JD Sports; demise of free speech in britain a bigger threat than Russia

Forums New posts
egb_hibs

egb_hibs

Private Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2002
A tad exaggerated perhaps but surely correct in sentiment.

I marvel at the way the population has been like the proverbial boiling frog.

People on here twenty years ago would have been apoplectic at the suggestion of some of the stuff that goes on today. Same in the wider world.

And yet here we are.

www.telegraph.co.uk

JD Vance: Demise of free speech in Britain is bigger threat than Russia

JD Vance, the US vice president, has warned that the loss of British values poses a greater threat than Russia in his landmark address to the Munich Security Conference.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

news.sky.com

JD Vance takes aim at UK and Europe over free speech and democracy

JD Vance told European and UK leaders "there is a new sheriff in town" in a speech that roamed across the continent, taking aim at perceived "backsliding".
news.sky.com news.sky.com

www.spectator.co.uk

Read: JD Vance’s full speech on the fall of Europe

Here’s a full transcript of the speech that JD Vance gave at the Munich Security Conference this afternoon. One of the things that I wanted to to talk about today is, of course, our shared values. And, you know, it’s great to be back in Germany. As you heard earlier, I was here last year
www.spectator.co.uk www.spectator.co.uk
 
1875 said:
Seems he was lying, misquoting and talking shite. Go figure.
Click to expand...
The only quote I can see in the speech is an accurate one from JP2.

I checked the guardian’s fact check, as I reckon it’s going to be a hostile one. I didn’t read every word but it didn’t seem to refute anything he said, just a lot of ‘but, but, but’ stuff. For example, the guy praying outside the abortion centre … but, but, but he knew it wasn’t allowed - which hardly changes Vance’s point.

Or quoting the Scottish government saying he is talking porkies about a letter saying people could be arrested for private prayer within their homes inside abortion exclusion zones. Except there is such a letter - pictured in the national’s similary hostile fact check - and it does indeed say that if intentional prayer (is there another kind?) is overheard then it could be an offence. It also says ‘or recklessly’. But whatever reckless prayer is, it’s an or, not an and. Intentional prayer is in the crosshairs.

I can’t see any ‘fact’ where Vance has ‘misspoken’, I can see fact checks demonstrating that fact checks are often just hit pieces.

In general, reading his speech it doesn’t seem like he is talking shite at all. People may agree with the authoritarian measures he cites, but that’s a different thing.
 
Last edited:
hibbybilly said:
And here's me thinking it was just a typo in the thread title.:giggley:
Click to expand...
Have I yet again failed in my attempts to be a comedian? I need to study your craft more closely Billy, it’s obviously not as easy as you make it look.

But I console myself that I’m not a complete failure; many of our colleagues advise me they regularly laugh uproariously at my posts :coffee1:
 
egb_hibs said:
Have I yet again failed in my attempts to be a comedian? I need to study your craft more closely Billy, it’s obviously not as easy as you make it look.

But I console myself that I’m not a complete failure; many of our colleagues advise me they regularly laugh uproariously at my posts :coffee1:
Click to expand...
It's no very often I understand many of your posts eeg, mibbes I wid regularly laugh uproariously if I understood more of them. Keep plodding away though.
I can categorically say that that is the first time I have ever used the word uproariously in a post.
*Laughs uproariously* 😂
;))
 
hibbybilly said:
It's no very often I understand many of your posts eeg, mibbes I wid regularly laugh uproariously if I understood more of them. Keep plodding away though.
I can categorically say that that is the first time I have ever used the word uproariously in a post.
*Laughs uproariously* 😂
;))
Click to expand...
Sycophantic *&*^.
Or In oor lingo, ye sook ma erse *&*^.
 
egb_hibs said:
Have I yet again failed in my attempts to be a comedian? I need to study your craft more closely Billy, it’s obviously not as easy as you make it look.

But I console myself that I’m not a complete failure; many of our colleagues advise me they regularly laugh uproariously at my posts :coffee1:
Click to expand...
I'd respectfully suggest that more cry.
 
Archie said:
We're on our own. At least we know where we stand.

Vance Tells Europeans to Stop Shunning Parties Deemed Extreme Vance Tells Europeans to Stop Shunning Parties Deemed Extreme
Click to expand...
We may or may not be on our own, but I’m not sure how a critique of anti democratic tendencies and authoritarianism suggests it?

