The ArgusDisciplinary proceedings launched against Twitter outburst councillor (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Disciplinary proceedings launched against Twitter outburst councillor

The Argus: Disciplinary proceedings launched against Twitter outburst councillor Disciplinary proceedings launched against Twitter outburst councillor

A councillor who caused outrage with his outspoken Twitter comments on Armed Forces Day has had formal disciplinary proceedings started against him by his own party this morning.

The executive of Brighton and Hove Green Party have unanimously agreed to launch disciplinary proceedings against Councillor Ben Duncan who sparked controversy after describing serving British soldiers as “hired killers”.

Green MP Caroline Lucas has said the Queen’s Park councillor should no longer represent the Greens on the council.

In a statement released this morning, a Brighton and Hove Green Party spokesman said: “In light of the Twitter comments made by Councillor Ben Duncan on Saturday, the Green Party of Brighton and Hove has this morning started a formal disciplinary process.

“The Executive of Brighton and Hove Green Party this morning unanimously decided that disciplinary proceedings were justified and will report any outcomes in due course.

“A panel will now be formed to determine what, if any, further action is warranted.”

Comments (61)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:38am Wed 2 Jul 14

NickBrt says...

Hopefully he will look up teheword 'decent' in the dictionary and actually DO the decent thing and GO, never to return.
Hopefully he will look up teheword 'decent' in the dictionary and actually DO the decent thing and GO, never to return. NickBrt
  • Score: 50

10:50am Wed 2 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Hey up. Here comes the flies round s**t
Hey up. Here comes the flies round s**t theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 8

10:56am Wed 2 Jul 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Oh, I almost forgot. TIM LOUGHTON
Oh, I almost forgot. TIM LOUGHTON theargusissoinformative
  • Score: -13

11:02am Wed 2 Jul 14

anubis says...

On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'.

THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'.

I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on!
On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'. THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'. I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on! anubis
  • Score: -57

11:07am Wed 2 Jul 14

JHunty says...

anubis wrote:
On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'.

THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'.

I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on!
No I think his offence was to use an occasion for remembering the sacrifices those in the armed forces have made to self publicise.
He went out of his way to offend, as before that is very different from having an opinion that others disagree with or find offensive.
It was not just his view that others found offensive, which they might have to just agree to differ on, but his decision to use a day when families remember their loss to publicise himself, which most people would find unacceptable.
[quote][p][bold]anubis[/bold] wrote: On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'. THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'. I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on![/p][/quote]No I think his offence was to use an occasion for remembering the sacrifices those in the armed forces have made to self publicise. He went out of his way to offend, as before that is very different from having an opinion that others disagree with or find offensive. It was not just his view that others found offensive, which they might have to just agree to differ on, but his decision to use a day when families remember their loss to publicise himself, which most people would find unacceptable. JHunty
  • Score: 59

11:09am Wed 2 Jul 14

albionfan33 says...

lets hope the take further procedings out on his smug grin too!!!!!!
lets hope the take further procedings out on his smug grin too!!!!!! albionfan33
  • Score: 41

11:10am Wed 2 Jul 14

Martha Gunn says...

For goodness sake why is he still there?
He should be long gone by now.
The guy should have no place in public life.

Not even in the madhouse that is Caroline's Council.
Nor on the Green Party Brussels gravy train.
For goodness sake why is he still there? He should be long gone by now. The guy should have no place in public life. Not even in the madhouse that is Caroline's Council. Nor on the Green Party Brussels gravy train. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 50

11:12am Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

JHunty wrote:
anubis wrote:
On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'.

THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'.

I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on!
No I think his offence was to use an occasion for remembering the sacrifices those in the armed forces have made to self publicise.
He went out of his way to offend, as before that is very different from having an opinion that others disagree with or find offensive.
It was not just his view that others found offensive, which they might have to just agree to differ on, but his decision to use a day when families remember their loss to publicise himself, which most people would find unacceptable.
So he'd be OK if he tweeted that comment next April?

You're the one who wasn't able to explain the difference between posting something offensive and deliberately doing so. That's because there isn't a difference. Duncan made his views public through choice and knowing that thousands of people hold the same repellent view.

You also agreed that people should be able to offend, and the person you quoted explained why.
[quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anubis[/bold] wrote: On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'. THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'. I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on![/p][/quote]No I think his offence was to use an occasion for remembering the sacrifices those in the armed forces have made to self publicise. He went out of his way to offend, as before that is very different from having an opinion that others disagree with or find offensive. It was not just his view that others found offensive, which they might have to just agree to differ on, but his decision to use a day when families remember their loss to publicise himself, which most people would find unacceptable.[/p][/quote]So he'd be OK if he tweeted that comment next April? You're the one who wasn't able to explain the difference between posting something offensive and deliberately doing so. That's because there isn't a difference. Duncan made his views public through choice and knowing that thousands of people hold the same repellent view. You also agreed that people should be able to offend, and the person you quoted explained why. stevo!!
  • Score: -28

11:16am Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
For goodness sake why is he still there?
He should be long gone by now.
The guy should have no place in public life.

