say it is not allowed.

Hence you can be arrested for inciting racial hatred, swearing at a police officer, threats to kill etc. Try shouting bomb in an airport to see how free your speech really is.

Its only free speech if it doesn't cause harm. Hence not being able to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. Read up on your court decisions.

 

[TheDoctor455]

Yeah, if it seems like having these people in the country would attract some kind of crime, then it's alright for a government to do this.

Personally, I would ban Jack Thompson and Uwe Boll from my country. Jack Thompson because he is a lawyer in the same sense that (to misquote Yahtzee) Space Invaders is a simulation of tactical guerrilla warfare. I would also ban Uwe Boll because his movies are so horrible, that they are a crime against films, games, and the arts in general.

 

[LANCE420]

The UK has just proved themselves the most dickhead first world country in the world. This sounds a few steps off the USSR or Nazi Germany.

It's almost like a way of life for our politicians or something.

On topic; I'm all for freedom of speech, as long as that doesn't harm other people. As we can learn from history, both ends of the extreme political spectrum can be a very bad thing for a country. As much as this seems like a move against freedom of speech, I think it's justified.

I'd ban chavs from Britain. It wouldn't leave a lot of people, but at least things would be much more pleasant.

But my issue is that while this is made to be preventive, it breeds more in the opposite direction. Soon, people will be reporting their neighbors for radical behavior just because they don't brush their teeth in the morning. People who subject to abuse laws, and this is easily abused.

It also encourages the government to crush opposition to their beliefs. Its a proven method of government testing the censorship waters. The point of "Freedom of speech" is to protect offensive speech from people who disagree. IT protects the very right and very left(ooh big fascist difference!) opinions no matter what they say. Of course, European "FOS" laws are sketchy at best. It comes down as a matter of trust. Do you trust the general population's sensibility? If not, scrap your Freedom of speech laws fast like Britain or MICHAEL ATKINSON. If you do, go ahead. But don't be surprised or expect to do anything when your people turn out to be a bunch of hollering dickheads(like us USA types).

I don't agree with this underhanded censorship as far as everyday cases go. But the people on the list aren't exactly everyday people - especially that Fred Phelps. I think we're some way off of people ratting on each other for trivial things (unless there's money in it, like a lawsuit).
I can understand why the politicians are implementing it though, and its because they're trying to make themselves out to be all-loving, all-caring benevolent nanny government. That's why these people are being banned from entering. It's not a good thing; it just is. Not bad for a Prime Minister who wasn't even voted into power by the electorate...

yes, but its the point. its a first step in a cultural evolution towards this kind of censorship and subjugation. Michael Savage in the USA, is simple entertainment, similar to a video game, and is categorized as such. Our government tried to silence people like him in 2004 with the Fairness Doctrine, and failed miserably due to public outcry. If this happened in the US, it would be a huge deal. Typically, we only take action against those who have a criminal record, not because they have a radical viewpoint. So because of this, he is banned is UK? That is a rapid devolution of Freedom of Speech.

 

[Danzaivar]

Dear Yanks,

You ban a lot more people from your country than we do, I don't think you guys realise just how paranoid is about people from other countries. Hell there's British artists that get denied entrance to the US because of a drug charge ALL THE TIME.

Only difference is our Government (stupidly) decided to give the latest banned people some publicity. Don't worry tho, the inept Government that did this will be gone in about a year.