To see reasonable people debating whether the Hillsborough t-shirt bloke

[Monty92]

should have been arrested is proof enough how degraded our values have become.

The idea that anyone could, or should, be arrested for such a thing should horrify us.

And yet, none of us are instinctively sure anymore. Even I had to run it through my head a couple of times before coming to the ONLY possible conclusion.

Sad scenes.

[Sir C]

should have been arrested is proof enough how degraded our values have become.

The idea that anyone could, or should, be arrested for such a thing should horrify us.

And yet, none of us are instinctively sure anymore. Even I had to run it through my head a couple of times before coming to the ONLY possible conclusion.

Sad scenes.

You have said a truly true truth here. wd m.

[Fast Eddie]

I smell a doo doo :strood:

Should be patented.

[Monty92]

You have said a truly true truth here. wd m.

I have some sympathy, of course. Here we have a man guilty of some of the worst public behaviour imaginable that doesn't involve verbal abuse or physical violence. So instinctively, of course, we want such bad behaviour to be punished harshly and a clip round the ear and sending him on his way certainly feels disproportionately lenient.

But we have forgotten what is at stake here. And for that, I blame the feminists, gays and Allans.

I might get a t-shirt designed.

[Fast Eddie]

, I blame the feminists, gays and Allans.

"Who do you blame for the murder of Jesus Christ?"

If I put that on a t-shirt would that be a loophole?

[Ash]

And yet, none of us are instinctively sure anymore. Even I had to run it through my head a couple of times before coming to the ONLY possible conclusion.


I was instinctively sure. I have a policy on this sort of thing, you see. But you are right that freedom is severely degraded when many can consider that such an arrest might be ok.

[Ash]

"Who do you blame for the murder of Jesus Christ?"

If I put that on a t-shirt would that be a loophole?

The Romans.

[Sir C]

I have some sympathy, of course. Here we have a man guilty of some of the worst public behaviour imaginable that doesn't involve verbal abuse or physical violence. So instinctively, of course, we want such bad behaviour to be punished harshly and a clip round the ear and sending him on his way certainly feels disproportionately lenient.

But we have forgotten what is at stake here. And for that, I blame the feminists, gays and Allans.

I might get a t-shirt designed.

It is, I suppose, the logical conclusion to the cult of political correctness promulgated with such remarkable fervour by the bien pensant chatterers of the BBC.

It's an issue of thoughtcrime, more than anything.

[Fast Eddie]

The Romans.

Matthew 27:22-25
John 11:47-50
John 11:53

If I put that on a t-shirt is that a loophole?

[Burney]

should have been arrested is proof enough how degraded our values have become.

The idea that anyone could, or should, be arrested for such a thing should horrify us.

And yet, none of us are instinctively sure anymore. Even I had to run it through my head a couple of times before coming to the ONLY possible conclusion.

Sad scenes.


But these values came from a world where no-one would ever have dreamt of going out in public with a deliberately offensive message plastered all over their shirt. Surely it is in that societal change that the values have become degraded? The point at which society ceased to police its own behaviour and starting regarding the right to free speech as representing carte blanche to behave egregiously and to deliberately upset people is where things started to go tits up.

[Monty92]

I was instinctively sure. I have a policy on this sort of thing, you see. But you are right that freedom is severely degraded when many can consider that such an arrest might be ok.

It is fun to play with a few scenarios though. And at what point, do you think, behaviour should fall under the constraints of law?

I think we both agree that t-shirt bloke shouldn’t be arrested even if he’d rocked up at a memorial service for a Hillsborough victim.
But what about if his actions were verbal? What about if he confronted a Scouser in the street and aggressively told him he’s glad the 96 died?

Why would this be incitement to hatred or cause fear, panic or distress but a t-shirt wouldn’t?

[Fast Eddie]

So the moral of the story is you can be anti-Semitic or racist so long as you don't speak the words but have them on a t-shirt.

Gotcha.

Must type the words I have on my many, many t-shirts.

[Ash]

Matthew 27:22-25
John 11:47-50
John 11:53

If I put that on a t-shirt is that a loophole?

Why are you quoting the Bible at me? Are you proselytising?

[Monty92]

But these values came from a world where no-one would ever have dreamt of going out in public with a deliberately offensive message plastered all over their shirt. Surely it is in that societal change that the values have become degraded? The point at which society ceased to police its own behaviour and starting regarding the right to free speech as representing carte blanche to behave egregiously and to deliberately upset people is where things started to go tits up.

Which world was that in which no-one was deliberately offensive in public?

[Fast Eddie]

Why are you quoting the Bible at me? Are you proselytising? Which brand of backward superstition are you trying to sell here?

I'm wearing a t-shirt that says:

"It wasn't the Romans who lead Jesus Christ to the slaughter"

[Burney]

It is, I suppose, the logical conclusion to the cult of political correctness promulgated with such remarkable fervour by the bien pensant chatterers of the BBC.

It's an issue of thoughtcrime, more than anything.