I disagree with Vance’s openness towards AfD, but he’s not wrong about the anti democratic nature of the euro establishment, who can be pretty extreme themselves. European democracy is at extistential risk ; he is absolutely right to call it out.

If we don’t change course the results will be tragic, I fear.

PS are you sure there is a ‘we’?
 
egb_hibs said:
The only quote I can see in the speech is an accurate one from JP2.

I checked the guardian’s fact check, as I reckon it’s going to be a hostile one. I didn’t read every word but it didn’t seem to refute anything he said, just a lot of ‘but, but, but’ stuff. For example, the guy praying outside the abortion centre … but, but, but he knew it wasn’t allowed - which hardly changes Vance’s point.

Or quoting the Scottish government saying he is talking porkies about a letter saying people could be arrested for private prayer within their homes inside abortion exclusion zones. Except there is such a letter - pictured in the national’s similary hostile fact check - and it does indeed say that if intentional prayer (is there another kind?) is overheard then it could be an offence. It also says ‘or recklessly’. But whatever reckless prayer is, it’s an or, not an and. Intentional prayer is in the crosshairs.

I can’t see any ‘fact’ where Vance has ‘misspoken’, I can see fact checks demonstrating that fact checks are often just hit pieces.

In general, reading his speech it doesn’t seem like he is talking shite at all. People may agree with the authoritarian measures he cites, but that’s a different thing.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you really are a slaver.
 
1875 said:
Sometimes you really are a slaver.
Click to expand...
Sometimes maybe. Not sure how it’s the case on occasions where I’ve addressed the point with what appear to be the facts, and nothing else.

Does that not matter any more? Is that not exactly what people complain about with Trump and the maganuts?

Edit - sorry the quote didn’t show your emboldened bit till I clicked on it. Makes a little more sense now. But no I’m not slavering. The ‘fact checkers ‘ argue that what it means is different to what is written down. That is not fact checking and Vance is in line with what is written rather than interpretations of it. Bear in mind that legal precedent has put prayer into the bracket of those things classes as harassment.

www.thenational.scot

Scottish abortion rights campaigners debunk JD Vance's buffer zone lie

BUFFER zone campaigners have warned that US vice-president JD Vance is "completely misrepresenting the facts" around the…
www.thenational.scot www.thenational.scot

IMG_0980.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Sancho Panza said:
No fucking danger! Why do you ask?
I'm centre-left. Probably a Social Democrat of the European sort. However, like many these days, I feel politically homeless.
Click to expand...
Just by your link....

All good.....(and I know how you feel... so whilst we are feeling politically homeless we all must do our best not to veer to any extremes , which I feel a lot of folks out there are .)
 
Sancho Panza said:
thecritic.co.uk

The UK is no longer an “open” country for free expression | Freddie Attenborough | The Critic Magazine

For the first time since records began, the United Kingdom is no longer classified as an “Open” country in a leading global ranking of freedom of expression. In its latest Global Expression Report…
thecritic.co.uk thecritic.co.uk
Click to expand...
Pretty depressing.
emerald green said:
Just by your link....

All good.....(and I know how you feel... so whilst we are feeling politically homeless we all must do our best not to veer to any extremes , which I feel a lot of folks out there are .)
Click to expand...
I'm intrigued to gain an understanding as to why posting such an article as the one above would make you think the person is a Tory?

You maybe need to get out a wee bit more speaking to real people instead of watching all they TikToks... 😘 and you'll discover that plenty of non Tories have huge concerns about the direction of travel here in the UK on many many topics including free speech erosion & uncontrolled immigration etc.
 
Smurf said:
Pretty depressing.

I'm intrigued to gain an understanding as to why posting such an article as the one above would make you think the person is a Tory?
Click to expand...
I asked a bouncer if he was a Tory, as its a conservative link. Nothing else.

The rest of your post, I will give it the response it deserves:
 
emerald green said:
Just by your link....

