4 ms·

Freedom of Expression is part of the Human Rights Act 1998. It's not the Labour party that's campaigning to repeal this act.

callamdelaney 2y ago
[flagged]
- philjohn 2y ago
  Except since no parliament can bind a future parliament it won't be worth the paper it's written on. The loudest voices calling for a scrap are exactly the people you DON'T want deciding what human rights you'll be "allowed". And incitement to violence is, and always should be, unprotected speech - your silly "two tier kier" is informing me greatly that you're on the "they locked them up for hurty words!" bandwagon.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - callamdelaney 2y ago
    Weird, the bill of rights act of 1689 is still in force. It’s literally the policy of this country to sentence white men to harsher custodial sentences with more chance of a custodial sentence than any other group, simply for the crime of being a white man. Are these the sorts of people you think should decide our rights? If the government would do what people have been voting for for decades and end mass immigration and take real action on this ridiculous and purposeful misuse of the human rights act, then nobody would want to redact it. But they won’t.
    - immibis 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - callamdelaney 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - philjohn 2y ago
      It is not the "policy of this country" you need to actually read how things work, what bodies have what power, and who is doing what. The sentencing council is an independant body, they are not the government, and the government has said "no, that's not right" so they're passing a bill to stop the new guidelines coming into effect: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-introduce-legislation-to-block-new-sentencing-guidelines https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-introduce-l...
      - callamdelaney 2y ago
        It's the policy of this country, it doesn't matter who sets it. It doesn't matter if it's set by parliament. It doens't matter if it's set by an independent body. The fact is that you will receive a harsher sentence for being a white male than you will if you belong to any other group. That is the policy. The Conservative government thought that was the right thing to do. Apparently the new government 'will' introduce a bill to stop this, but they haven't yet. So it's still the policy. Meanwhile it's legal and popular to discriminate against white men and women on the basis of being white - the government, police and military regularly put out jobs only for none whites. But if I were to put out a role only for whites, that's against the law. This discrimination extends to our top universities where it's becoming much more difficult (relative to population %) to obtain a spot as a white student. That's why people think this country is now a two tier system, and they're right. Opportunities are being taken from those who have earned them and given to those who have not. Meritocracy and equality under the law is already long gone.
        philjohn 2y ago
        Again, you're just regurgitating what Reform talking heads are saying. You probably didn't even realise that the sentencing guidelines were put on hold on the 31st of March. Got any proof that the fall in white admission to university is down to discrimination, and not the relative poorer showing of the native population compared to first and second generation immigrants who put a higher premium on doing well at school? Also can you respond with some of the "non whites only" job postings?
TacticalCoder 2y ago
[dead]

callamdelaney 2y ago

[flagged]

philjohn 2y ago
Except since no parliament can bind a future parliament it won't be worth the paper it's written on. The loudest voices calling for a scrap are exactly the people you DON'T want deciding what human rights you'll be "allowed". And incitement to violence is, and always should be, unprotected speech - your silly "two tier kier" is informing me greatly that you're on the "they locked them up for hurty words!" bandwagon.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- callamdelaney 2y ago
  Weird, the bill of rights act of 1689 is still in force. It’s literally the policy of this country to sentence white men to harsher custodial sentences with more chance of a custodial sentence than any other group, simply for the crime of being a white man. Are these the sorts of people you think should decide our rights? If the government would do what people have been voting for for decades and end mass immigration and take real action on this ridiculous and purposeful misuse of the human rights act, then nobody would want to redact it. But they won’t.
  - immibis 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - callamdelaney 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - philjohn 2y ago
    It is not the "policy of this country" you need to actually read how things work, what bodies have what power, and who is doing what. The sentencing council is an independant body, they are not the government, and the government has said "no, that's not right" so they're passing a bill to stop the new guidelines coming into effect: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-introduce-legislation-to-block-new-sentencing-guidelines https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-introduce-l...
    - callamdelaney 2y ago
      It's the policy of this country, it doesn't matter who sets it. It doesn't matter if it's set by parliament. It doens't matter if it's set by an independent body. The fact is that you will receive a harsher sentence for being a white male than you will if you belong to any other group. That is the policy. The Conservative government thought that was the right thing to do. Apparently the new government 'will' introduce a bill to stop this, but they haven't yet. So it's still the policy. Meanwhile it's legal and popular to discriminate against white men and women on the basis of being white - the government, police and military regularly put out jobs only for none whites. But if I were to put out a role only for whites, that's against the law. This discrimination extends to our top universities where it's becoming much more difficult (relative to population %) to obtain a spot as a white student. That's why people think this country is now a two tier system, and they're right. Opportunities are being taken from those who have earned them and given to those who have not. Meritocracy and equality under the law is already long gone.
      - philjohn 2y ago
        Again, you're just regurgitating what Reform talking heads are saying. You probably didn't even realise that the sentencing guidelines were put on hold on the 31st of March. Got any proof that the fall in white admission to university is down to discrimination, and not the relative poorer showing of the native population compared to first and second generation immigrants who put a higher premium on doing well at school? Also can you respond with some of the "non whites only" job postings?

TacticalCoder 2y ago

[dead]