Actually, I disagree. The problem derives from the advent of a more permissive society (for want of a better phrase) that opened the floodgates and made it OK or - God help us - 'cool to do things like wear t-shirts that said unpleasant things. This problem was then exacerbated by the advent of a less casually violent society that meant that you were more likely to get away with behaving offensively without getting your head kicked in.

[Sir C]

But these values came from a world where no-one would ever have dreamt of going out in public with a deliberately offensive message plastered all over their shirt. Surely it is in that societal change that the values have become degraded? The point at which society ceased to police its own behaviour and starting regarding the right to free speech as representing carte blanche to behave egregiously and to deliberately upset people is where things started to go tits up.

I had some words with a little scrote on a train wearing a Jesus is a **** t-shirt years ago. YEARS ago, I tell you. No one arrested the little ****, though.

[Sir C]

Actually, I disagree. The problem derives from the advent of a more permissive society (for want of a better phrase) that opened the floodgates and made it OK or - God help us - 'cool to do things like wear t-shirts that said unpleasant things. This problem was then exacerbated by the advent of a less casually violent society that meant that you were more likely to get away with behaving offensively without getting your head kicked in.

You're not wrong, but what you term a more 'premissive' society is only permissive of approved thoughts and ideas; talk of dnacing on Thatcher's grave, of course, is acceptable under the new permissiveness, because she is an approved target, and therefore laughing at her death cannot cause 'offence'.

In the same way, it is perfectly acceptable to be racist towards jews because jews are an approved target, but persons of colour are allowed to be offended.

:shrug: The Left can't help being authoritarian hypocrites; it's written into their souls.

[Ash]

It is fun to play with a few scenarios though. And at what point, do you think, behaviour should fall under the constraints of law?

I think we both agree that t-shirt bloke shouldn’t be arrested even if he’d rocked up at a memorial service for a Hillsborough victim.
But what about if his actions were verbal? What about if he confronted a Scouser in the street and aggressively told him he’s glad the 96 died?

Why would this be incitement to hatred or cause fear, panic or distress but a t-shirt wouldn’t?

There are many ways to be a prick, and many people who will gladly extrapolate from this the need to not tolerate any prickness by enforcing draconion intolerance to anything offensive. The important thing is to always start from a robust policy of liberty and then procede from there.

[Ash]

I'm wearing a t-shirt that says:

"It wasn't the Romans who lead Jesus Christ to the slaughter"

Looks like we'll have to disagree on this, then.

[Burney]

Which world was that in which no-one was deliberately offensive in public?

You can't seriously be suggesting that in - say - the 1940s or '50s anyone sane would have considered going out in an item of clothing explicitly celebrating the deaths of 96 people, can you? We have become a much more rude, solipsistic and obnoxious society and therein lies the root of the problem. As you know, I'm happy to blame PC for lots of things, but this ain't one of them. As with so many things, the Baby Boomer generation has a lot to answer for.

[Sir C]

You can't seriously be suggesting that in - say - the 1940s or '50s anyone sane would have considered going out in an item of clothing explicitly celebrating the deaths of 96 people, can you? We have become a much more rude, solipsistic and obnoxious society and therein lies the root of the problem. As you know, I'm happy to blame PC for lots of things, but this ain't one of them. As with so many things, the Baby Boomer generation has a lot to answer for.

It's all the same cultural shift, though. Was it baby-boomers of the liberal left of the 1980s which threw away religion without considering what to replace it with? Surely our Godless, soulless, ruleless society is a product of both groups.

[Burney]

I had some words with a little scrote on a train wearing a Jesus is a **** t-shirt years ago. YEARS ago, I tell you. No one arrested the little ****, though.

Yes, but you are unusual (in a nice way) and our sense of these things has become so calloused by years of seeing things like a major high street brand plaster 'FCUK' all over its clothes or by people wearing 'funny' t-shirts, that most people barely notice anything unless it's outrageously offensive these days.

[Fast Eddie]

Looks like we'll have to disagree on this, then.

You might disagree but as long as a t-shirt says different anything goes ;)

Bet the OP and co are regretting this :)

[Monty92]

You can't seriously be suggesting that in - say - the 1940s or '50s anyone sane would have considered going out in an item of clothing explicitly celebrating the deaths of 96 people, can you? We have become a much more rude, solipsistic and obnoxious society and therein lies the root of the problem. As you know, I'm happy to blame PC for lots of things, but this ain't one of them. As with so many things, the Baby Boomer generation has a lot to answer for.

No, but on the flip side it was probably far easier to cause offensive in them days, when conservative values were the norm. I doubt the early campaigners for the legalisation of bumming went down too well with the gen pop in the 1950s.

[Monty92]

So the moral of the story is you can be anti-Semitic or racist so long as you don't speak the words but have them on a t-shirt.

Gotcha.

Must type the words I have on my many, many t-shirts.

People shouldn't be arrested for being racist, either.

[Burney]

It's all the same cultural shift, though. Was it baby-boomers of the liberal left of the 1980s which threw away religion without considering what to replace it with? Surely our Godless, soulless, ruleless society is a product of both groups.