Not even in the madhouse that is Caroline's Council.
Nor on the Green Party Brussels gravy train.
He hasn't committed an offence.
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: For goodness sake why is he still there? He should be long gone by now. The guy should have no place in public life. Not even in the madhouse that is Caroline's Council. Nor on the Green Party Brussels gravy train.[/p][/quote]He hasn't committed an offence. stevo!!
  • Score: -47

11:16am Wed 2 Jul 14

woodcroft says...

Mr Kit Kat, Glad you took my advice yesterday, You may do what you want in the Green Party but this is a matter for Standards Committee of the City Council as well.
Mr Kit Kat, Glad you took my advice yesterday, You may do what you want in the Green Party but this is a matter for Standards Committee of the City Council as well. woodcroft
  • Score: 31

11:26am Wed 2 Jul 14

NickBrt says...

What has this 'person' ever done for his constituents, living far away from brighton and never allegedly being around to do a jot for residents?
What has this 'person' ever done for his constituents, living far away from brighton and never allegedly being around to do a jot for residents? NickBrt
  • Score: 29

11:45am Wed 2 Jul 14

Martha Gunn says...

We have started an investigation into the response rate of Cllr. Duncan to approaches and enquiries from Queens Park residents.

Fascinating findings so far!
We have started an investigation into the response rate of Cllr. Duncan to approaches and enquiries from Queens Park residents. Fascinating findings so far! Martha Gunn
  • Score: 27

1:06pm Wed 2 Jul 14

NickBrt says...

DO share your findings, Martha, that will be very interesting. Does anyone know the date of the Queens Park Council By-election please?
DO share your findings, Martha, that will be very interesting. Does anyone know the date of the Queens Park Council By-election please? NickBrt
  • Score: 16

1:18pm Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed.

I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.
At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed. I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one. stevo!!
  • Score: -35

2:04pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fredaj says...

anubis wrote:
On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'.

THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'.

I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on!
Ben Duncan is 100% entitled to his opinions and as a private individual he is 100% entitled to express those opinions.

However.... and isn't there always a "however...."

He was using his platform as a Brighton and Hove Councillor when he expressed his view, he was not down the pub with a few mates or in the living room with his family, he was tweeting as "Ben Duncan, B&H Councillor" and because of that he needs to be thoughtful about what he says and how he says it - same for everyone else who is expresses an opinion is a workplace setting.

And he is quite happy to get the guns out when other councillors make comments he finds abhorrent - travellers and Hangleton's Dawn Barnett springing to mind, so he should accept this enquiry without complaint, as should everyone else.
[quote][p][bold]anubis[/bold] wrote: On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'. THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'. I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on![/p][/quote]Ben Duncan is 100% entitled to his opinions and as a private individual he is 100% entitled to express those opinions. However.... and isn't there always a "however...." He was using his platform as a Brighton and Hove Councillor when he expressed his view, he was not down the pub with a few mates or in the living room with his family, he was tweeting as "Ben Duncan, B&H Councillor" and because of that he needs to be thoughtful about what he says and how he says it - same for everyone else who is expresses an opinion is a workplace setting. And he is quite happy to get the guns out when other councillors make comments he finds abhorrent - travellers and Hangleton's Dawn Barnett springing to mind, so he should accept this enquiry without complaint, as should everyone else. fredaj
  • Score: 35

2:06pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fredaj says...

stevo!! wrote:
At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed.

I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.
You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed. I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.[/p][/quote]You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken. fredaj
  • Score: 23

2:19pm Wed 2 Jul 14

charlie smirke says...

I would love to know what this idiot did tell his son about the Armed Forces? Did it include the fact that his son may well never have been born if it wasn't for these "Hired Killers" ?? If not, what weird and distorted version of historical facts did he provide?
I would love to know what this idiot did tell his son about the Armed Forces? Did it include the fact that his son may well never have been born if it wasn't for these "Hired Killers" ?? If not, what weird and distorted version of historical facts did he provide? charlie smirke
  • Score: 22

2:30pm Wed 2 Jul 14

clarkebrighton says...

Get this insensitive IDIOT out of Power Sign the Petition Now. 1,800
People have already signed within the last Day. As well as many local
Residents completing the Brighton & Hove Complain about a councillor
on line form.

Just Goggle change.org and then Browse Get Rid of Ben Duncan
Get this insensitive IDIOT out of Power Sign the Petition Now. 1,800 People have already signed within the last Day. As well as many local Residents completing the Brighton & Hove Complain about a councillor on line form. Just Goggle change.org and then Browse Get Rid of Ben Duncan clarkebrighton
  • Score: 19

2:55pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Interesting that Caroline Lucas doesn't seem to have a problem with him continuing to act as a press spokeman for the party. No mention of that anywhere. This isn't some naive Twitter user who can't count characters - Duncan is a professional media-spinner.

Is he going to be suspended from that paid role by the party while an investigation is carried out? That might tell if they're really taking this seriously - or not.

Email and ask her.
Interesting that Caroline Lucas doesn't seem to have a problem with him continuing to act as a press spokeman for the party. No mention of that anywhere. This isn't some naive Twitter user who can't count characters - Duncan is a professional media-spinner. Is he going to be suspended from that paid role by the party while an investigation is carried out? That might tell if they're really taking this seriously - or not. Email and ask her. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 24

3:01pm Wed 2 Jul 14

ThinkBrighton says...

JHunty wrote:
anubis wrote:
On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'.

THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'.

I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on!
No I think his offence was to use an occasion for remembering the sacrifices those in the armed forces have made to self publicise.
He went out of his way to offend, as before that is very different from having an opinion that others disagree with or find offensive.
It was not just his view that others found offensive, which they might have to just agree to differ on, but his decision to use a day when families remember their loss to publicise himself, which most people would find unacceptable.
Well HJ you have commented at last
[quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anubis[/bold] wrote: On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'. THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'. I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on![/p][/quote]No I think his offence was to use an occasion for remembering the sacrifices those in the armed forces have made to self publicise. He went out of his way to offend, as before that is very different from having an opinion that others disagree with or find offensive. It was not just his view that others found offensive, which they might have to just agree to differ on, but his decision to use a day when families remember their loss to publicise himself, which most people would find unacceptable.[/p][/quote]Well HJ you have commented at last ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 4

3:04pm Wed 2 Jul 14

ThinkBrighton says...

He will be told off, when really he should have his left wing green arse kicked off the council, or do we have towait for his next discusting comment
He will be told off, when really he should have his left wing green arse kicked off the council, or do we have towait for his next discusting comment ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 19

3:08pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fredflintstone1 says...

stevo!! wrote:
At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed.

I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.
Well, since you ask, Cllr Duncan could be investigated under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. These provisions refer to communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, as laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to social media usage.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the communication was (i) grossly offensive and (ii) false, and if the Police receive complaints, I would suggest they are duty-bound to investigate.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed. I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.[/p][/quote]Well, since you ask, Cllr Duncan could be investigated under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. These provisions refer to communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, as laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to social media usage. There is no doubt whatsoever that the communication was (i) grossly offensive and (ii) false, and if the Police receive complaints, I would suggest they are duty-bound to investigate. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 25

3:14pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

He is so arrogant he doesn't even care if his idiocy brings the whole party down with him. He would sacrifice himself he believed in saving the party.
Now he's clinging on to grab as much of the allowances as he can which are paid for by the very public that he hates.
I really feel sorry for his kid.
He is so arrogant he doesn't even care if his idiocy brings the whole party down with him. He would sacrifice himself he believed in saving the party. Now he's clinging on to grab as much of the allowances as he can which are paid for by the very public that he hates. I really feel sorry for his kid. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 22

3:55pm Wed 2 Jul 14

leftysmellbags says...

The meeting will go like this = "Ben what have you done, you know you shouldn't let the public know our extreme Marxist views, that is just for the inner circle. Don't worry though just be quiet for a while and go on a paid holiday. When you get back the dumb public would have forgotten what you said and you can carry on like normal - don't worry we will release a statement saying that we have disciplined you, but you will still be on full pay and keep your position in the party". Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Thats Politics Folks.....
The meeting will go like this = "Ben what have you done, you know you shouldn't let the public know our extreme Marxist views, that is just for the inner circle. Don't worry though just be quiet for a while and go on a paid holiday. When you get back the dumb public would have forgotten what you said and you can carry on like normal - don't worry we will release a statement saying that we have disciplined you, but you will still be on full pay and keep your position in the party". Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Thats Politics Folks..... leftysmellbags
  • Score: 14

3:57pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Uncle Ruckus (No Relation) says...

I have as much respect for the Green Party as I have for a bottle of cheap, stinking cooking-oil from Lidls.

Time to get rid of this bunch of incompetent, incapable, Marxist clowns
I have as much respect for the Green Party as I have for a bottle of cheap, stinking cooking-oil from Lidls. Time to get rid of this bunch of incompetent, incapable, Marxist clowns Uncle Ruckus (No Relation)
  • Score: 26

4:00pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Rearrangethedeckchairs says...

He has achieved something very rare- getting 99% of people of very different views to agree on one thing- what a total arrogant and political un street wise idiot he is
He has achieved something very rare- getting 99% of people of very different views to agree on one thing- what a total arrogant and political un street wise idiot he is Rearrangethedeckchairs
  • Score: 25

4:15pm Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed.

I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.
You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.
In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue?
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed. I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.[/p][/quote]You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.[/p][/quote]In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue? stevo!!
  • Score: -18

4:27pm Wed 2 Jul 14

wexler53 says...

Twerp...
Twerp... wexler53
  • Score: 13

4:40pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Bill in Hanover says...

anubis wrote:
On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'.

THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'.

I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on!
Why is it when some idiot opens his mouth and sticks his foot right in it they always say 'It was taken out of context' when forced to explain about their comment
[quote][p][bold]anubis[/bold] wrote: On 13th March 2014, less than four months ago, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said people must be "allowed to speak freely" ... even if their views were offensive; he added, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having". His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons relating to 'improving the representation of minorities in legal and other professions'. THe councillor clearly is being cited out of his broader context, but that is totally irrelevant -- his only 'offence', to my mind, is his subsequent 'apology'. I write as a one-time 'serving soldier' -- not that that is relevant either; a soldier's job is to 'kill the enemy' -- and NOT to 'question why'!! Like it or not, the 'job description' is bang on![/p][/quote]Why is it when some idiot opens his mouth and sticks his foot right in it they always say 'It was taken out of context' when forced to explain about their comment Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 14

4:48pm Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

"Why is it when some idiot opens his mouth and sticks his foot right in it they always say 'It was taken out of context' when forced to explain about their comment"

Er......Duncan hasn't claimed his remark was taken out of context.

