Phil Perry Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 Posted without comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 I had to stop watching this because this fellow has no knowledge of 1. Common Law - that is where the offence of breaching the peace comes from 2. Statute Law - that covers incitement to racial hatred and all the non-PC things. In attempting to establish what breach of the peace entails, we can turn to the leading authority of the concept which can be found in R v Howell, where Watkins LJ in the English Court of Appeal, defined breach of the peace in the following way: “There is breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawfully assembly or other disturbance.” However, conditions have been imposed in terms of what is considered reasonable under the circumstances in which a person can prevent a breach of the peace, and in Albert v Lavin, Lord Diplock held: “…every citizen in whose presence a breach of the peace is being, or reasonably appears to be about to be, committed has the right to take reasonable steps to make the person who is breaking or threatening to break the peace refrain from doing so; and those reasonable steps in appropriate cases will include detaining him against his will. At common law this is not only the right of every citizen, it is also his duty, although except in the case of a citizen who is a constable, it is a duty of imperfect obligation.” In other words, a constable has an obligation to prevent a breach of the Peace. In this case, the constable (although of a higher rank within the organisation) made an attempt to prevent a potential breach of the peace by appealing to the woman's logic. If she had persisted, then, after having attempted to use reasoning, the constable had every right, and duty, under the Law to take her into his custody and remove her from the vicinity to a place where she could be released from custody. There is no requirement to bring a person arrested in this way before a Court under charge. Merely removing a person from the area is sufficient for the constable to have met the obligation of the Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 "Journalist"? She's a college drop-out with a chip on her shoulder the size of Texas. Basically a know-nothing twit who dog-whistles those who only see in black & white. Darling of the pissed-off conservative white men (mainly) whose lives are not as fulfilling as they want, and for which they blame immigrants. Saw a clip of her trying to whip up controversy over here - most people didn't know who she was and were of the opinion that she should piss off and get a life. By the way Phil... what does "Posted without comment" mean? Either you have an opinion on the video you're posting, in which case you should share it, or you have no opinion on it at all, in which case I wonder why you'd want to share it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 Marty, I think in forums like this, it is quite ok for people to post links to controversial subjects without the poster being either pro or con the subject. If it sparks thought or debate among forum members, then it's in the spirit of the forum and serves a purpose. I don't see how an OP has to be politically aligned one way or the other. You must admit, you did bite. Phil's post has sparked responses and without forum members putting a bit of bait out there for debate, this forum would be a bloody boring place to be. I don't think we should shoot the messenger. The topic of the post is that video clip, not whether Phil agrees or not with the politics of it. Having said that, you're equally free to ask that of Phil, and I'm sure he will have a worthy answer to it. Cheers, Willie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted July 30, 2018 Author Share Posted July 30, 2018 Don't bust a pooper valve about it Marty. I could hardly make a useful / knowledgeable comment about how Australian Law is interpreted by it's officers, But I think it is apparent that the Aussie Officer KNEW damn well that she was intending to cause a stir in an area with a large population of muslims, ie, Potential Breach of the peace. . as she knows that they can be easily riled and, although other posters have said that the officer was 'technically' out of line,, I think he calmly handled it very well. She has been banned from entering the UK, as she has done the same thing here.. . .sometimes getting a bit of a roughing up in the process, which is exactly what she wants. . . .along with her mate Brittany Pettibone. ( Also banned from the UK for stirring ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth lacey Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 Do what she proposed to do outside a catholic,jewish,buddhist hindu and you wont see the police there ,again a minority group who are known to be violent gets what they want, Saudi arabia would not let any kind of demonstration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 A difficult issue. Although I have NO respect for their religion or its inventor (expressing that alone might earn me a death sentence) I have some respect for the people who adhere to that religion. It's their culture, their heritage and provides a viable guide for many aspects of daily life. Australia would be a boring, poorer country without the contributions made by immigrants from many cultures, including Moslems. Unfortunately, Islam seems to produce a minority who feel the need to prove their piety by committing acts of barbarity. As a result of this, I reluctantly agree with Pauline Hanson that Australia should conduct an inquiry into whether Islam is a harmless religion or an insidious political movement bent on subjugating the host culture. So- do we allow agitators to stir up a hornet's nest and alienate many Moslems who would otherwise have been loyal citizens- or maintain a peace compact with our Islamic community, without whose help our security services would have little success in preventing these atrocities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth lacey Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 fortunately the good and pious Muslim is not out for your head,if they dared to question the religion they would be subject to some of that barbarism, and the ones who are most vocal should be the ones we send back to their respective Sxxtholes of a country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth lacey Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 we should be free to ridicule ANY religion but not the person, most religions are childish and have all at one time been barbaric, someone yet has to prove their is a god, no one has or will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 ...the ones who are most vocal should be the ones we send back to their respective Sxxtholes of a country I sort of agree; Australia has recently deported thousands of people with criminal records (mostly to NZ). Trouble is, most of the worst Islamic extremists are Australia citizens; they were born here. Their parents tend to be better citizens because they have a greater appreciation of living in a safe, peaceful country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Back to the video: for what's it's worth in my interpretation of it. The young bloke in the inset makes some valid points but a lot of the time seems to be off the mark. For example, I'd agree that the Islamic world might have less freedom of speech than we do in the Western world. But we're still no shining light. Even our posts on this harmless forum are subject to defamation and libel laws. If any of us express politically unpalatable views here, we're still potentially worthy of a look in by the security agencies. The only reason none of us here have got into strife for our posts is that we either haven't offended anyone enough for them to take action, or simply no-one gives a stuff. Point is that we don't have the freedom of speech that we think we have and we have no reason to beat our chests in the false belief of it. To give the cop some credit, he seemed to handle it reasonably well considering the position