Obstruction... wow, so his right to freedom of assembly is also under threat in this country as well?

To SOT, 'free speech' means just that, it doesn't mean 'free speech subject to various restrictions'. Of course we should be responsible with out right to free speech and think before causing potential offence but to legislate to protect people's feelings is a step too far. Once we start to do that it's a grey area about where the line is drawn, and hence the slippery slope begins leading to tyranny AKA: The UK in 2014 where people get arrested for saying something mean on Twitter.

To take it to the extreme SOT, what if I was an MP and I decided that your post offended me and hurt my feelings? Should you be fined and banned from the internet? Certainly we have seen examples where uncomfortable topics are not openly discussed because of the perceived fear of being harassed by authorities on 'hate crime' accusations.

If you're offended, nothing actually happens when you get offended, have an early night, in the morning you'll feel better. Just because something is the law doesn't mean it's right or proper.

Of course there are restrictions to free speech and have been for years. Without laws on free speech it would be anarchy. The libel act dates from the 1700s, the Defamation act covers slander, and then there's all sorts of laws covering perjury, and telling porkies to officials (such as the Police and HMRC)

If you still don't believe me, lets use your definition of 'free speech'

I arrive outside your house and stand on a soapbox telling your neighbours that you are a friend of Jimmy Savile & Max Clifford and cannot be trusted around kids. I know this as a fact as a bloke down the pub told me

You are obviously - to put it mildly- not too happy about this, and you quite rightly approach and challenge me. I reply saying I have the right to 'free speech' so there's nothing you can do about it.

Plainly that's nonsense and you would be within your rights to seek legal address - even by calling the police. It is a Free speech is an important right we cherish in the UK. But with any rights come responsibilities - and it is often necessary to have rules/laws to enforce those responsibilities if abused or ignored.

One thing we can agree on though, is the apparent fragility of people's feelings in the 21st century and their rush to litigation (ie cash). This is easily demonstrated by the PC who is suing Andrew Mitchell for calling him a 'pleb'. Surely this copper has been called worse than that before !!!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 93148.html

I don't necessarily disagree with you.

This chap was asked to move on and it seems he obfuscated. It was some time 40 minutes + before the law took him into custody.

He had made his speech and was probably arrested for dicking plod about. The Churchill bit is neither here not there.

If he had been moved on (or arrested) at speakers corner for quoting Churchill then I would also be jumping on the outrage bus but this was not the case. Or from a soapbox in the market if was canvassing as candidate in the local elections but this was a Guildhall and as such is probably subject to a number of bylaws.

But why should he be asked to move on?

And as for limits on free speech, these have always been well understood. There is no freedom to slander or libel and there is no freedom to outrage public decency or to be menacing, threatening or intimidating. Beyond that, freedom of speech is meaningless if it doesn't include the right to stand in public squares and speak your views.

The point that is not mentioned, the elephant in the room if you like, was that he was quoting Winston Churchill's comments on Islam and we all know that whenever Islam is in the mix then all sorts of sensitivities, real or imaganined, come into play. Islam seems to have special protection under the law.
Here are the comments made by Churchill:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... peech.html

Oh for some politicians today who might have a razor-sharp cutting edge perception, a similar command of the English language, and the courage to say and do what they really think, as did Sir Winston Churchill. Today's politicians don't even measure up as political minnows when compared to the likes of Winston Churchill.

Where Winston Churchill had a powerful sense of duty, a sense of destiny of service toward his homeland, and the courage to put his life on the line; today's politicians mainly occupy themselves with sexual orientation, handing British sovereignty over to the unelected foreign power in the shape of the EU, and foolishly supposedly saving the planet from that natural and harmless plant food commonly known as carbon dioxide. In fact, to refer to today's politicians as political minnows is an insult to minnows. And if the opinion polls are correct, it seems that the public are now rapidly waking up to just how despicable the political elite represented by the LibLabCon have become.

Exactly what I was thinking when I read that passage.

GCSE level English students today would have trouble reading it let alone digesting and understanding the meaning.

That my friends is no accident. Education is being 'dumbed down' to the point where by and large all that is being turned out are automatons.

Aint that the truth!!

I visited the wonderful Chartwell (Churchill's Kent home) and spent far too much time reading displayed letters he had hand written, replying (mainly) to members of the public. They are fantastic with just the right amount of razor sharp wit and straight talking, without a hint of spin. I simply cant imagine any of the bland grey politicians communicating so honestly nowadays

I thoroughly recommend a visit here if you can get there: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/chartwell/