Never realised so many folk hate us

[StuartG]

My understanding of that statement is that it is fine to hate religion, nationalism, racism, Eastenders – slag them of any way you like, call Jesus/Mohamed/God every name under the sun, despise homosexuals, hate the Daily Mail, whatever turns you on - have as much freedom of thought as you like, BUT the line is drawn at inciting criminal acts.

But that was precisely my point. If this group were indeed organising rallies to mow down cyclists then neither the government (UK or US in this case) or Facebook would not hesitate for a moment.

And yes the Daily Mail is one of my pet hates - I do read it and I'm sure in an alcoholic state I have volunteered the opinion that Paul Dacre should be burned at the stake. If I did indeed organise a FB Group and shared that view - and lots of people agreed with me - should we be banned? I think not and I doubt Paul would sleep less soundly in his bed. Now if we began to give out his address, registration plate and so on - it gets really nasty, somebody may get hurt and FB should certainly see us off.

But returning to this group. I see it as a load of clowns showing off. I still don't see it as a real threat to me. Do you? That is surely worthwhile debate we should be having.

 

[Crankarm]

As I read it, Crankarm isn’t calling for a curtailing of Freedom of Speech. He said that there is a “moral duty (on the BBC etc) not to incite criminal acts or promote hatred against others.”

That’s not thought control

My understanding of that statement is that it is fine to hate religion, nationalism, racism, Eastenders – slag them of any way you like, call Jesus/Mohamed/God every name under the sun, despise homosexuals, hate the Daily Mail, whatever turns you on - have as much freedom of thought as you like, BUT the line is drawn at inciting criminal acts.



The right to Freedom of Speech is enshrined by everyone tolerating others to say things we despise, but that is not the same thing as allowing people to say things that WILL result in torture and murder of innocent people. Human rights outweigh absolute Freedom of Speech.



If they didn’t, then any dictator that organised (but didn’t actually personally carry out) genocide would be not guilty of a crime against humanity - they would be protected by an absolute right to say (instruct the massacre of others) what they like.



That’s an extreme example, but no one has “the right” to tell someone else to attempt to kill me because they simply feel I shouldn’t be riding a bike.

With regards to FB not being prosecuted yet, it doesn’t necessarily follow that what they are doing is right or legal in most decent democratic states – it could mean that they get away with it because of what Crank already pointed out – ie the borderless nature of the www makes it difficult if not impossible to prosecute; geographical governments have difficulty implementing rules on companies or entities that have no geographical basis – it’s a fundamental strength of the internet, but it’s a double edged sword.

+1.

 

[Crankarm]

But that was precisely my point. If this group were indeed organising rallies to mow down cyclists then neither the government (UK or US in this case) or Facebook would not hesitate for a moment.

And yes the Daily Mail is one of my pet hates - I do read it and I'm sure in an alcoholic state I have volunteered the opinion that Paul Dacre should be burned at the stake. If I did indeed organise a FB Group and shared that view - and lots of people agreed with me - should we be banned? I think not and I doubt Paul would sleep less soundly in his bed. Now if we began to give out his address, registration plate and so on - it gets really nasty, somebody may get hurt and FB should certainly see us off.

But returning to this group. I see it as a load of clowns showing off. I still don't see it as a real threat to me. Do you? That is surely worthwhile debate we should be having.

Since you mentioned the DM it must be uppermost in your mind ...... I bet you read it regularly.

For me I know of the DM. I don't read it save for when one of it's fans, such as you, posts a link to a story on here. I am pretty ambivalent about it as I am other tabloids with mass readerships neither of which I read. I don't hold or set out to broadcast the intermperate types of opinion that you clearly hold against the paper and it's readership, let alone type such on a public forum.

I don't think there is much mileage in continuing to debate this with you. I have said what I wished to say. The only thing that I would add is that for cyclists in the UK the roads are a hazardous dangerous place. Forums and TV programmes that appear to condone or allow remarks that would endorse or advocate endangering me or fellow cyclists whilst on the roads should be censured or removed. As Twick said they have a moral and ethical responsibility as well their own policy on broadcasting or publishing codes to no doubt adhere to. The threat of being sued or criminal investigation tends to make commercial organisations stay within the law.

