UK Authorities Crack Down On Nazi Dogs And Angry Drivers While Forcing Parents To Watch Baby Die

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?

Far too many seem incapable of differentiating the two but offensive speech is not a crime here in the UK, but hateful speech can and sometimes is construed to be a crime.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough

Wrong on every single level.

You keep saying that....but i don't think you know what it means.

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?

Yes I do dispute that. Thanks for asking.

127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

www.legislation.gov.uk...

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Perhaps you are right on leaving him die be the most humane thing to do. I would argue that possibly a humane euthanization may be even more preferable.

but the issue is that state should not be allowed to tell the family they can not get competent treatment elsewhere at no expense to the NHS.

The issue with that is that with respect the the family they do not have the expertise required to make sound decisions based on the best interests of that child. These are the most complex medical and ethical decisions that are made and the family just simple do not have the expertise to make them.

In the UK it is not up to me or my family if I will be resuscitated, its up to the senior doctors, now sure family consultation is very important but at the end of the day everybody dies at some point and there has to be a point we draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough we have to move to palliation.

How are the family going to get their child to Italy safely, who pays for it, what happens if he dies on the plane.

Sorry I know its a tough pill to swallow but you can't save everyone.

a reply to: Grambler


"Remmeber all the talk of "death panels" about universal health care?

Well it looks like at least in the UK, that seems to be the case.

Just more proof the more power you give to the government, the more they can overrule your personal life decisions."

You wanted an example? Here you are - "death panels", indeed. Utter bollox.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?

Far too many seem incapable of differentiating the two but offensive speech is not a crime here in the UK, but hateful speech can and sometimes is construed to be a crime.

Thats not what the law says.

Let me requote it.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Perhaps you are right on leaving him die be the most humane thing to do. I would argue that possibly a humane euthanization may be even more preferable.

but the issue is that state should not be allowed to tell the family they can not get competent treatment elsewhere at no expense to the NHS.

The has been explained to you repeatedly. The decision isn't about if the NHS provides it or not. It is about if getting further treatment is in his best interest or not.

If its not in his interest it is entirely irrelevant where he can get the treatment.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes in the UK people have been arrested and jailed for being offensive online have a read of this Guardian Article

under the 2003 Communications Act with having sent "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing nature". Last week Newsome was jailed for six weeks, after pleading guilty, with the judge quoting his post back to him and saying: "I can think of little that could be more upsetting or offensive."

Basicaly if its online you can be prosecuted under the law.

a reply to: Grambler

Again after sitting through a few Frankie Boyle shows I can tell you that its utter crap to say that being offensive is a crime.

I don't care what you want to quote, I live in sunny Scotland and I can tell you, I have caused offence and been offered quite a bit but I have never seen it lead to a crime being prosecuted.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: howtonhawky


The Government have no influence in this, it's judges and doctors and Alfies parents, But I do think that Alfie should go home now he's off assisted breathing, and be allowed to be with his parents.

Just look at your silly comments beyond ignorant.

You are supporting a murderous system.

What will you say when alfie walks out of the hospital?

How on earth will Alfie walk out of the hospital!!!
This one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on ATS, the poor child has a degenerative brain disease, he can't even swallow. Just look at your silly comment!!

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough

Wrong on every single level.

You keep saying that....but i don't think you know what it means.

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?

Quite obviously you have never sat in crowd at a old firm game....

The law which has been quoted and used several times recently has to do with using "public elctornic communication"

But the thrust of your post is right; it is completely arbitraty how this is applied.

As we see on here, some people think that criticizing the NHS is a vitiolic attack.

If the right judge felt the same way, we could be arrested (if we lived in the UK) under this law.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Perhaps you are right on leaving him die be the most humane thing to do. I would argue that possibly a humane euthanization may be even more preferable.

but the issue is that state should not be allowed to tell the family they can not get competent treatment elsewhere at no expense to the NHS.

