tzijlstra Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 The Do-gooders dont ............ hence the reason they have made a big issue of MacKays banter with his mate. Phew, here was me thinking doing good was actually sensible. Bloody pleased that Farage fixed that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 The Do-gooders dont ............ hence the reason they have made a big issue of MacKays banter with his mate. and what of poppy burners etc? oh wait we know all your thoughts on those ---------- Post added 23-08-2014 at 23:35 ---------- That's a bit of a desperate reply. Try again. Tell us why other people's personal banter is any of your business? Don't you believe people have a right to privacy? yes but once it comes into the public domain then we see what type of person they really are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 But, if I'm entitled to my opinion, I'm also entitled to express it. In public. So your argument is flawed. Have a little think about the obvious contradictions in your position and get back to me later... There is no flaw in my argument. I clearly said "you are entitled to your opinion". I the ask for your opinion... do you believe people have a right to privacy? I bet you believe in gay rights. Two consenting adults being able to do what they want in private without anyone prying or judging. The fact that some people say it is wrong, disgusting, needless is irrelevant... at the end of the day it isn't their business. So why the double standard? Why when it is you that is disgusted does it become ok for you to pry and judge? Funny isn't it, how according to some private racism is just banter and private fiddling with the little boys in church isn't just fiddling. A pathetic strawman argument really. I don't recall anyone saying kiddy fiddling was ok... Perhaps you could provide a quote or are you desperately putting words in mouths? the difference is that one of your examples is between consenting adults and the other isn't. One is illegal and the other isn't. One is societies business and the other isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Too many people get offended at the slightest bit of banter nowadays. what MacKay said you hear in the alehouse every night of the week. Yet again some people are making a big issue out of nowt, a bit of banter between a couple of mates. If this gets any worse no one will be able to have a joke about owt, Its pathetic. what alehouse do you go to were you here anti - semitic criticism of people doing their job? Too many people hide behind the nauseating term "banter" when just being a tool. That's a bit of a desperate reply. Try again. Tell us why other people's personal banter is any of your business? Don't you believe people have a right to privacy? You miss the point. Makay (who I respect and hope gets a job in football soon) used a company phone to send these messages. I once got sacked for using a works computer to send messages to a friend insulting him quite horribly. He found it hilarious, insulted me worse and spoke for me in a disciplinary hearing. It didn't matter as I used company property to send the message, so it wasn't considered private. If Makay had used his own phone I would be defending him. Why should my opinion of the banterers be any of their business, or yours? My opinions are mine and I can post them as I see fit. I think that you should butt out of this conversation, if you are to be morally consistent. Don't you believe that people have a right to free speech? This game is easy Free s peach needs to be curtailed to protect society. I could not stand outside the local primary school gates asking for blow jobs from the pupils and use free s peach as a defence. The Do-gooders dont ............ hence the reason they have made a big issue of MacKays banter with his mate. Why would you use the term "do-gooder" as an insult? I try to do good in my life every day. Would it be better for you if I was horrible to everyone I met? Are you a do - badder? ---------- Post added 24-08-2014 at 00:03 ---------- Funny isn't it, how according to some private racism is just banter and private fiddling with the little boys in church isn't just fiddling. Wow, that's pretty disgusting. How can you equate some stupid texts to the rape of an unfathomable number of young boys. You seem to be quite a nice fellow normally, what has happened for you to be so vile? The ruined lives of uncountable children should nit be used by you to score cheap points in a completely unconnected discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Those of you that defend the right of people to say what they want 'because it's only banter' interest me. Are you simply defending the right to free speech? If so, I am with you every step of the way, everyone should be able to say exactly what they think, and if it is appropriate, condemn themselves from their own mouths. For instance, I believe that the BNP the EDL the Muslim Brotherhood and any other extremist organization should be allowed to spout their nonsense so that the rest of us can form an opinion as to exactly how ridiculous these people are. Alternatively, are you saying that these people should be allowed to voice their bigoted opinions because you agree with them? Which is it? Are you believers in free speech, or are you bigots who want your like minded friends to be allowed to spread their vitriol without too much criticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 There is no flaw in my argument. I clearly said "you are entitled to your opinion". I the ask for your opinion... do you believe people have a right to privacy? I bet you believe in gay rights. Two consenting adults being able to do what they want in private without anyone prying or judging. The fact that some people say it is wrong, disgusting, needless is irrelevant... at the end of the day it isn't their business. So why the double standard? Why when it is you that is disgusted does it become ok for you to pry and judge? . A fascinating post. Quoted for posterity. I'm delighted that you think that you know what I think. But you don't. You really don't. Your post says far more about you and your bigotry than I would ever have presumed to have said. Still, it is out there now, We can all see how your mind works on a Saturday night after some possible truth serum ---------- Post added 24-08-2014 at 00:09 ---------- Free s peach needs to be curtailed to protect society. I could not stand outside the local primary school gates asking for blow jobs from the pupils and use free s peach as a defence. . Indeed you could not, because sex with a minor is a criminal offence. Interesting example though:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 A fascinating post. Quoted for posterity. I'm delighted that you think that you know what I think. But you don't. You really don't. Your post says far more about you and your bigotry than I would ever have presumed to have said. Still, it is out there now, We can all see how your mind works on a Saturday night after some possible truth serum ---------- Post added 24-08-2014 at 00:09 ---------- Indeed you could not, because sex with a minor is a criminal offence. Interesting example though:rolleyes: I said nothing about actually engaging in the act, just asking. You made an understandable inference. I would not be able to do this (nor should I) even if I had absolutely no intention of following through on the suggestion. This is because it would be grossly offensive to society. Other examples would be if I worked in a bank I couldn't hide behind freedom of speech if my speech included your bank account details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skat man Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 If anyone on this forum heard a recording of your better half slag, moan and belittle you to death. You ask them about it.... And they say >> That was a private conversation. >> How would you feel?