The other poster was merely pointing out what the Supreme Court had said about the right to expression being worthless if no-one can give offence, and that Duncan was being 'cited', not 'quoted'.
"Why is it when some idiot opens his mouth and sticks his foot right in it they always say 'It was taken out of context' when forced to explain about their comment" Er......Duncan hasn't claimed his remark was taken out of context. The other poster was merely pointing out what the Supreme Court had said about the right to expression being worthless if no-one can give offence, and that Duncan was being 'cited', not 'quoted'. stevo!!
  • Score: -6

5:06pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fredaj says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed.

I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.
Well, since you ask, Cllr Duncan could be investigated under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. These provisions refer to communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, as laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to social media usage.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the communication was (i) grossly offensive and (ii) false, and if the Police receive complaints, I would suggest they are duty-bound to investigate.
What he actually said wasn't even close to "grossly offence". nasty and disagreeable to many people, but not "grossly offensive". The problem is that he used a totally inappropriate platform to express this view, bringing the council into disrepute.

Shutting down internet discussion and the expression of opinion with yells of "grossly offensive" is what I "grossly offensive" and if any one reports this to police they should be thoroughly ashamed. What a stupid waste of police resources!

We have free speech in this country and the misuse of these law because someone says something disagreeable is what should be prosecutable!
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed. I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.[/p][/quote]Well, since you ask, Cllr Duncan could be investigated under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. These provisions refer to communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, as laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to social media usage. There is no doubt whatsoever that the communication was (i) grossly offensive and (ii) false, and if the Police receive complaints, I would suggest they are duty-bound to investigate.[/p][/quote]What he actually said wasn't even close to "grossly offence". nasty and disagreeable to many people, but not "grossly offensive". The problem is that he used a totally inappropriate platform to express this view, bringing the council into disrepute. Shutting down internet discussion and the expression of opinion with yells of "grossly offensive" is what I "grossly offensive" and if any one reports this to police they should be thoroughly ashamed. What a stupid waste of police resources! We have free speech in this country and the misuse of these law because someone says something disagreeable is what should be prosecutable! fredaj
  • Score: 4

5:07pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fredaj says...

wexler53 wrote:
Twerp...
Says it all.
[quote][p][bold]wexler53[/bold] wrote: Twerp...[/p][/quote]Says it all. fredaj
  • Score: 7

5:11pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fredaj says...

stevo!! wrote:
fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed.

I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.
You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.
In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue?
Because what he said is only a problem because he is a councillor.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed. I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.[/p][/quote]You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.[/p][/quote]In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue?[/p][/quote]Because what he said is only a problem because he is a councillor. fredaj
  • Score: 3

5:12pm Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

"Well, since you ask, Cllr Duncan could be investigated under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. These provisions refer to communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, as laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to social media usage."

What utter rubbish!

He referred to soldiers as 'hired killers'.

Let's see anyone explain how that comment falls under any of those descriptions.....I could do with a good laugh.
"Well, since you ask, Cllr Duncan could be investigated under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. These provisions refer to communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, as laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to social media usage." What utter rubbish! He referred to soldiers as 'hired killers'. Let's see anyone explain how that comment falls under any of those descriptions.....I could do with a good laugh. stevo!!
  • Score: -9

5:13pm Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed.

I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.
You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.
In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue?
Because what he said is only a problem because he is a councillor.
So he's always in the work-place?

I agree that some councillors are most effective when in their bathroom, but get a grip.....
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed. I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.[/p][/quote]You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.[/p][/quote]In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue?[/p][/quote]Because what he said is only a problem because he is a councillor.[/p][/quote]So he's always in the work-place? I agree that some councillors are most effective when in their bathroom, but get a grip..... stevo!!
  • Score: 1

5:14pm Wed 2 Jul 14

NathanAdler says...

So this piece of toxic fecal matter who clearly HATES Britain and all what we stand for hasn't even got the dignity to resign?

He initially harped on about what he was going to say to his boy, yet I should think dignity and respect is a good starter.

What will your boy think of you later on in life when he realizes (like the vast majority of the country) that you are a spineless, hateful scumbag?

Just resign Duncan and leave with whatever foul values you have.

What a Councillor
What a dad
What a guy!!!
So this piece of toxic fecal matter who clearly HATES Britain and all what we stand for hasn't even got the dignity to resign? He initially harped on about what he was going to say to his boy, yet I should think dignity and respect is a good starter. What will your boy think of you later on in life when he realizes (like the vast majority of the country) that you are a spineless, hateful scumbag? Just resign Duncan and leave with whatever foul values you have. What a Councillor What a dad What a guy!!! NathanAdler
  • Score: 16

5:35pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Fozborn says...