All good.....(and I know how you feel... so whilst we are feeling politically homeless we all must do our best not to veer to any extremes , which I feel a lot of folks out there are .)
Click to expand...
I read The Critic but also The New Statesman, The Economist and Private Eye. I like to get a broad view of politics and current affairs. Sometimes I agree with articles in these publications, sometimes not, but it's good to at least consider different viewpoints. Politics is far too polarised these days and I've no desire to live in an echo chamber.
 
emerald green said:
Just by your link....

All good.....(and I know how you feel... so whilst we are feeling politically homeless we all must do our best not to veer to any extremes , which I feel a lot of folks out there are .)
Click to expand...
Labour have just legalised killing fully grown babies, have been on a Blair style authoritarian rampage, had to be pushed into a u turn on their anti free speech stance in universities, have potentially criminalised concern over migration and may criminalise the statement of historical facts if their islamophobia stuff proceeds in current form, and seemingly haven't completely overcome their perennial problems with racists in the ranks.

They're not in the same league as Blair's glassy eyed stormtroopers but we are already in the realm of extremes EGers.
 
emerald green said:
Was meaning that your making out that all of a sudden everyone is going to be killing. No controls controls in place etc?
Click to expand...
Decriminalised up to full term. No idea how many will take up the offer but decriminalising the killing of fully developed babies is pretty feckin extreme however many do.
 
egb_hibs said:
Decriminalised up to full term.
Click to expand...
egb_hibs said:
No idea how many will take up the offer but decriminalising the killing of fully developed babies is pretty feckin extreme however many do.
Click to expand...
Practically, why would someone wait until full term for this? How would that pass in reality? What Dr would legitimately do something like that. ? (Or 2 Drs which I thought was the proposed legislation).

So the language you used originally, was a tad misleading. Thats all I was meaning as theres folks out their not so well read as yourself who when they read things like that, dont apply any thinking to it.
 
egb_hibs said:
Labour have just legalised killing fully grown babies,
Click to expand...
Turns out they haven't - AI is your friend:

Q: Have the Uk Government legalised abortion up to full term?
A: No, the UK government has not legalized abortion up to full term. However, in June 2025, UK Parliament voted to decriminalize abortion for women in England and Wales, meaning women can no longer be prosecuted for terminating their own pregnancies, even after the 24-week legal limit. This change, part of the Crime and Policing Bill, does not alter the Abortion Act 1967, which still regulates abortions and maintains the 24-week limit for legal abortions performed by medical professionals, with exceptions for specific circumstances like risks to the mother’s life or severe fetal abnormalities. Medical professionals or others assisting in abortions outside this framework can still face prosecution.

Some sources and posts on X have claimed this effectively legalizes abortion up to birth, but this is misleading, as the amendment only removes criminal penalties for women, not the regulatory framework for providers. Public sentiment, as shown in polls, indicates strong support for decriminalization (55% against prosecuting women), but only 1% support legalizing abortion up to birth
 
emerald green said:
Practically, why would someone wait until full term for this? How would that pass in reality? What Dr would legitimately do something like that. ? (Or 2 Drs which I thought was the proposed legislation).

So the language you used originally, was a tad misleading. Thats all I was meaning as theres folks out their not so well read as yourself who when they read things like that, dont apply any thinking to it.
Click to expand...
The point was about the extremism of the labour party. They have decriminalised (i accept the correction from legalised) killing of fully cooked babies. Whether a million women kill babies this way, or none do, it is an extremist policy to permit of without legal redress.
 
Bofahibee said:
Turns out they haven't - AI is your friend:

Q: Have the Uk Government legalised abortion up to full term?
A: No, the UK government has not legalized abortion up to full term. However, in June 2025, UK Parliament voted to decriminalize abortion for women in England and Wales, meaning women can no longer be prosecuted for terminating their own pregnancies, even after the 24-week legal limit. This change, part of the Crime and Policing Bill, does not alter the Abortion Act 1967, which still regulates abortions and maintains the 24-week limit for legal abortions performed by medical professionals, with exceptions for specific circumstances like risks to the mother’s life or severe fetal abnormalities. Medical professionals or others assisting in abortions outside this framework can still face prosecution.

