Joensuu

But you are defending them. You haven't said you support them, but this thread would have ended after 6 pages had you not been so pugnacious in your defence of the abhorrent. It's not because you haven't said that you don't support them, it's because you have argued strongly against anyone criticising them. You weren't accused of homophobia 'because i didn't agree with Elton John adopting a child', you were accused of homophobia for making homophobic comments on the subject such as 'not natural' etc. So I return your own words back to you: 'You dont seem to be reading my posts properly, read them again.' We have stated that Freedom of Speech should be upheld - even for extremists like the EDL. We have condemned the student protest violence. The EDL are indeed entitled to march, and all sane citizens of these Isles are entitled to citicise them. We have been nothing but consistent when it comes to morality.

You have passionately held the fort for the EDL on a couple of threads now. If (as you say) you don't support them, why are you defending them on technicalities? If I stood up and tried every trick in the book to defend Pol Pot or Saddam, anyone sane would assume that I had an agenda, and was either receiving money, or genuinely supported their regimes.

Perhaps he is a shister who values £20k more than his own beliefs. He allegedly also once plotted to kidnap Linda McCartney.

No, but they would have disassociated their leadership from the violence (depending upon how much you feel the regret is genuine, or for the cameras). The underlying views of the members will still be open to criticism, as will any further violence committed in their name. Stop playing devil's advocate hypo. As much as we don't see eye-to-eye, I've never thought of you stooping to the Dune-Stanley-Turkish level.

No, just for carrying out EDL beliefs. What's your agenda here Turkish? You have discredited any legitimacy you might have had by trying to defend this abhorrent group, and you do so hypocritically claiming to be ' not especially interested in what the EDL do'. You sir, have problems.

You certainly haven't 'got us thinking'. You have merely made yourself look stupid for trying to stand up for the racists. Students have a legitimate cause (whether right or wrong), with no hidden agenda. When they commit violence it is wrong, and rightfully condemed. The EDF pretend to have a legitimate cause, but it is a veneer for a nasty agenda. When they commit violence it is wrong, and rightfully condemed. There is nothing hypocritical about a libreral allowing Freedom of Speech, and using it to roundly criticise something abhorrent. There is something hypocritical about someone who claims to be ' not especially interested in what the EDL do', but who then attempts to defend them. If you aren't an EDL supporter, why are you making yourself look like a closet racist by supporting them?

Well Woollard got 2 years 8 months, and his actions with the fire extinguisher justify the sentence. Here's two examples of EDL memeber who got 2 years and 2 years 4 months respectively: http://www.channel4.com/news/convictions-point-to-rise-of-far-right-extremism There is no justification for violence.

I condem all violence, whether caused by students, or the EDF, or by any group or individual.

The legitemacy of the student argument was slightly undermined when it became violent. Violence can never be acceptable. At least the student leaders rallied against those students who became violent. Can the EDL say the same?

Where did that facepalm thing go? Did the Egypt coverage get in the way of coverage of Jordan snogging some minor celebrity? I find myself getting annoyed when they do it the other way round, and spend 20 minutes covering some minor political discussion which won't change anything, then gloss over a civil war, or some other significant news, just because they happened elsewhere. The Indy and FT are often the only media sources left which headline with what is really the biggest news of the day.

There is nothing illiberal when it comes to pointing out the intolerances of an abhorrent organisation, who are hiding their true intentions behind a mask of PR and vailed acceptability. Thankfully, it's not just liberals who can see the EDL for there true colours - hense why David Cameron described them as 'terrible people'. All people who truely love this country should rally against them.

Nobody was 'appluding' Elton, we were rallying against people who are anti-homosexual adoption. That's a very different thing. At least 90% of the population would agree with anyone who roundly condems the EDL. Equal Rights are a cornerstone of modern legistlation, which IMO provide an essential base. 'Knuckle Draggers' is a completely unacceptable term, and it shouldn't have been used. Each of us do, and do so on a daily basis.