Is anybody surprised that a Marxist Anarchist and wannabe revolutionary like Benjamin Duncan has anti army views like this? Granted he has not used his loaf by tweeting them but surely it is better that his views are out in the open for the voters to see?
At the last election the electorate sleep walked into having a Green council. A relatively low turnout and a number of close run wards resulted in the Greens forming the largest party on the council despite only about 1 in 7 people in this city voting for them. General dissatisfaction with the main political parties played a major part in this. Next time around we will have no excuse as more people will have a proper understanding of what people like Mr Duncan stand for and can make a more informed judgement.
I'd rather know what his views are than have them media managed and kept under a thin veneer of respectability. His apology was not heartfelt and it never could be when he was ordered to do so by Caroline Lucas. One look at his twitter account tells you what his real views are.
Is anybody surprised that a Marxist Anarchist and wannabe revolutionary like Benjamin Duncan has anti army views like this? Granted he has not used his loaf by tweeting them but surely it is better that his views are out in the open for the voters to see? At the last election the electorate sleep walked into having a Green council. A relatively low turnout and a number of close run wards resulted in the Greens forming the largest party on the council despite only about 1 in 7 people in this city voting for them. General dissatisfaction with the main political parties played a major part in this. Next time around we will have no excuse as more people will have a proper understanding of what people like Mr Duncan stand for and can make a more informed judgement. I'd rather know what his views are than have them media managed and kept under a thin veneer of respectability. His apology was not heartfelt and it never could be when he was ordered to do so by Caroline Lucas. One look at his twitter account tells you what his real views are. Fozborn
  • Score: 9

5:43pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

stevo!! wrote:
"Why is it when some idiot opens his mouth and sticks his foot right in it they always say 'It was taken out of context' when forced to explain about their comment"

Er......Duncan hasn't claimed his remark was taken out of context.

The other poster was merely pointing out what the Supreme Court had said about the right to expression being worthless if no-one can give offence, and that Duncan was being 'cited', not 'quoted'.
Yes he has.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: "Why is it when some idiot opens his mouth and sticks his foot right in it they always say 'It was taken out of context' when forced to explain about their comment" Er......Duncan hasn't claimed his remark was taken out of context. The other poster was merely pointing out what the Supreme Court had said about the right to expression being worthless if no-one can give offence, and that Duncan was being 'cited', not 'quoted'.[/p][/quote]Yes he has. Fight_Back
  • Score: 4

5:56pm Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Fight_Back wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
"Why is it when some idiot opens his mouth and sticks his foot right in it they always say 'It was taken out of context' when forced to explain about their comment"

Er......Duncan hasn't claimed his remark was taken out of context.

The other poster was merely pointing out what the Supreme Court had said about the right to expression being worthless if no-one can give offence, and that Duncan was being 'cited', not 'quoted'.
Yes he has.
Fair enough.....I was unaware of that.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: "Why is it when some idiot opens his mouth and sticks his foot right in it they always say 'It was taken out of context' when forced to explain about their comment" Er......Duncan hasn't claimed his remark was taken out of context. The other poster was merely pointing out what the Supreme Court had said about the right to expression being worthless if no-one can give offence, and that Duncan was being 'cited', not 'quoted'.[/p][/quote]Yes he has.[/p][/quote]Fair enough.....I was unaware of that. stevo!!
  • Score: 3

6:00pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fredflintstone1 says...

stevo!! wrote:
"Well, since you ask, Cllr Duncan could be investigated under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. These provisions refer to communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, as laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to social media usage."

What utter rubbish!

He referred to soldiers as 'hired killers'.

Let's see anyone explain how that comment falls under any of those descriptions.....I could do with a good laugh.
You asked for the legal position with regard to social media. That's it.

Sorry you didn't appreciate the information.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: "Well, since you ask, Cllr Duncan could be investigated under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. These provisions refer to communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, as laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to social media usage." What utter rubbish! He referred to soldiers as 'hired killers'. Let's see anyone explain how that comment falls under any of those descriptions.....I could do with a good laugh.[/p][/quote]You asked for the legal position with regard to social media. That's it. Sorry you didn't appreciate the information. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 3

6:04pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fredaj says...

stevo!! wrote:
fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed.

I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.
You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.
In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue?
Because what he said is only a problem because he is a councillor.
So he's always in the work-place?

I agree that some councillors are most effective when in their bathroom, but get a grip.....
He has a public office, so to a greater extent - yes, when he talks publicly, he is in the "workplace",

And he did talk publicly.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed. I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.[/p][/quote]You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.[/p][/quote]In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue?[/p][/quote]Because what he said is only a problem because he is a councillor.[/p][/quote]So he's always in the work-place? I agree that some councillors are most effective when in their bathroom, but get a grip.....[/p][/quote]He has a public office, so to a greater extent - yes, when he talks publicly, he is in the "workplace", And he did talk publicly. fredaj
  • Score: 3

6:16pm Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed.

I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.
You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.
In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue?
Because what he said is only a problem because he is a councillor.
So he's always in the work-place?

I agree that some councillors are most effective when in their bathroom, but get a grip.....
He has a public office, so to a greater extent - yes, when he talks publicly, he is in the "workplace",

And he did talk publicly.
Stupid Comment Of The Day from Freda.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed. I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.[/p][/quote]You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.[/p][/quote]In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue?[/p][/quote]Because what he said is only a problem because he is a councillor.[/p][/quote]So he's always in the work-place? I agree that some councillors are most effective when in their bathroom, but get a grip.....[/p][/quote]He has a public office, so to a greater extent - yes, when he talks publicly, he is in the "workplace", And he did talk publicly.[/p][/quote]Stupid Comment Of The Day from Freda. stevo!!
  • Score: -4

6:18pm Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
"Well, since you ask, Cllr Duncan could be investigated under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. These provisions refer to communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, as laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to social media usage."

