Forum

Beakie was the only person who noticed, or at least commented, on Mr Ians original BNP link - nontheless his mischevious observations certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons.

A succession of events rapidly played out, beginning with the said BNP link being quickly blocked.

Surprisingly, the entire thread was then shut down [a first on mental nurse ?].

Even more surprisingly a ban [against OSB] was felt to be necessary but this apparently failed, due to technical deficiences, rather than a sudden change in the volatile gestalt that had quickly coalesced around the freedom of speech issue.

At the same time other key player [Beakie] wondered if wasn’t time to disable his MN account.

I daresay to any casual observer [looking in] these events must have seemed like little more than a slight breeze in a minature sized egg cup - they might have had a point too, but in that case why are we still curious about what these conversations may, or may not have signified so many days after the event ?

These I think are the issues that have rankled with the freedom lovers: elements of unilateralism and escalating coercion - possibily not too sigificant on another day but I just wonder if one or two people are finally waking up to the insidious nature of political correctness and nannying ?

Of course we have to put up with it in the workplace but in our beloved blogsphere………next somebody will be telling me that these principles must be applied in the home as well.

Oh dear how sad never mind. Pop a note through and Z and I will discuss it in our ivory tower over tea and bourbons.

Some ex-squaddies = opinionated = not always right. Do you see?

Your ability to erect straw men is amazing, OSB.

That’s right OSB - anyone who opposes you is an ivory-tower dweller or hasn’t thought things through properly or is hamstrung by political correctness or any one of a number of other boring old accusations you can dredge up from your increasingly limited repetoire.

You can tell you were in the army. Lots of ex-squaddies I’ve met have thought they were always right as well.

No, he really wasn’t denied his say. What little of his say relied on the link could have been said with links to non-fascist-scum websites. It’s called quality control. I could go yarking on about how 9/11 was an inside job, with plenty of links to websites of the far left and the far right - it would be both unpleasant and about as factual as the BNP’s newsletter.

In what way was he denied his say? A link to a disgusting fascist newsletter was removed. His post remained. He continued to post after the link removed. You are being allowed your say here in the forum. I know you would much rather have a larger audience because there’s nothing you like more than a bit of grandstanding, but tough. Nobody has been denied their say.

No one was denied their say, OSB. Get over it.

Beakie, I am an arrogant bastard, I`m not denying it. I have very little doubt that I`m right with regard to all the topics I waffle about. However, I don`t deny there is a spectrum of opinion and I certainly wouldn`t consider using my own moderating powers to deny anyone having their say, or their link. I even accept there are conflicts of opinion over war dead and wounded although, as I`ve explained to Mr Ian, I`m not receptive to that counter argument.

Free speech is a different matter. You`re not above the traditional freedoms undepinning our, albeit unwritten, constitution. Neither are you above the democratic will of the people. You can inflict it all you want but you`ve no right to impose your prejudice and alternative version of the LAW onto us.

A lot of important points have been raised by the majority of the MN faithful. Your counter arguments - You want your own site. You want to link ( and advertise ? ). There might be fragile minded lurkers. They put dogshit through peoples letterboxes. They`ve all got criminal convictions but wear suits to conceal the fact. They`re inciting murder. - may have a small element of truth but, mainly, it`s just crap off the top of your head. Sort yourself out, you`re capable of better.

How touching. The pious do - gooder in defence of the pompous know all. Formidable opposition indeed. Didn`t Z assert that he would come to the forum himself to explain his position ? Thus Spake Zarathustra, as I recall.

I`ve never aspired to run my own site. I seem to recall that you did. No wonder you have such touching concern for lurkers, no one seemed to be commenting when I had a look. As for links, I`ve never linked to anything, I`ve no idea how to. If you look at the MN archive I opined, when referencing and linking first became commonplace, that I was more interested in thoughts, opinions and experiences.

Ragging you on Mental Nurse is no brave defence of freedom. It`s childs play. However, it goes beyond free speech. A number of our traditional freedoms are currently being eroded. I think David Davies went too far in resigning his seat. As a tightfisted taxpayer I resented contributing towards the by - election. Having said that he certainly has a point. I could be wrong but I can`t imagine you making a brave defence of anything, other than your chair and mug in the staff room. If I didn`t find the BNP so distasteful myself, I`d be quite amused if you ended up in one of their constituencies.

I don’t think anyone is accusing me of being a fascist pig OSB or supporting the BNP. No one is shooting the messenger. I think both beakie and Z are sensible enough to accept I (obviously) feel differently on whether links to BNP are acceptable in the forum - without presuming I support the party, it’s principles or its behaviour.
If anything, I’d suspect I got a strong “tut” and eye-roll.

As I don’t really care two jots for the BNP - it doesn’t bother me they are getting flamed.

I have some ‘likeness’ of principles to BNP on issues of immigration and the like - but I am aware they have been linked to less scrupuolous activities also and tho these events haven’t touched me directly and personally - but I’m sure they have others.
The BNP have done for nationalism what Bin Laden has done for muslims.

The issue is not about freedom of speech - since we’re amicably talking about the BNP. It’s about what sites get linked to from here.

If anything - I would complain if the removal of the quote seriously undermined the veracity of my post - but it doesn’t. Z might have moderated a few words rather than remove the post - but simpler to just remove the link and quote - but on this principle - as I hadn’t made mention of BNP (deliberately not to draw attention to it) I think the quote could have stayed with a comment to state “link removed by moderator”.
It’s not about a principle - it’s about how important is this event? - Let me check my pulse - … nope.. it’s ok, I’m not dead over it.

Put it this way - if you came to my house and started talking about something I strongly disagree with - I’d ask you to shut up or leave - but like you did with the “fallen” issue to me. If you didn’t shut up - I’d kick you out.
It’s that me taking away your right to free speech? Or me exercising my right to run my home the way I choose?

“Now kindly ( or unkindly ) shut the fuck up before you make me really angry” [OSB; Isn’t this a form of censorship - telling me what I can and cannot have opinion on? You have no less weilded your threats through verbal medium to get me to self-censure my opinion

I think you’re confusing Free Speech with “you WILL listen to me”