"Grunt Schnapps Attacks Putin".
Putin replies
"What is a Grunt Schnapps?"
Putin replies
"What is a Grunt Schnapps?"
Michael Gove wants to use parliamentary privilege to name groups under his new definition of extremism, despite government lawyers warning him about the legal implications of doing so.
There will be no appeal if you are labelled an extremist group.
This thread is very thought provoking.
Michael Gove wants to use parliamentary privilege to name groups under his new definition of extremism, despite government lawyers warning him about the legal implications of doing so.
There will be no appeal if you are labelled an extremist group.
This thread is very thought provoking.
Michael Gove wants to use parliamentary privilege to name groups under his new definition of extremism, despite government lawyers warning him about the legal implications of doing so.
There will be no appeal if you are labelled an extremist group.
This thread is very thought provoking.
Absolutely but the sub question is HOW one exercises that right. Has 21st century society lost the ability to debate without being overly 'offended' or by being overly 'aggressive' (whether by use of hateful words or hateful actions)?"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
George Orwell
This in spades, from all sides of the political spectrum when it comes to social media “discussion”.Absolutely but the sub question is HOW one exercises that right. Has 21st century society lost the ability to debate without being overly 'offended' or by being overly 'aggressive' (whether by use of hateful words or hateful actions)?
I does depend what that is though."If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
George Orwell
But mostly from one side. Let's face itThis in spades, from all sides of the political spectrum when it comes to social media “discussion”.
But the big problem right now though is it’s the bloody government and their paymasters rhetoric being directly racist rather than snide insinuation. The Tories are getting desperate. Their “plausible deniability” has evaporated.
At least Starmer is slowly getting the scumbags, racists and ridiculed out (Ali, Abbott, Corbyn losing the whip). In the current day Tory party it gets you in the cabinet.
The government is having an absolute mare with this latest blunder. No amount of money is worth what they’ve having to try and dance around.
Historically the political debate has been much more overly aggressive. Yet even now I see more overly aggressive 'discussion' than overly 'offended' responses. I don't recognise the culture war between broflakes and snowflakes.Absolutely but the sub question is HOW one exercises that right. Has 21st century society lost the ability to debate without being overly 'offended' or by being overly 'aggressive' (whether by use of hateful words or hateful actions)?
Michael Gove wants to use parliamentary privilege to name groups under his new definition of extremism, despite government lawyers warning him about the legal implications of doing so.
There will be no appeal if you are labelled an extremist group.
This thread is very thought provoking.