Actually, I'd lay that one squarely at the door of the Baby Boomers. It was their generation who decided it was more important to mock things than to respect them. Unfortunately, once you start to regard the mockery of things others hold dear as a virtue, you by extension are mocking, deriding and denigrating not merely institutions, but the people who believe in them. Now whether that institution is the Church, the Monarchy, the military, the Government, someone else's football team, school, class or whatever, you are making a virtue of offence and, once you start down the road of saying that offence in any form is good, all bets are effectively off.

[Ash]

No, but on the flip side it was probably far easier to cause offensive in them days, when conservative values were the norm. I doubt the early campaigners for the legalisation of bumming went down too well with the gen pop in the 1950s.

And of course T-shirts had only just been invented.

[Monty92]

And of course T-shirts had only just been invented.

149

Here's one of the early adopters

[Burney]

No, but on the flip side it was probably far easier to cause offensive in them days, when conservative values were the norm. I doubt the early campaigners for the legalisation of bumming went down too well with the gen pop in the 1950s.

Sure, but too many things changed too quickly and all sorts of babies went out with the bathwater. To take your example, there's a big difference between deciding that, on balance, it's probably wrong to lock up or chemically castrate people for participation in sexual acts between consenting adults and thinking that it's OK for some bloke to march up and down a high street in a t-shirt saying "I LOVE SUCKING COCK!", but unfortunately, the two things have become conflated as though they were one issue. This means that someone who objects to the latter is going to be accused of effectively objecting to the former. That is wrong, but it is a case of the baby going out with the bathwater.

[Ash]

Unfortunately, once you start to regard the mockery of things others hold dear as a virtue, you by extension are mocking, deriding and denigrating not merely institutions, but the people who believe in them. Now whether that institution is the Church, the Monarchy, the military, the Government, someone else's football team, school, class or whatever, you are making a virtue of offence and, once you start down the road of saying that offence in any form is good, all bets are effectively off.

Excuse me for copying and pasting some words, but mocking, deriding and denigrating not merely institutions and ideas, but the people who believe in them, is basically what you do every day.

[Sir C]

Sure, but too many things changed too quickly and all sorts of babies went out with the bathwater. To take your example, there's a big difference between deciding that, on balance, it's probably wrong to lock up or chemically castrate people for participation in sexual acts between consenting adults and thinking that it's OK for some bloke to march up and down a high street in a t-shirt saying "I LOVE SUCKING COCK!", but unfortunately, the two things have become conflated as though they were one issue. This means that someone who objects to the latter is going to be accused of effectively objecting to the former. That is wrong, but it is a case of the baby going out with the bathwater.

I've always felt that it all started to go wrong the day that deeply, deeply unpleasant piece of work Cooke took the piss out of Harold MacMillan.

What a truly nasty individual Cooke was.

[Fast Eddie]

Just bought a new t-shirt saying:

"What a ****ing loser he/it who types more than 3+ lines in every post about an insignificant issue"

On the back it says:

"What a ****ing loser"

[Burney]

Excuse me for copying and pasting some words, but mocking, deriding and denigrating not merely institutions and ideas, but the people who believe in them, is basically what you do every day.

I didn't pretend it wasn't. :shrug: It's what we all do - even those of us who know how pernicious and corrosive it is - because we've been brought up in a society where it is the norm. We regard getting a laugh as capable of justifying virtually anything.

Only with a historical perspective can one see just how damaging such a mindset is.

[Burney]

I've always felt that it all started to go wrong the day that deeply, deeply unpleasant piece of work Cooke took the piss out of Harold MacMillan.

What a truly nasty individual Cooke was.

:nod: Tottenham fan, of course. And a wifebeater.

[Fast Eddie]

I didn't pretend it wasn't. :shrug: It's what we all do - even those of us who know how pernicious and corrosive it is - because we've been brought up in a society where it is the norm. We regard getting a laugh as capable of justifying virtually anything.

Only with a historical perspective can one see just how damaging such a mindset is.

LOL

"Loser" says my t-shirt

[eastgermanautos]

You're right, my friend.

[eastgermanautos]

To me this is a consequence of the information society. And a regrettable one, I might add.

[Burney]

To me this is a consequence of the information society. And a regrettable one, I might add.

Care to expand?

[Fast Eddie]

You're right, my friend.

Amen, Bro. It knows.

[Fast Eddie]

Care to expand?

Like your waistline says my t-shirt

[redgunamo]

should have been arrested is proof enough how degraded our values have become.

The idea that anyone could, or should, be arrested for such a thing should horrify us.

And yet, none of us are instinctively sure anymore. Even I had to run it through my head a couple of times before coming to the ONLY possible conclusion.

Sad scenes.

Not really. You would have Arsenal supporters arrested for wearing a Wenger out! t-shirt, wouldn't you.

In fairness, maybe it merely shows people still have a touching faith in the police. Or maybe they're just Values Cowards, as B suggests.

Blame the internets, imo.