he was in. The bloke in the inset should check out some Queensland laws. Muslims or no Muslims, if we gather in groups of any more than three persons, any police officer can legally direct us to move on with no reason given. Welcome to the land of the free. The young bloke in the video inset giving the commentary appears to be a bit of a dreamer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Marty, I think in forums like this, it is quite ok for people to post links to controversial subjects without the poster being either pro or con the subject.If it sparks thought or debate among forum members, then it's in the spirit of the forum and serves a purpose. I don't see how an OP has to be politically aligned one way or the other. You must admit, you did bite. Phil's post has sparked responses and without forum members putting a bit of bait out there for debate, this forum would be a bloody boring place to be. I don't think we should shoot the messenger. The topic of the post is that video clip, not whether Phil agrees or not with the politics of it. Having said that, you're equally free to ask that of Phil, and I'm sure he will have a worthy answer to it. Cheers, Willie. You're right Willie, I did bite. Which I suspect was the point of the original post. That'll teach me to look at the internet just before going to bed. We have enough intolerant breast-beating rednecks (some with red heads as well) in this country, we don't need to import any more. I think this woman's main claim to fame is that she's not a typical Canadian - they're usually polite, respectful and reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 She's a college drop-out with a chip on her shoulder the size of Texas. bloody lot smarter than some dropkicks I know Saw a clip of her trying to whip up controversy over here - most people didn't know who she was and were of the opinion that she should piss off and get a life. so based on a clip you are an expert I wonder why you'd want to share it? my opinion for post of phils draws the crows out in the open funny how some have a hate off free speech only the uneducated imbersils who have little brains and full off there own importance oh whats the bloody use I think this woman's main claim to fame is that she's not a typical Canadian - they're usually polite, respectful and reasonable. so because the woman thinks and works out side your little box gives you the right to denigrate her neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Neil, given some of the insults you've said about Greens and anyone on the left of politics, I don't know why you're getting so upset when I insult this particular rabble-rouser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 marty am I not allowed to have my opinion of those that follow baa baas I have followed what luren has said and what she has done high lighting the failings of many like that newzealander that was so cocky after his interview of what she was on about in my opinion he really has no idea and was totally out off his mind to even ask her for an interview lauren took him to task bloody great job on putting him down neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 I used to be for unfettered free speech but today most who run that line are the biggest abusers of the privilege who go off their tree vilifying some group or other. as a way of getting noticed (and renumerated). Tolerance of others seems to be absent but WE have to accept their extreme condemnation of their chosen "victims" without us criticizing their behavior???? White supremacists don't look to be too supreme to me in intelligence, behavior, health or fitness. or as the best of the society. or have superior genes. They are often just inebriated bigots and strong in a group bullies and blowhards. On this religion thing the right to not serve a gay person a cake . Where does that end? Bus driver doesn't like you?. The dentist wont drill atheists teeth. Athiests are KILLED in many countries we trade with because they won't SAY they believe in some "compulsory" god. And we are supposed to be living in an age where communication and education is out there FKN UNBLVBL. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 so nev I ask you this question do you condone the stoning of women that have been raped ? neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 Not really . I have witnessed a few stoned but they had just drunk too much, it turned out.. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 marty am I not allowed to have my opinion of those that follow baa baas I have followed what luren has said and what she has done high lighting the failings of many like that newzealander that was so cocky after his interview of what she was on aboutin my opinion he really has no idea and was totally out off his mind to even ask her for an interview lauren took him to task bloody great job on putting him down neil Neil you are certainly allowed to have your opinion. I heard about that NZ situation - he asked her a sensible question, she came up with a totally stupid reply, and he was absolutely stunned for a few seconds. Multiculturism doesn't mean bringing in the worst of other cultures. They come here (or NZ), they abide by the law of the land which DOESN'T include stoning anyone for anything. Every time we have an influx of foreigners - Chinese, Greeks, Croatians, Serbians, Italians, Indians, Vietnamese - take your pick - there's always a bunch of people moaning about how they'll ruin the country with their evil ways. Guess what - hasn't happened yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 so marty here is the same question for you it is ok" for the genital mutalation of young girls"? and don come back with acoxxxxxheads response neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 so marty here is the same question for you it is ok" for the genital mutalation of young girls"? and don come back with acoxxxxxheads response neil Which bit of "Multiculturism doesn't mean bringing in the worst of other cultures. They come here (or NZ), they abide by the law of the land" did you not understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 so that is ok to mutilate young girls is that what your saying neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 No, Neil, I'm saying the exact opposite. Genital mutilation is wrong. Stoning is wrong. In fact all forms of torture and capital punishment are wrong. This is why you cannot do these things under Australian law. Which part of this are you having trouble understanding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 Why do you ask such obvious questions Neil? It obviously has some significance for you, but as Pauline says "please explain?". Why would anyone here agree with stoning women who have been raped? FGM is illegal in this country. too. I don't believe in Capital punishment either and I DO believe in disposing of myself in a way suiting myself and my close friends without this government or people of some god telling me I can't. ALL countries can improve their rules and customs. and some have a lot further to go than others in this respect. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 so multiculturism means that the cops have a no go area so as the persons of that area are beyond the laws of the so called peasants what law of the land don't I get is why that cop stopped a person from going about on aust soil bit like people were not allowed to enter black fella land because if it got out how much crap was going on there the sheeeeeet would hit the fan I now take you to task marty does the barbaric crap of female mutilation happen in aust ? marty when you have poor little children smashing police property and a dumb copper saying there were only about20 25 there for Christ wake up the law coppers can only catch big tough bikes oh I misread that oh sorry princes I wont do it again it didn't happen fake news when you have these so called goody persons and that have a free reighn to build a community that no one is allowed to stop that's bullxxx neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now