| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:26:07 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,611 |
Wouldn't mind some input on this if anybody has time.
As part of this thread
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 12:48:23 +0100, JNugent wrote:
When did it become a crime (in Ebgland and Wales, if not the whole UK)to express one's opinion? [sic]
I replied quoting Article 10 of The Human Rights Act 1998 where clause 1 gives us certain rights and clause 2 modifies/removes them in some circumstances. Obviously there are many instances where expressing an
opinion can be a crime but this seemed to me a succinct summary.
JNugent replied "Which part of the above do you say is relevant in the
case under
discussion?" and since then has repeated this in various guises.
As far as I can see I was just answering his question, if my reply had nothing to do with the thread then, presumably, nor did his question.
I am not going to follow this up in the main group, it's pointless and the mods will get cheesed off, but I am confused about the point JNugent is trying to make and would appreciate any guidance.
On 26 Aug 2025 at 13:39:01 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Wouldn't mind some input on this if anybody has time.
As part of this thread
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 12:48:23 +0100, JNugent wrote:
When did it become a crime (in Ebgland and Wales, if not the whole UK)to
express one's opinion? [sic]
I replied quoting Article 10 of The Human Rights Act 1998 where clause 1
gives us certain rights and clause 2 modifies/removes them in some
circumstances. Obviously there are many instances where expressing an
opinion can be a crime but this seemed to me a succinct summary.
JNugent replied "Which part of the above do you say is relevant in the
case under
discussion?" and since then has repeated this in various guises.
As far as I can see I was just answering his question, if my reply had
nothing to do with the thread then, presumably, nor did his question.
I am not going to follow this up in the main group, it's pointless and the >> mods will get cheesed off, but I am confused about the point JNugent is
trying to make and would appreciate any guidance.
It is just part of JNugent's somewhat bizarre mode of discussion. Of course, no one has any obligation to confine their comments to what a previous contributor wants to hear, and no one has any obligation to answer a question a previous contributor has asked. It is notable that JNugent himself rarely does either.
On 26/08/2025 01:45 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Aug 2025 at 13:39:01 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
Wouldn't mind some input on this if anybody has time.
As part of this thread
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 12:48:23 +0100, JNugent wrote:
When did it become a crime (in Ebgland and Wales, if not the whole UK)to >>>express one's opinion? [sic]
I replied quoting Article 10 of The Human Rights Act 1998 where clause 1 >>>gives us certain rights and clause 2 modifies/removes them in some >>>circumstances. Obviously there are many instances where expressing an >>>opinion can be a crime but this seemed to me a succinct summary.
JNugent replied "Which part of the above do you say is relevant in the >>>case under
discussion?" and since then has repeated this in various guises.
As far as I can see I was just answering his question, if my reply had >>>nothing to do with the thread then, presumably, nor did his question.
I am not going to follow this up in the main group, it's pointless and >>>the
mods will get cheesed off, but I am confused about the point JNugent is >>>trying to make and would appreciate any guidance.
It is just part of JNugent's somewhat bizarre mode of discussion. Of >>course,
no one has any obligation to confine their comments to what a previous >>contributor wants to hear, and no one has any obligation to answer a >>question
a previous contributor has asked. It is notable that JNugent himself >>rarely
does either.
That, and the previous post, are total nonsense. And JG is well aware of
it, even if others claim not to be.
In response to an assertion that an ex-prisoner on parole is perhaps not >allowed to say what they think (and that it might be an excuse for recall
to prison), I asked:
QUOTE:
When did it become a crime (in Ebgland [sic] and Wales, if not the whole
UK) to express one's opinion?
ENDQUOTE
In response to that, JG provided a long quote from a legal provision (he >says it was the HRA).
In response to that, I asked which part of his post was relevant as an >answer to the question I had asked (which, let us remind ourselves, was:
QUOTE:
When did it become a crime (in Ebgland [sic] and Wales, if not the whole
UK) to express one's opinion?
ENDQUOTE
JG answered that by reposting my question and claiming that that was the >relevant part.
We all knew that already - even JG.
He avoided answering the question, which was clearly a request to be told >which part of his citation of a Parliamentary Act was relevant. He has not >answered that question.
I am not charitable enough to assume that he didn't understand. He was >trying to avoid having to say which part of his own post was relevant.
And them's the fact, folks.