The right to cause offence?

Today that old Etonian Champagne lout,  David Cameron decided to disagree with the leaders of the Islamic faith and the Pope, leader of a billion believers in the world - so hardly minorities who call for people to show respect for deeply held faith and beliefs.

Mr Cameron said that in today's society there should be the a "right to cause offence about someone's religion" - there is however no such right to ridicule for example Stephen Fry marrying his two decade younger "toy boy" yesterday, I mean to suggest that this is anything bust normal and completely  acceptable would lay myself open to accusations of homophobia - despite what the church has traditionally taught.

Of course there has to be the freedom to lie and offend - otherwise how the heck could the politicians of the world get their message across?

The right of freedom of speech is worth defending - but if their is the right of freedom of speech then surely nothing has to be off limits including me expressing an opinion that is deeply held that marriage should be between a man and a woman and for life (the fact I am not married need not make me unqualified to hold this view, which I am happy to admit is an ideal)
There should be the right of freedom of the press, but there should be the responsibility of the press to act responsibly and not ruin innocent people's lives.

The right of freedom of speech is ironically, as I mentioned before, not accompanied by any requirement to listen - therefore I suggest the following -

1  If you want to make fun of deeply held religious beliefs, then the least you can expect us to do is SHARE OUR VIEWS WITH YOU - AT LENGTH and to ridicule your inconsistent beliefs as well - I mean if you expect us to take a joke, we are surely allowed to share back

2 If you expect us to carry on watching your ridicule and offensive diatribes you can expect to be turned off and we won't buy your shoddy magazines or watch your shoddy shows.

3 If I actually am present when you do this kind of thing I'll stand up, put my fingers in my ears and shout "LA LA LA, I'm not listening" turning my back on you to show my feelings

As the lead up to the UK general election happens - no doubt politicians of all persuasions will spout more and more unbelievable things to try and convince us that they

A Have honest intentions
B Have a clear agenda and
C The resources to carry it out

As we all know, the last person who entered parliament with all these credentials was Guy Fawkes.

Terrorism and over-reaction

The other day terrorists attacked and killed a number of people in Paris at the headquarters of a satirical magazine called Charlie Hebdo.

Now I have some pretty strong feelings about freedom of speech and freedom of expression and based on absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER I feel that Charlie Hebdo would be a magazine that I would not approve of - it seems that they regularly attack faith and push the boundaries of decency.
Guess what folks - on that basis I don't BUY the magazine - I mean why the heck should I spend MY money on something I don't agree with and is likely to wind me up.

Whatever the provocation I think that going on the rampage with guns is over the top and unlikely to present a showcase for tolerant or mainstream Islam, any more than the crusades were a lesson in tolerant and loving Christianity!

The people who carried out this violent attack were not acting rationally nor within the teaching of their faith, but more to the point WHY THE HELL DID THESE IDIOTS BUY THE MAGAZINE THAT SO OFFENDED THEM??

One of the downsides of freedom of speech is that sometimes we have to allow people we disagree with the freedom to spout their hate message (Like Nigel Farage and UKIP)
there is however no need to go out and SEEK being offended - what kind of moron would actively watch a UKIP party political if they are (I'll tone it down from "Rational human being" to) a Europhile.

The other thing that got me was the idiot decision by that old Etonian Champagne lout David Cameron who does prime minister impressions (Have you heard his Tony Blair?) who has decided that means of communications that are not designed for public consumption have to be able to be read by the security services - so end to end security will be illegal.

DAVID - this means that you have access to my bank account if I want to use online banking - this is unsafe - if you want to compromise this so the security services can read it what is to stop bad people using the same loophole and backdoor?
It is like the blooming ridiculous TSA approved locks on luggage - these can be picked by security who have tools to do this and obviously NO sets have EVER been lost or mislaid.........

You say the innocent (like  Jean Paul de menezes and the at least 30 other cased of justice miscarriage in the last 10 years) have nothing to fear........

I hope that David Cameron does not get his way on this bill that would not make us any safer