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 That's a bit of a desperate reply. Try again. Tell us why other people's personal banter is any of your business? Don't you believe people have a right to privacy? Yes, unequivocally I believe people have a right to privacy. Anyone's "personal" business is there's. Once they share that "business" it then becomes personal to others even if they misguidedly thought it was still personal to thenselves. Once a thought goes beyond a thought and manifests itself as an action it is then by definition not personal. If you want privacy..zip it. But at the end of the day who are you, or anyone else, to tell others what the topic of private banter can or can't be. If what they are doing is legal How can anyone tell someone what they can or can't say on a topic if the topic has already took place? It isn't about what you can say, any right minded person knows what they can say, additionally it isn't about what you can't say, but knowing what you should or shouldn't say. I can say N***** but I chose not to, in the open or privately. I bet you believe in gay rights. Two consenting adults being able to do what they want in private without anyone prying or judging. The fact that some people say it is wrong, disgusting, needless is irrelevant... at the end of the day it isn't their business. So why the double standard? Why when it is you that is disgusted does it become ok for you to pry and judge? What's your point? The issue in question is both parties were consenting adults, they did what they did in private without anyone prying or judging, that only manifested itself later after an investigation where BUSINESS phones were seized. Are you suggesting the seizure should mitigate the reality of the racism, homophobia and misogyny? Defence: < I'm not a homophobic, misogynistic racist because my right to privacy negates it > Yeah right. "At the end of the day" if this was Sadiq Khan's parliamentary phone and outed for using highly inappropriate language you'd be ripping into him with a blood fest..and quite rightly so. "At the end of the day" maybe not, he follows Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 A fascinating post. Quoted for posterity. I'm delighted that you think that you know what I think. But you don't. You really don't. Your post says far more about you and your bigotry than I would ever have presumed to have said. Still, it is out there now, We can all see how your mind works on a Saturday night after some possible truth serum So I specifically ask for you opinion and your reply is to accuse me of knowing what you think?!? Trying to avoid answering by any chance? How does it say more about my bigotry? I believe consenting adults should be free to say and do what they want in private, providing it is illegal, without it being anyone elses business. I don't add any caveats about whether or not I personally approve... it is simply a principle. I'll ask you again if you share that principle because you do not seem to be applying it in this case. ---------- Post added 24-08-2014 at 09:06 ---------- Yes, unequivocally I believe people have a right to privacy. Anyone's "personal" business is there's. Once they share that "business" it then becomes personal to others even if they misguidedly thought it was still personal to thenselves. Once a thought goes beyond a thought and manifests itself as an action it is then by definition not personal. If you want privacy..zip it. So you think only privacy rights only apply to thoughts? As soon as someone says or does something, even in private, it is public business? Everyone can pry and judge? Jez, what sort of world of you want to live in? How can anyone tell someone what they can or can't say on a topic if the topic has already took place? It isn't about what you can say, any right minded person knows what they can say, additionally it isn't about what you can't say, but knowing what you should or shouldn't say. I can say N***** but I chose not to, in the open or privately. Your judgement of them is telling people what they can or can't say. Either comply, even in private, or else this is what you get. What's your point? The issue in question is both parties were consenting adults, they did what they did in private without anyone prying or judging, that only manifested itself later after an investigation where BUSINESS phones were seized. Are you suggesting the seizure should mitigate the reality of the racism, homophobia and misogyny? Defence: < I'm not a homophobic, misogynistic racist because my right to privacy negates it > Yeah right. My point is that the only defence that Mackay needs to present is to his employer for inappropriate use of company property. The 'offence' was relatively minor and should have been dealt with as an internal matter in accordance with company policy. Nothing illegal had taken place so there was no need to inform the police and certainly no justification for leaking it to the press. The only reason for doing that was because Cardiff wanted to get rid of him but the offence wouldn't justify dismissal. They therefore leaked it to achieve their aim by stealth. The football club caused the offence, brought the game into disrepute and are arguably guilty of constructive dismissal. "At the end of the day" if this was Sadiq Khan's parliamentary phone and outed for using highly inappropriate language you'd be ripping into him with a blood fest..and quite rightly so. "At the end of the day" maybe not, he follows Islam. IT would depend on what was being said but it is worth noting that there is a 'public interest' clause to our privacy laws. Knowing that football manager called his boss (who was trying to pressure him into resigning at the time) called him a 'chink' in private should not be a matter of public interest (red top definitions do not apply). An elected member of parliament is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.