That is what we have law courts for, to arbitrate. It's always correct to be tolerant, until the point you are adversely affected by the actions of another. As such, there isn't a need for anyone to decide when it is correct to be tolerant - you do so until you (or another) is wronged. I am very much of the opinion that Freedom of Speech needs to be upheld - but obviously, Weimar Germany should have clamped down on that Hitler chap's Free Speech for the good of greater society. Therein lies the problem. Do you maintain the principle of Freedom of Speech, or do you seek to protect society? Personally, I believe you need to have faith in society to find the abhorrent objectionable, even if this risks the abhorrent gaining supporters and potentially power. It's especially difficult when the abhorrent masks its true identity behind slick PR, and cleverly worded 'mission statements'. Thankfully, while they are followed by skinheads in hockeymasks they don't stand much chance of convincing 90% of the country. Hopefully, if we give the EDL enough rope, the public will see them for what they are, and rally against them. If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

Us 'liberal types' are perfectly happy to live and let live - that's what it's all about. The only things that get a rise from us our: When anyone or anything is negatively affected by the excesses of another. Intolerance. Let's face it, if you support either of those things, you're an @rse anyhow. If you don't then you won't have any problems from us sandal-wearing beardy people (sic). Wish there was some form of gameshow 'fail' sound effect I could reply with; the Family Fortunes 'duh-duh' would be perfect for your above post. Liberals aren't Socialists by any stretch of the imagination, they also tend to stick by their moral position - unlike many others. I for example don't drive, and don't eat meat. Doing what I say, and doing what I do are very much one in the same thing.

The bits that agree with my understanding of the world (not to be confused with the bits that I agree with, I didn't restrict myself to one source when I developed my personal worldview).

For the record (not that I agree with notnowcato's 'knuckle dragging' statement), but as an Atheist I still follow 7 or 8 of the 10 commandments (depending upon which 10 you use) - but I can't agree to follow the first 2 (or 3 if you use the Catholic/Lutheran commandments). The remaining 7/8 are all perfectly sensible for everyone to follow, even an Atheist like me. Oh, and happy to enjoy the festive spirit (for the sake of kids) - no reason to make them feel excluded when all they see is presents and fun. And hey, it's only really the Winter Solstice rebranded a couple of milenia ago and celebrated a couple of days late.

Absolutely agree. Also, perish the thought of 'banning' anyone from bringing up their own children (unless they are damaging them by so doing).

While there is still officially a link between church and state, we really should repeal this and abandon the faith to the believers. Science, equality and religious freedom all round I say. Morality as such would be defined by society, and not by oft translated and interepreted old texts.

As one of those who thinks 63 is too old, I'd say that there shouldn't be a fixed limit - society shouldn't restrict how people chose to live their own lives. However, I still feel 63 is too old. Personally, I think a good rule of thumb would be for the child to reach adulthood before the parent reaches retirement, which would give us an age of c. 47 (depending on retirement age). Again 47 shouldn't be hard and fast (i.e legally enshrined) - it's just about the maximum age I personally would feel comfortable becoming a father.

- perhaps (for once) you have a good point to make. IMO 63 is too old for both the parent and child. When the kid is of A'Level age, Furnish will be in his mid 60's, which is okay, whereas Elton will be past 80 - that's simply not fair to the child (or the pensioner). However, IMO, sexuality shouldn't be brought into it.

This I CAN agree with.

Agree entirely MC, I also think both the Times and the Guardian have slipped in quality over the past few years too. IMO, only really the Indy and the FT make efforts to print quality over 'celebrity'.

I've think I've managed to make some true out of the lie.

What was it you just said to Deppo? Oh, yeah, 'grow up'. BTW, Deppo is definately beating you in lots of ways. His posts are ahead for accuracy, common sense and humor (albeit, not to my liking). He is behind you on the childish spam stakes though, so don't worry, you're still doing well on something.

Absolutely. At it's core, PC is basically 'common decency'. However, the term has been manipulated by discriminators, to form a umbrella term for 'crazy bureaucracy'. As such, discriminators can now associate the stupidity of the most ridiculous bureaucratic statements with all the offensive things they want to say. In so doing they attempt to tarnish anyone who objects to their discrimination as being bureaucratic and out of touch. The net result is that it is more difficult to put down discrimination. So while PC should mean 'common decency', it has become a term which attempts to mask (and thereby legitimise) everything offensive that discriminators want to say. Based on my definition, anyone who uses the term PC in a negative way is attempting to justify all the thoughts they have which the majority would find offensive.