The issue with that is that with respect the the family they do not have the expertise required to make sound decisions based on the best interests of that child. These are the most complex medical and ethical decisions that are made and the family just simple do not have the expertise to make them.

In the UK it is not up to me or my family if I will be resuscitated, its up to the senior doctors, now sure family consultation is very important but at the end of the day everybody dies at some point and there has to be a point we draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough we have to move to palliation.

How are the family going to get their child to Italy safely, who pays for it, what happens if he dies on the plane.

Sorry I know its a tough pill to swallow but you can't save everyone.

In this istuation, its not just the word of the parents, it is compenetnt doctors from italy offering care.

They have an air ambulance lined up to take alfie at a moments notice.

It will be paid for by Italy, so whats the problem?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough

Wrong on every single level.

You keep saying that....but i don't think you know what it means.

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?

Yes I do dispute that. Thanks for asking.

127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

www.legislation.gov.uk...

Yes grossly offensive not just offensive.

a reply to: Grambler

If the right judge felt the same way, we could be arrested (if we lived in the UK) under this law.

Judges dont arrest....

However I digress, really not interested in a debate about freedom of speech in the UK only came onto this thread to voice my views on the whole Alfie Evans case.

If you want to continue to argue about how in the UK you can be arrested for simply saying something offensive then feel free to make yourself look stupid by arguing with other members.

am just not interested in getting into one of those debates.

a reply to: Grambler

Here is a useful guide to what is generally defined to be "Grossly Offensive".

Definition of "Grossly Offensive"

It ain't what you think it is.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


"Remmeber all the talk of "death panels" about universal health care?

Well it looks like at least in the UK, that seems to be the case.

Just more proof the more power you give to the government, the more they can overrule your personal life decisions."

You wanted an example? Here you are - "death panels", indeed. Utter bollox.

Yes that is true. Death panels were the idea that a group of doctors could get together and decide that a person should not be allowed to continue to recieve treatment, even if that was the persons wish or the wish of the family.

Just because you dont like the term doesnt mean its not true.

A group of doctors and a court have decided that this child is no longer allowed to recieve treatment, and the family may not take the child elsewhere for treatment.

This is exactly what was feared in the US when people discussed death panels.

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes in the UK people have been arrested and jailed for being offensive online have a read of this Guardian Article

under the 2003 Communications Act with having sent "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing nature". Last week Newsome was jailed for six weeks, after pleading guilty, with the judge quoting his post back to him and saying: "I can think of little that could be more upsetting or offensive."

Basicaly if its online you can be prosecuted under the law.

Grossly offensive. There is quite a bit of legal history and judgment on that simply being offensive is not illegal.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Perhaps you are right on leaving him die be the most humane thing to do. I would argue that possibly a humane euthanization may be even more preferable.

but the issue is that state should not be allowed to tell the family they can not get competent treatment elsewhere at no expense to the NHS.

How are the family going to get their child to Italy safely, who pays for it, what happens if he dies on the plane.

The Italians have offered to cover all the costs BBC

The court has decided to remove life care from Alfie why does it matter if he dies in the UK, Italy or the plane, why not respect the parents whishes.

a reply to: Grambler

Question.

If not doctors then who should decide when it is time for a person to die, who else has the knowledge and expertise to make those calls?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yup just look at Frankie Boyle If it was illegal to be offensive he would be doing hard labor by now.

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Perhaps you are right on leaving him die be the most humane thing to do. I would argue that possibly a humane euthanization may be even more preferable.

but the issue is that state should not be allowed to tell the family they can not get competent treatment elsewhere at no expense to the NHS.

How are the family going to get their child to Italy safely, who pays for it, what happens if he dies on the plane.

The Italians have offered to cover all the costs BBC

The court has decided to remove life care from Alfie why does it matter if he dies in the UK, Italy or the plane, why not respect the parents whishes.

Because as has been explained multiple times it is nothing to do with cost.