UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

Smitty-48
Posts: 36399
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am

Re: UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

Post by Smitty-48 » Thu May 09, 2019 3:18 am

StCapps wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 2:51 am
Smitty-48 wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 2:46 am
StCapps wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 2:41 am
Would be nice if Churchill's reputation was one day burned to the ground, but the rubes want to believe he was a great leader, so it might take quite a while, if it ever happens.
He's literally the most disastrous British military leader of all time.

He singlehandedy foisted the Empire on its own petard and rendered Britain itself bankrupt in the process.
Oh how the mighty have fallen, Thanks Churchill.
He didn't even do it for Britain.

In 1914 Churchill comes to the rescue of King Leopold's Nazi like Empire in the Belgian Congo.

Belgian Neutrality.

10 million slaves being liquidated by Saxe-Coburg & Gotha, when Hitler was just a buck private.

Domino, muthahfuckahs.
Nec Aspera Terrent

Ph64
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:34 pm

Re: UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

Post by Ph64 » Thu May 09, 2019 8:24 am



Well, I sure hope this guy is arrested and fined for his racist offensive humor.
There is legal precedent for it, after all.

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

Post by Montegriffo » Thu May 09, 2019 8:41 am

Shame, I like Danny Baker and always listen to his show if I can.
A highly intelligent and witty man but clearly it was a really stupid joke and understandable that the BBC had to let him go.
I've listened to him for over 20 years and never once heard him say anything remotely racist on any of his shows.
A sad day for radio, I hope he doesn't retire from public broadcasting.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

Post by Montegriffo » Thu May 09, 2019 8:54 am

Any comparisons between this and Nazi pug guy are nonsense.
Danny removed the tweet immediately the racist connotations of his picture were pointed out to him and apologised straight away. Nazi pug guy refused to take down his video after it was pointed out to him that it was grossly offensive and refused to admit he had done anything wrong.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

Post by Montegriffo » Thu May 09, 2019 8:56 am

...and he's right, it has to be red sauce.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

PartyOf5
Posts: 3657
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:15 am

Re: UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

Post by PartyOf5 » Thu May 09, 2019 9:00 am

Montegriffo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 8:54 am
Any comparisons between this and Nazi pug guy are nonsense.
Danny removed the tweet immediately the racist connotations of his picture were pointed out to him and apologised straight away. Nazi pug guy refused to take down his video after it was pointed out to him that it was grossly offensive and refused to admit he had done anything wrong.
So it's only illegal if you don't apologize.

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

Post by Montegriffo » Thu May 09, 2019 9:17 am

It's illegal if it is racist.
I accept Danny's explanation that it was meant to be a joke about posh people. His immediate (8 minutes) taking down of the tweet and apology for being stupid is enough to convince me that he was not being racist.
Remind me, what was your stance when Rosanne Barr compared a black woman to a character from the Planet of the Apes?
Has Dankula ever apologised for his video or did he refuse to admit he had done anything offensive?
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

Kath
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:14 am

Re: UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

Post by Kath » Thu May 09, 2019 9:31 am

Giving some people the right to not be offended just opens up the floodgates. At some point, everything will be offensive, as long as the person perceives offense.

I cannot wait to live in a world where every street is lined with eggshells. Everyone will have to start saying one word at a time while those cautious thoughts run through their heads.

"Wait, can I call her a redhead? She has red hair, but is redhead an offensive term?"

Hopefully, there will be an app for that. "Hang on, before I reply, I need to check my offensive word app."
Why are all the Gods such vicious cunts? Where's the God of tits and wine?

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

Post by Montegriffo » Thu May 09, 2019 9:39 am

Merely offensive is not a crime. The law clearly states that it has to be grossly offensive.
Asking a Nazi saluting dog if he wants to gas the Jews 30 times is on a whole different level of offensive compared to a picture of a chimp in a top hat.
Nuances matter.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

Kath
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:14 am

Re: UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

Post by Kath » Thu May 09, 2019 10:07 am

Montegriffo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 9:39 am
Merely offensive is not a crime. The law clearly states that it has to be grossly offensive.
Asking a Nazi saluting dog if he wants to gas the Jews 30 times is on a whole different level of offensive compared to a picture of a chimp in a top hat.
Nuances matter.
Sure, but it's subjective. In the game of thrones chat room I hang out in, special snowflakes were offended because I called Dany a loon. Other snowflakes were offended that I said that Dany has been signs of going mad since season 1.

Once you say that subjective concepts can be illegal, you open the door for everyone to claim they are grossly offended. The Department of Offensive Language will hear the case. When these special snowflakes get in power, the list of offensive things will become insane.
Why are all the Gods such vicious cunts? Where's the God of tits and wine?