However I wish you well with your view point. I don't agree with it, but I defend your right to hold it in an open and tolerant scoiety provided you remain within the law.

 

[StuartG]

[QUOTE 1159893"]However I do see where Crankarm is coming from with respect to the public duty that YT, FB and TopGear have. It's not about appealing to a certain group when having a rant at cyclists - it's about doing what is for the greator good of society.
[/quote]
Dictators and democrats can both believe they are acting or fighting each other for the greater good of society. Who judges that? Who says we should not sometimes act in our own selfish interest. I do that daily when I adopt the primary position ...

 

[StuartG]

Since you mentioned the DM it must be uppermost in your mind ...... I bet you read it regularly.

For me I know of the DM. I don't read it save for when one of it's fans, such as you, posts a link to a story on here. I am pretty ambivalent about it as I am other tabloids with mass readerships neither of which I read. I don't hold or set out to broadcast the intermperate types of opinion that you clearly hold against the paper and it's readership, let alone type such on a public forum.

I don't think there is much mileage in continuing to debate this with you.

I agree there is no point in debating with you.

I presume it is some special disability I have in getting you to misunderstand, misinterpret or just not read what I have wriitten and hence your propensity to delve into sheer fantasy and nastiness.

The DM is not uppermost in my mind. I said I do read it regularly so there is no need to bet. In fact it is the only paper available when I'm staying with my mother. Oh, and the DM was, in fact, introduced by TC.

Yes 'burning at the stake' was truly an intemperate statement. The clue was in the alcohol! Your accusation that I hold intemperate opinion against my own mother, is if you think about it for a nanosecond, completely unjustified by anything I have written. It is just despicable. Oh and wrong.

I think I'm more saddened by you than this Facebook Group. But then I don't want to stop you posting. But forgive me if I avoid them in future. Well until you develop some humanity and reason.

 

[Crankarm]

I agree there is no point in debating with you.

I presume it is some special disability I have in getting you to misunderstand, misinterpret or just not read what I have wriitten and hence your propensity to delve into sheer fantasy and nastiness.

The DM is not uppermost in my mind. I said I do read it regularly so there is no need to bet. In fact it is the only paper available when I'm staying with my mother. Oh, and the DM was, in fact, introduced by TC.

Yes 'burning at the stake' was truly an intemperate statement. The clue was in the alcohol! Your accusation that I hold intemperate opinion against my own mother, is if you think about it for a nanosecond, completely unjustified by anything I have written. It is just despicable. Oh and wrong.

I think I'm more saddened by you than this Facebook Group. But then I don't want to stop you posting. But forgive me if I avoid them in future. Well until you develop some humanity and reason.

Say "Hi" to your Mum from me.

I wasn't aware that I was replying to two people in one post . Easy with the despicables, unjustifieds, nanoseconds, fantasies and nastiness. If you are more saddened by me than the FB group then maybe you should look again at some of these FB groups. As it is my impression, primarily from earlier in this thread, that they are made up of some pretty unpleasant people you wouldn't want behind you on your bicycle ...........

 

[jonesy]

[QUOTE 1159893"]
Ultimately no, agreed it's a vast gulf between saying 'I hate cyclists, those lycra clad bastards should be off the road.' to actually going out and driving in such a manner to endanger cyclists.

However I do see where Crankarm is coming from with respect to the public duty that YT, FB and TopGear have. It's not about appealing to a certain group when having a rant at cyclists - it's about doing what is for the greator good of society.
[/quote]

Actually I think this sort of thing does make a difference to how people behave. They can be a danger to us without deliberately intending to cause physical harm, if aggressive anti-cyclist messages encourage some drivers to be even less considerate towards us that can mean increased danger. If a driver is about to pass a cyclist, then I'd rather they aren't thinking about how much they hate cyclists and how outrageous it is that we are getting in their way...