Some sources and posts on X have claimed this effectively legalizes abortion up to birth, but this is misleading, as the amendment only removes criminal penalties for women, not the regulatory framework for providers. Public sentiment, as shown in polls, indicates strong support for decriminalization (55% against prosecuting women), but only 1% support legalizing abortion up to birth
Click to expand...
You should stop relying on AI and start relying on your noggin. If you remove penalties for killing anyone else, or robbing them, or raping them, or - as is demonstrated in reality- for shoplifting, what do you think would happen?

People beguiled by words versus the reality they describe may be preoccupied by legalisation vs decriminalisation- and i have conceded that point already, for the benefit of this consituency. To be blunt I think it means fuck all; if you let people kill babies or shoplift without consequence then a) you are legalising it in any sense that is meaningful because b) you are saying, stroll on, the law will not inhibit you

And that is an extreme policy
 
Maybe JD has a point........


A Free Speech Union (FSU) member was arrested in an early-morning raid after criticising his former employer in a private Facebook group, then placed under “Orwellian” bail conditions barring him from even revealing the arrest.

Robert Moss, 56, a former firefighter and Labour councillor, worked for Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service for 28 years before being dismissed in 2021, shortly after becoming the Fire Brigades Union’s county secretary.

When he was released on bail, he was handed six conditions. Four prevented him from contacting Staffordshire Fire’s senior officers, while two others went further, prohibiting him from posting anything about the service or the police investigation – in effect, silencing him from discussing his own arrest.

freespeechunion.org

Police gag order against union activist overturned in free speech case

A Free Speech Union (FSU) member was arrested in an early-morning raid after criticising his former employer in a private
freespeechunion.org freespeechunion.org
 
When people started complying to unlawful covid restrictions....it was a clear sign people were willing to accept tyranny.

When are Government knows more about you than you do it....is clear tyranny.

Too many cowards in this day and age are to scared to stand up for people's rights...never mind their own.
 
The lad who I posted about has every right to criticise his workplace.

The bizzies shouldn't be telling him he cannot comment.
 
A couple of things about the gag order

Staffordshire Police carried out a 7am raid on Moss’s home in Newcastle-under-Lyme, seizing his phones, iPad and computer, before arresting him on suspicion of an offence under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Moss said the officers were “heavy-handed” and left him feeling “like a criminal.”.

On this point, Staffordshire Police defended their approach, with the arresting officer, Detective Constable Isobel Holliday, insisting that Mr Moss’s posts were “malicious and reckless”, and the bail restrictions were “proportionate”. But magistrates disagreed. Paul Tabinor, chair of the bench, ruled that Mr Moss could post messages about the fire service and scrapped the ban on him referring to the investigation.
Click to expand...

I may be imagining it but I vaguely remember an article that suggested that females are becoming more authoritarian for some reason. And I think it was blamed on the college experience. I'll have to dig into it to see if I can find something about it.

According to custody data obtained by The Times, police are arresting more than 30 people a day over “offensive” posts on social media and other platforms. Around 12,000 people a year are now detained on suspicion of just two speech offences, up from about 5,500 in 2017. Yet only a fraction are convicted. In 2023, fewer people were convicted under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act and section 127 of the Communications Act than in 2017, when arrests were far lower. This suggests over-zealous enforcement, with data showing that only about one in 20 arrested under suspicion of these two offences ultimately receive a sentence.
Click to expand...

Troubling indeed. I'd like to see if arrests for actual crime, burglary, theft etc has gone up as significantly. Why are the police seemingly obsessed with what arseholes are posting on social media? Unless it is libelous or an actual threat, it shouldn't be a police matter.
 
Ryan69 said:
When people started complying to unlawful covid restrictions....it was a clear sign people were willing to accept tyranny.

When are Government knows more about you than you do it....is clear tyranny.

Too many cowards in this day and age are to scared to stand up for people's rights...never mind their own.
Click to expand...

I definitely felt COVID was an opportunity to test just how obedient the masses are. Turns out we're pretty dam fucking obedient as a whole.
 
SuperTortolano said:
I definitely felt COVID was an opportunity to test just how obedient the masses are. Turns out we're pretty dam fucking obedient as a whole.
Click to expand...
Was a compliance test run.

Strange too how 5g masts were going up left right and centre at that time.

5G is essential for CBDC,and digital passports.

When these things come in....Tyranny is complete.

Its the complete ignorance that people show inregard to how free speech.....is the very foundation to freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom