Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

I thought that you always DID say what you liked djen ( don't recall you ever holding back)

The trouble with free speech (as some see it) is that it doesn't match with their own world views.We ( as a society) have to allow ALL their views to be expressed, so long as they are not criminal.

Yup - freedom of speech does not mean that newspapers or politicians should abandon the responsibilities that come with freedoms.
Farage is trying to influence the decision of the supreme court by organising a demonstration.
Was just listening to Obama's speech today. Wish our PM could take a leaf out of his book and act like a decent leader with the whole country's welfare at heart.

Give her a chance, Jess! She was landed with rather a poisoned chalice right from the start...

durhamjen

You are too astute to not have information to state ' the judges have gone into hiding ' please can you inform us where that information has been reported.

One wonders if anyone is trying to nobble the supreme judges.

Hmm...can't find anything about the Judges having 'gone into hiding'. Come on durhamjen, you're usually so keen to share your sources of information.

Other people try to influence various political and judicial decisions through demonstrations, jess. Isn't it called activism or something? Why should it be a different rule for Farage from what it is for everyone else? So long as demonstraters don't break the law, what's the problem? It seems to be that some people simply don't understand what free speech and freedom of expression mean. It means people can express and take peaceful action about opinions that others find revolting.

Judges certainly shouldn't have to go into hiding. Neither should anyone else.

Theresa May probably believes in freedom of expression as well as an independent judiciary. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I think she has shown quite a lot of guts so far.

^ It means people can express and take peaceful action about opinions that others find revolting.^

Does that cover tolerance of paedophilia and racism?

I'm not sure what you're getting defensive about, thatbags. I have no problem at all with Farage's demonstration.His misguided followers can have as nuch fun as they like shouting and chanting outside the Supreme Court so long as they don't break the law of the land. It won't bother or influence the Judges in the slightest as they have only to interpret the law, not make political decisions.

Demonstrations are far more useful when the demonstrators are making a political point. Like objecting to fracking, or a runway or an illegal war.

Paedophilia is against the law, so no. Daft suggestion. Actual racism ditto.

I will continue to speak up for freedom of speech when I think others are knocking it. I think it matters. A lot. I'm defending it here because some comments suggest to me that it needs defending here.

If a writer in the Daily Mail, or anywhere else, thinks a group of judges are enemies of the people, why shouldn't they say so? Whether the opinion is correct or crazy is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to express it. That's what some people don't seem to understand. It's an opinion. Paedophilia and racism are more than mere opinions.

I wouldn't like it, I'd argue against views expressed in favour of paedophilia and racism. But people do have a right to express such views. What they don't have is a right to engage in either of them.

I'm not sure we disagree about anything I've said, maizied.

I don't see anything 'defensive' in thatbags post.

Some perfectly rational points were made.

My point being that she didn't actually need to make them. No-one is saying that Farage can't have his demonstration. We don't need lecturing on freedom of speech. We've all grown up with it.

So why bother unless she thinks something need defending against other posters?

'My point being that she didn't actually need to make them.

' We don't need lecturing on freedom of speech.'

' So why bother unless she thinks something need defending against other posters?'

That's nice!

I know that bags can easily speak for herself but I think your posts make the point that bags was making perfectly. Especially this one:-

"It seems to be that some people simply don't understand what free speech and freedom of expression means".

Could you please explain for me POGS just where on this thread I have said anything against free speech?

OK.
thatbags seemed to think that 'some people' didn't understand what free speech is. Who doesn't understand?

Some people only smile on free speech if it accords with their own world views!

roses
You are, of course, entirely free to make cryptic comments but who are these 'some people' ?

Some people not all people I presume

Perhaps naming them might be beyond the freedom of speech allowed.

Some people only smile on free speech if it accords with their own world views
It sounded quite philosophical to me

Is it a well-known saying - who said it first?
Plato?
The Dalai Lama?
rosesarered?

Elizabeth Truss, the Lord Chancellor, agrees with me. As she puts it so well: "I think it unlikely the the High Court is imperilled by the opinions of any newspaper".

Quite. People who think otherwise need to calm down and stop making slightly hysterical remarks.

LT goes on, in the same letter, to defend the principle of a free press: "I believe in a free press, where newspapers are free to publish, within the law, their views."

And again, quite, spot on and well said.

Haha, it was little old me that said it Jalima and yes, it means SOME people, nothing cryptic about it.

I think demonstrating and trying to influence politicians is fair game. Telling people that judges are the enemies of the people, that they are biased, that their decision to support Parliament rather than the government of the day is somehow undemocratic is sinister rabble rousing.

And calling Obama a "loathsome creature" and making a joke about Trump touching the PM.... who is the loathsome one here?
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-calls-barack-obama-9233130

Errrmmm! I didn't realise that Liz Truss is qualified to make legal decisions. Has she done a fast track law degree over the last few weeks?