to want HATE campaigns against foreigners in the popular Press to stop...

Oh! I've just seen the giant gavel in his other hand - the man's armed to the teeth (which we can't see because he's got that fixed grimace on his face...)

I've just read that the CO OP is going to review where it advertises.

Candlegran of course not - but he could be tempted to read the Daily Mail.

Lego needs to come down from the moral high ground and look at how its warlike toys are influencing young minds.

But that would mean less profit .....

Minecraft is OK I think Candlegran if you want to buy Lego, that's what I bought for DGS

However, due to the dual standards Lego appear to be operating I may have to review my purchasing power this Christmas.

That is in no way a defence of any headlines in the DM which I did not see anyway.
Or of anyone who uses a mobile phone when driving.

Haven't you read the Lego statement about their toys jalima?

POGS Sun 13-Nov-16 01:41:59
What I said was "you appear to me to be racist. That is the impression I get from your views on a number of threads over the years. That is a totally different remark from accusing you of being a racist about which I have no evidence.

Tegan has had the same response.
"less intelligent people might actually believe those lies and use them to reinforce their racist views"

Tegan has made no accusations what so ever. "That POGS or anyone else is less intelligent."

People should read exactly what has been said.

This is why police, Solicitors. Newspapers etc should have to be so very careful how they say things so they are not wrongly accused and sued for defamation.

As well as the issue of free speech. We have laws to prevent people inciting hatred etc. Not to stop free speech but to try and keep our society a happier and safe place.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

And be thankful for them.

Free speech? A free press?

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/secret-dwp-documents-prove-they-silenced-the-media-from-running-stories-they-didnt-approve-of-evolve-politics/

Nelliemoser Why, when you deleted your other post to POGS claiming that she is a racist , do you now come back with this rubbish?
Anybody who says 'you appear to me to be racist' IS saying that, so no wriggling out of it.Disgraceful of you, as POGS has never shown even a hint of racism in her views in many threads over the years.

You've got an amazing memory, roses.

Ironic that you NellieMoser are up in arms about inciting hatred!

Yes, djen I really do have, especially for spotting lies and bullshit.
POGS and Elegran and thatbags and a few others always post intelligent, calm and reasoned debates on here, so I follow them with interest.

Are you a barrister nelliemoser?
Trying to draw a fine line between calling someone a racist and saying that they appear to you to be a racist deceives no-one in its intent.

I still believe that Lego is hypocritical in its very public disassociation with the DM - trying to say that little boys are aggressive anyway is pandering to and cynically making money from this supposed trait - which surely should be discouraged not nurtured in case it is perpetuated in the playround.

I am astonished that posters one would assume would be against encouraging hatred in children seem to be condoning it and cannot see the double standards operating here.
Apart from one poster who says she refuses to buy warlike toys.

I was shocked when I saw the Lego weapons and people with angry snarly faces. My GS engages them in mock fights so I accidentally 'lost' the weapons at my house. We've never bought him guns, but he sometimes picks up a stick and uses it as a gun.

My fear is that children/adults too, may become insensitised to what guns can really do. In a game they just get up and carry on playing and 'dead' doesn't means that their lives are ended.

In short, I agree that Lego are duplicitous; saying one thing and doing something else.

'Trying to draw a fine line between calling someone a racist and saying that they appear to you to be a racist deceives no-one in its intent'...if so why is it ok then for newspapers to print lies with racist implications? Why are you all so happy to defend such things because it's 'free speech' and yet turn on someone for giving their opinion on a forum?

I think you'll find, jalima, that POGS and bags are pastmasters at drawing fine lines between what they say they mean and what some of us think they mean.

Pot, kettle, black, durhamjen! That is quite breathtaking hypocrisy!

One thing I am not is hypocritical, Ceesnan. I say it how I see it. I don't pretend to have beliefs I do not espouse.
I don't say one thing and then pretend I meant something different. I don't attack a person, then say I didn't mean you, I meant the idea you're talking about.
Just because you do not agree with me does not make me a hypocrite. Although, actually, you haven't said you do not agree with me, have you?

Let's make it quite clear then....no, I don't agree with you, and I happen to think that criticising people for doing something that you have done in the past is the height of hypocrisy. I have to go out now, but will try and get back to this later.

Good, because you really need to give examples, so I can use POGS and bags methods of explaining them.

Some posters (OK, mostly you, durhamjen, but occasionally others) seem able to take a meaning out of a post which has nothing to do with what was posted, and has more to do with accusing someone of some irrelevant antisocial attitude. Having read "X" the response is "So you are saying Y?" where Y = a completely different and controversial statement.

It has happened to me in the past, and is why I no longer debate ANYTHING on political threads.

So in that respect "POGS and bags are pastmasters at drawing fine lines between what they . . . . mean and what some of us think they mean." is perfectly true. Bags in particular is very good at drawing logical distinctions which appear to be confusing for some readers. A mathematical training is a good basis for logical debate.

Elegran if I say "So you are saying Y?" I am asking them to say if they mean what I think they mean. Why is that controversial? All they have to do is explain what they mean.
Simple, really.

By the way, I think this thread is quite political.

No, you are indicating that you are assuming that they mean what you would like them to have meant, despite them having already explained it.

And DJ you have the habit of picking out one tiny bit of a post and harking on about that, while ignoring the certain premise of a post. In logic an argument requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or propositions) known as the premises along with another declarative sentence known as the conclusion.

This structure forms the basic argumentative structure. This is the basis of logical arguement which bags and POGS and others employ - but you don't

No. I am asking them what they really mean.
I am trying to be logical here as most people understand it, in the linguistic sense, not the mathematical, but you have decided that I am not.
That's your problem.