What utter rubbish!

He referred to soldiers as 'hired killers'.

Let's see anyone explain how that comment falls under any of those descriptions.....I could do with a good laugh.
You asked for the legal position with regard to social media. That's it.

Sorry you didn't appreciate the information.
No, I asked what offence he had committed.

I greatly appreciated the information provided, because it showed that he hadn't committed one.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: "Well, since you ask, Cllr Duncan could be investigated under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. These provisions refer to communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, as laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to social media usage." What utter rubbish! He referred to soldiers as 'hired killers'. Let's see anyone explain how that comment falls under any of those descriptions.....I could do with a good laugh.[/p][/quote]You asked for the legal position with regard to social media. That's it. Sorry you didn't appreciate the information.[/p][/quote]No, I asked what offence he had committed. I greatly appreciated the information provided, because it showed that he hadn't committed one. stevo!!
  • Score: -4

6:59pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Worriedofbrighton says...

Just goes to show what a complete shambles the Green Party is. They employed this idiot our baby boys and girls are laying down there life's for our safety and you get some pillock like Duncan coming out with this sort of cr@p. They should all go. Lucas is just jumping on the band wagon, slagging him off. Nothing from Kitkat I notice, or HJarrs or eugenious. They should all be ashamed. Scum the lot of them.
Just goes to show what a complete shambles the Green Party is. They employed this idiot our baby boys and girls are laying down there life's for our safety and you get some pillock like Duncan coming out with this sort of cr@p. They should all go. Lucas is just jumping on the band wagon, slagging him off. Nothing from Kitkat I notice, or HJarrs or eugenious. They should all be ashamed. Scum the lot of them. Worriedofbrighton
  • Score: 10

7:26pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

Worriedofbrighton wrote:
Just goes to show what a complete shambles the Green Party is. They employed this idiot our baby boys and girls are laying down there life's for our safety and you get some pillock like Duncan coming out with this sort of cr@p. They should all go. Lucas is just jumping on the band wagon, slagging him off. Nothing from Kitkat I notice, or HJarrs or eugenious. They should all be ashamed. Scum the lot of them.
Surely you've noticed our latest green slime recruit Steve O on here doing his/her/its best to muddy the waters. This is probably the username of a committee of Lucas, Jarrs, Eugenius and Kitcat
[quote][p][bold]Worriedofbrighton[/bold] wrote: Just goes to show what a complete shambles the Green Party is. They employed this idiot our baby boys and girls are laying down there life's for our safety and you get some pillock like Duncan coming out with this sort of cr@p. They should all go. Lucas is just jumping on the band wagon, slagging him off. Nothing from Kitkat I notice, or HJarrs or eugenious. They should all be ashamed. Scum the lot of them.[/p][/quote]Surely you've noticed our latest green slime recruit Steve O on here doing his/her/its best to muddy the waters. This is probably the username of a committee of Lucas, Jarrs, Eugenius and Kitcat Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 5

7:28pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fredaj says...

stevo!! wrote:
fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
fredaj wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed.

I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.
You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.
In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue?
Because what he said is only a problem because he is a councillor.
So he's always in the work-place?

I agree that some councillors are most effective when in their bathroom, but get a grip.....
He has a public office, so to a greater extent - yes, when he talks publicly, he is in the "workplace",

And he did talk publicly.
Stupid Comment Of The Day from Freda.
You are entitled to your opinion......
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: At least 14 people think I'm wrong in stating that no offence has been committed. I look forward to any of them explaining what offence they believe the police should be investigating, and I shall take their impending silence as an acceptance of the fact that he hasn't committed one.[/p][/quote]You seem confused - this is a workplace related issue and is not about where or not a law has been broken.[/p][/quote]In what way is this a 'workplace-related' issue?[/p][/quote]Because what he said is only a problem because he is a councillor.[/p][/quote]So he's always in the work-place? I agree that some councillors are most effective when in their bathroom, but get a grip.....[/p][/quote]He has a public office, so to a greater extent - yes, when he talks publicly, he is in the "workplace", And he did talk publicly.[/p][/quote]Stupid Comment Of The Day from Freda.[/p][/quote]You are entitled to your opinion...... fredaj
  • Score: 2

7:30pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fredaj says...

Idontbelieveit1948 wrote:
Worriedofbrighton wrote:
Just goes to show what a complete shambles the Green Party is. They employed this idiot our baby boys and girls are laying down there life's for our safety and you get some pillock like Duncan coming out with this sort of cr@p. They should all go. Lucas is just jumping on the band wagon, slagging him off. Nothing from Kitkat I notice, or HJarrs or eugenious. They should all be ashamed. Scum the lot of them.
Surely you've noticed our latest green slime recruit Steve O on here doing his/her/its best to muddy the waters. This is probably the username of a committee of Lucas, Jarrs, Eugenius and Kitcat
I don't he's a greenie, he just a good old fashioned troll, enjoying stirring up the discussion.

