Trevor Sinclair

The same people who whine about leftie wokery and cancel culture are now trying to cancel Trevor Sinclair.

What fun. We'll soon cancel each other out.

Sinclair claimed the Queen has allowed racism to 'thrive' in England since the 1960s


Simon Jordan hit out at Sinclair for his comments about the Queen following her death

Ex-England footballer Trevor Sinclair DELETES his tweet saying 'black and brown' people should not mourn the Queen - and his Twitter account - as radio station talkSPORT face calls to sack him after he went AWOL

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11196401/Trevor-Sinclair-deletes-tweet-TalkSPORT-sack.html

Ill judged, and ill timed remarks, but he has a right to his opinion.

As does J K Rowling, another name on the list.

It needs to stop. On all sides. Surely we can agree to disagree? Maybe not.

boltonbonce wrote:Ill judged, and ill timed remarks, but he has a right to his opinion.

As does J K Rowling, another name on the list.

It needs to stop. On all sides. Surely we can agree to disagree? Maybe not.

I think there's a big difference here, Sinclair was clearly implying the constitutional head of the country had fostered/accepted/tolerated/maybe even actively encouraged the UK and all its public offices including Parliament, the police, judiciary and society as a whole to be racist for the last 62 years!!!

Racism exists, of course it does, look at the abuse the black players received from the Neanderthals on social media after the Euro penalty shoot-out - but to imply the head of state was somehow implicit in this and welcomed such is as reasoned and thought through as Wanderlust oft stated hatred of everything the Tory Party does.

It is one thing to hold an opinion - no matter how wrong and bizarre it may be - but quite another to aim to be divisive and to incite others to hatred by expressing them.

As for Rowling I don't follow her but isn't her issue that trans women should not be allowed in safe places for women born as women and who have been abused by men?

If so I agree with her.

Don't you?

Doesn't matter if I do or I don't. She has a right to hold that opinion, and express it freely.

We all should have that right. Even racists.

'The right to free speech is more important than the content of the speech'.

                                                                                    Voltaire.

boltonbonce wrote:Doesn't matter if I do or I don't. She has a right to hold that opinion, and express it freely.

We all should have that right. Even racists.

'The right to free speech is more important than the content of the speech'.

                                                                                    Voltaire.

That's idealistic but simply isn't true - there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[3]

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".[4]

The idea of the "offense principle" is also used to justify speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

I disagree. But I won't bore the arse off everyone on here by continuing to argue about it.

Anyway, I don't trust Wiki.

boltonbonce wrote:I disagree. But I won't bore the arse off everyone on here by continuing to argue about it.

Anyway, I don't trust Wiki.

See how easy it is not to argue. 

I was actually more offended when Sinclair urinated in a police car.

boltonbonce wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:I disagree. But I won't bore the arse off everyone on here by continuing to argue about it.

Anyway, I don't trust Wiki.

See how easy it is not to argue. 

You haven't been totally fixated with me and abusing/taking the piss/winding me up/seeking a reaction from me daily (several times a day at times!) so I haven't had to fire back by posting some of the more stupid things you have said on here in the past, therefore it is easy to ignore you rather than trying to STOP someone from constantly being obsessed and on a mission against me for well over four years now..!

Cajunboy wrote:

I agree Cajun. I agree,

I'm going for a lie down now.