It's been useful.
[quote][p][bold]Idontbelieveit1948[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worriedofbrighton[/bold] wrote: Just goes to show what a complete shambles the Green Party is. They employed this idiot our baby boys and girls are laying down there life's for our safety and you get some pillock like Duncan coming out with this sort of cr@p. They should all go. Lucas is just jumping on the band wagon, slagging him off. Nothing from Kitkat I notice, or HJarrs or eugenious. They should all be ashamed. Scum the lot of them.[/p][/quote]Surely you've noticed our latest green slime recruit Steve O on here doing his/her/its best to muddy the waters. This is probably the username of a committee of Lucas, Jarrs, Eugenius and Kitcat[/p][/quote]I don't he's a greenie, he just a good old fashioned troll, enjoying stirring up the discussion. It's been useful. fredaj
  • Score: 4

7:42pm Wed 2 Jul 14

BlackRocker says...

albionfan33 wrote:
lets hope the take further procedings out on his smug grin too!!!!!!
If ever there was a face you would want to slap, this is it!
[quote][p][bold]albionfan33[/bold] wrote: lets hope the take further procedings out on his smug grin too!!!!!![/p][/quote]If ever there was a face you would want to slap, this is it! BlackRocker
  • Score: 3

7:54pm Wed 2 Jul 14

NickBrt says...

On November 5 this year can we put Mr smug's face on our guys?
On November 5 this year can we put Mr smug's face on our guys? NickBrt
  • Score: 4

8:07pm Wed 2 Jul 14

SexualHarassmentPanda says...

I don't give a monkey's about this man but I think we're losing sight of the fact that freedom of speech is historically something British soldiers have fought to defend.

Something the self-righteous ARE BRAVE BOYS brigade would do well to remember.
I don't give a monkey's about this man but I think we're losing sight of the fact that freedom of speech is historically something British soldiers have fought to defend. Something the self-righteous ARE BRAVE BOYS brigade would do well to remember. SexualHarassmentPanda
  • Score: 1

8:41pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Worriedofbrighton says...

SexualHarassmentPand
a
wrote:
I don't give a monkey's about this man but I think we're losing sight of the fact that freedom of speech is historically something British soldiers have fought to defend.

Something the self-righteous ARE BRAVE BOYS brigade would do well to remember.
Freedom of speech is one thing but this halfwit is somebody who got voted in by god nose who and should keep his stupid opinions to his idiot self.
[quote][p][bold]SexualHarassmentPand a[/bold] wrote: I don't give a monkey's about this man but I think we're losing sight of the fact that freedom of speech is historically something British soldiers have fought to defend. Something the self-righteous ARE BRAVE BOYS brigade would do well to remember.[/p][/quote]Freedom of speech is one thing but this halfwit is somebody who got voted in by god nose who and should keep his stupid opinions to his idiot self. Worriedofbrighton
  • Score: 2

9:16pm Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

SexualHarassmentPand
a
wrote:
I don't give a monkey's about this man but I think we're losing sight of the fact that freedom of speech is historically something British soldiers have fought to defend.

Something the self-righteous ARE BRAVE BOYS brigade would do well to remember.
I agree.

I have the freedom to state that I loathe everything that Duncan stands for, that his comment about our troops was disgusting, but that he has a perfect right to express that view and not be punished for doing so.
[quote][p][bold]SexualHarassmentPand a[/bold] wrote: I don't give a monkey's about this man but I think we're losing sight of the fact that freedom of speech is historically something British soldiers have fought to defend. Something the self-righteous ARE BRAVE BOYS brigade would do well to remember.[/p][/quote]I agree. I have the freedom to state that I loathe everything that Duncan stands for, that his comment about our troops was disgusting, but that he has a perfect right to express that view and not be punished for doing so. stevo!!
  • Score: 8

9:26pm Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Worriedofbrighton wrote:
SexualHarassmentPand

a
wrote:
I don't give a monkey's about this man but I think we're losing sight of the fact that freedom of speech is historically something British soldiers have fought to defend.

Something the self-righteous ARE BRAVE BOYS brigade would do well to remember.
Freedom of speech is one thing but this halfwit is somebody who got voted in by god nose who and should keep his stupid opinions to his idiot self.
So has or hasn't he got freedom of speech?

He said nothing illegal, and some people will certainly agree with his description. Perhaps, being Greens, that is why he was voted for - that Party hates our Armed Forces, and not just for the large carbon footprint they produce.
[quote][p][bold]Worriedofbrighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SexualHarassmentPand a[/bold] wrote: I don't give a monkey's about this man but I think we're losing sight of the fact that freedom of speech is historically something British soldiers have fought to defend. Something the self-righteous ARE BRAVE BOYS brigade would do well to remember.[/p][/quote]Freedom of speech is one thing but this halfwit is somebody who got voted in by god nose who and should keep his stupid opinions to his idiot self.[/p][/quote]So has or hasn't he got freedom of speech? He said nothing illegal, and some people will certainly agree with his description. Perhaps, being Greens, that is why he was voted for - that Party hates our Armed Forces, and not just for the large carbon footprint they produce. stevo!!
  • Score: 2

10:23pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Martha Gunn says...

i remain astonished that his opinions about the Koran and stoning people to death remain largely without reaction and condemnation.

Here is a perfect example of how the idiocy and dogma of the Green libertarian left gets transformed into the eco-fascism of the right at the drop of a hat.

Why has he continued to play a prominent at the heart of Caroline's council for so long?
How can he continue to be employed by the Green Party Brussels gravy train?

This man is mired in the filthiest of opinions and seeems to have no control over his behaviour.

How can he possibly continue in office?
i remain astonished that his opinions about the Koran and stoning people to death remain largely without reaction and condemnation. Here is a perfect example of how the idiocy and dogma of the Green libertarian left gets transformed into the eco-fascism of the right at the drop of a hat. Why has he continued to play a prominent at the heart of Caroline's council for so long? How can he continue to be employed by the Green Party Brussels gravy train? This man is mired in the filthiest of opinions and seeems to have no control over his behaviour. How can he possibly continue in office? Martha Gunn
  • Score: 7

10:25pm Wed 2 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
i remain astonished that his opinions about the Koran and stoning people to death remain largely without reaction and condemnation.

Here is a perfect example of how the idiocy and dogma of the Green libertarian left gets transformed into the eco-fascism of the right at the drop of a hat.

Why has he continued to play a prominent at the heart of Caroline's council for so long?
How can he continue to be employed by the Green Party Brussels gravy train?

This man is mired in the filthiest of opinions and seeems to have no control over his behaviour.

How can he possibly continue in office?
I've tried to find out what he said on the matter....do you have a link?
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: i remain astonished that his opinions about the Koran and stoning people to death remain largely without reaction and condemnation. Here is a perfect example of how the idiocy and dogma of the Green libertarian left gets transformed into the eco-fascism of the right at the drop of a hat. Why has he continued to play a prominent at the heart of Caroline's council for so long? How can he continue to be employed by the Green Party Brussels gravy train? This man is mired in the filthiest of opinions and seeems to have no control over his behaviour. How can he possibly continue in office?[/p][/quote]I've tried to find out what he said on the matter....do you have a link? stevo!!
  • Score: 2

11:13pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Martha Gunn says...

As requested


https://pbs.twimg.co
m/media/BrdWgONIcAAQ
TCK.jpg
As requested https://pbs.twimg.co m/media/BrdWgONIcAAQ TCK.jpg Martha Gunn
  • Score: 2

11:33pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Martha Gunn says...

I do not use what I am told is called 'social media' but I am informed by my friends who do that the Vegan Duncan is fast disappearing from the scene without any explanation.
His presence is shrinking by the minute.

Could this be the beginning of the end?

Let us all hope and pray for a swift departure for this loathsome creature.
I do not use what I am told is called 'social media' but I am informed by my friends who do that the Vegan Duncan is fast disappearing from the scene without any explanation. His presence is shrinking by the minute. Could this be the beginning of the end? Let us all hope and pray for a swift departure for this loathsome creature. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 6

12:18am Thu 3 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
As requested


https://pbs.twimg.co

m/media/BrdWgONIcAAQ

TCK.jpg
Thanks.

He made a pertinent comment about those who revere the Koran. Those barbarians will kill anyone who 'offends' their religion, as if that were possible.
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: As requested https://pbs.twimg.co m/media/BrdWgONIcAAQ TCK.jpg[/p][/quote]Thanks. He made a pertinent comment about those who revere the Koran. Those barbarians will kill anyone who 'offends' their religion, as if that were possible. stevo!!
  • Score: 2

7:36am Thu 3 Jul 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

He also Tweeted that a particular faith school in the city, a Christian school, was a cult.
I was astonished that the party and Caroline Lucas didn't take action at that time because there is no place for bigotry and stirring up religious hatred.
Surely this was a criminal offence?
He also Tweeted that a particular faith school in the city, a Christian school, was a cult. I was astonished that the party and Caroline Lucas didn't take action at that time because there is no place for bigotry and stirring up religious hatred. Surely this was a criminal offence? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 2

9:24am Thu 3 Jul 14

matlock says...

I still don't see what all the fuss is about.

A man expressed an opinion that some do not agree with. So what?

If you do not agree what he said, why not express a counter-argument instead of hysterically screaming that he should be gagged.

Personally, I find many of the commentators' reactions on here offensive and bigoted, but I would be terrified if, through legislation or otherwise, they were not able to freely express their opinion.
I still don't see what all the fuss is about. A man expressed an opinion that some do not agree with. So what? If you do not agree what he said, why not express a counter-argument instead of hysterically screaming that he should be gagged. Personally, I find many of the commentators' reactions on here offensive and bigoted, but I would be terrified if, through legislation or otherwise, they were not able to freely express their opinion. matlock
  • Score: 4

9:55am Thu 3 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
He also Tweeted that a particular faith school in the city, a Christian school, was a cult.
I was astonished that the party and Caroline Lucas didn't take action at that time because there is no place for bigotry and stirring up religious hatred.
Surely this was a criminal offence?
Isn't he allowed to say that he finds Christianity a 'cult'?

I'm Christian, and it had no effect on how I view my faith.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: He also Tweeted that a particular faith school in the city, a Christian school, was a cult. I was astonished that the party and Caroline Lucas didn't take action at that time because there is no place for bigotry and stirring up religious hatred. Surely this was a criminal offence?[/p][/quote]Isn't he allowed to say that he finds Christianity a 'cult'? I'm Christian, and it had no effect on how I view my faith. stevo!!
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree