Now Trump is targeting the U.K. with tarriffs how should Sir Keir handle a response?

‘Here in lies the rub, it is your opinion, but without free speech and action, she would not have her freedom of speech or action to articulate her opinion.’
That’s categorically not the case though in this instance, is it Namsnanny? Nobody was stopping her waving her banner, but she was doing it in the clinic’s buffer zone, which is against the law because it constitutes harassment.

I think Cossy was just commenting on the limits of free speech - and I understood it OK.
Had the lady stepped back a few yards this would not have been an issue at all. She could have had her free speech.
Straw man post.

I imagine tariffs have been discussed at some length already, its a wait and see.

Doodledog

It’s not remotely an oxymoron to say that in the main we have free speech.

We can say that the government are idiots, that abortion is wrong or that the Earth is flat, but we can’t tell lies about someone’s character or incite people to violence without fear of prosecution.

In the main, the UK is a liberal democracy, but there are laws against defamation and hate speech. I think that’s fair enough, and see no contradiction whatsoever.

and long may that be the case..

pascal30

Doodledog

It’s not remotely an oxymoron to say that in the main we have free speech.

We can say that the government are idiots, that abortion is wrong or that the Earth is flat, but we can’t tell lies about someone’s character or incite people to violence without fear of prosecution.

In the main, the UK is a liberal democracy, but there are laws against defamation and hate speech. I think that’s fair enough, and see no contradiction whatsoever.

and long may that be the case..

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Hmmmm free speech is absolute.

Ring fencing subjects already occurs, and will by stealth eroded our long held laws and traditions of free speech, fair and equal justice under the law ( now compromised as from this April).

Notwithstanding, although it always needs reiterating, threatening or violent behaviour is illegal, and that's where the line should be drawn.

Tariffs are quid pro quo.

Namsnanny

Hmmmm free speech is absolute.

Ring fencing subjects already occurs, and will by stealth eroded our long held laws and traditions of free speech, fair and equal justice under the law ( now compromised as from this April).

Notwithstanding, although it always needs reiterating, threatening or violent behaviour is illegal, and that's where the line should be drawn.

Tariffs are quid pro quo.

I find your post contradictory. If the right to free speech really were absolute, people would be free to incite violence.

"Ring fencing subjects already occurs, and will by stealth eroded our long held laws and traditions of free speech, fair and equal justice under the law ( now compromised as from this April). "

Eh?

If you are referring to this nansnanny - its been quashed.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yg887m6qdo#:~:text=New%20rules%20on%20sentencing%20criminals,two%2Dtier%22%20justice%20system.

growstuff

Namsnanny

Hmmmm free speech is absolute.

Ring fencing subjects already occurs, and will by stealth eroded our long held laws and traditions of free speech, fair and equal justice under the law ( now compromised as from this April).

Notwithstanding, although it always needs reiterating, threatening or violent behaviour is illegal, and that's where the line should be drawn.

Tariffs are quid pro quo.

I find your post contradictory. If the right to free speech really were absolute, people would be free to incite violence.

Exactly.

Threatening or violent behaviour is illegal. That does not compromise free speech - as you say, Namsnanny the line has to be drawn there, which it is.

growstuff

Namsnanny

Hmmmm free speech is absolute.

Ring fencing subjects already occurs, and will by stealth eroded our long held laws and traditions of free speech, fair and equal justice under the law ( now compromised as from this April).

Notwithstanding, although it always needs reiterating, threatening or violent behaviour is illegal, and that's where the line should be drawn.

Tariffs are quid pro quo.

I find your post contradictory. If the right to free speech really were absolute, people would be free to incite violence.

Well you can take that view, but it is so silly

When and why has violence been accepted in society?

Example of curtailing free speech is the recent arrest of parents deriding the circumstances around the poor administrative decisions made by a school, on a whats app group chat.

Slippery slope.

Namsnanny

growstuff

Namsnanny

Hmmmm free speech is absolute.

Ring fencing subjects already occurs, and will by stealth eroded our long held laws and traditions of free speech, fair and equal justice under the law ( now compromised as from this April).

Notwithstanding, although it always needs reiterating, threatening or violent behaviour is illegal, and that's where the line should be drawn.

Tariffs are quid pro quo.

I find your post contradictory. If the right to free speech really were absolute, people would be free to incite violence.

Well you can take that view, but it is so silly

When and why has violence been accepted in society?

Example of curtailing free speech is the recent arrest of parents deriding the circumstances around the poor administrative decisions made by a school, on a whats app group chat.

Slippery slope.

TBH I find your accusation silly!

It's not a view I have, but you don't appear to realise the lack of logic in your claim of absolute free speech. Absolute free speech would mean that absolutely anybody could say absolutely anything they wanted with no regard to the consequences.

"there is no blackmail here, every business has the right to choose who they deal with.
Articulating why they are acting the way they do isn't threatening anyone.

Obama lecturing us on voting the way he wanted or there would be consequences is more representative of blackmail."

Isn't this exactly the same? The US are saying apply your laws the way we want or there will be consequences?

namsnanny,

as ever, you have picked on a tiny bit of what actually had happened and presented it as the whole story (shock, horror blah)

it wasn't just what the couple wrote in the WhatsApp group. They conducted, as well, a long series of *individual threatening and harassing private messages to staff and governors. Including coming into school interrupting the school day instead of arranging times to meet staff until they had to be banned.

"The school said it had “sought advice from police” after a “high volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts” that they claimed had become upsetting for staff, parents and governors."

The school had already

"The school’s governors then reportedly wrote to the parent body about “inflammatory and defamatory” comments on social media, warning that the school would take action against anyone who caused “disharmony”.

the police:

"Hertfordshire constabulary added: “Following reports of harassment and malicious communications, which are criminal offences, a man and a woman from Borehamwood, both aged in their 40s, were arrested on Wednesday 29 January.

Read full report
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/29/parents-arrested-by-hertfordshire-police-for-complaining-about-daughters-school

Unfortunately some parents are like that and have no right to do what they did.

add: despite all the evidence, (emails sent, incidents in the school recorded, a warning) the parents claimed

"“We cannot fathom what happened; it doesn’t make any sense. We made a few inquiries, we had a bit of banter on a WhatsApp group, and then we were arrested,” she said.

Namsnanny

Hmmmm free speech is absolute.

Ring fencing subjects already occurs, and will by stealth eroded our long held laws and traditions of free speech, fair and equal justice under the law ( now compromised as from this April).

Notwithstanding, although it always needs reiterating, threatening or violent behaviour is illegal, and that's where the line should be drawn.

Tariffs are quid pro quo.

Namsnanny "Hmmmm free speech is absolute." but the freedom to harass is not absolute, in either country. The protesting woman could have protested from the edge of the buffer zone and waved her banner feely without being arrested, but that was not enough for her. She crossed into the buffer zone and acted so as to intimidate those entering. That is a criminal offence for which she was arrested. She knew that would be the result, but she did it anyway. Had she crossed into a forbidden zone in the US, she would have faced the same result.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to break the law.

So what? In real life there are safe guards.

It's just pedantic to try to make free speech about a silly semantic phrase.

If it pleases you I won't use that often quoted phrase on here again.

Free speech has to be as free as possible to enable all of us to live unencumbered from the unattainable objective of never upsetting another human being.

More important what is your opinion, (and others), of the latest example I gave up thread, of the encroachment of the state into a whatsapp group chat, and the obvious lack of understanding (by the Police and those who brought the objection) of what free speech actually is?

First they came for the socialists
But I'm not a socialist so I didn't speak out
Then they came for the Trade Unionists
But I'm not a Trade Unionist, so I didn't speak out
Then they came for the Jews
But I'm not a Jew so I didn't speak out

Now they've come for me an there is no one left to speak out.

Not trite, hackneyed, or cliched but pertinent I'm very sorry to say.

I really don't know how crazy this whole has to get before the grown ups begin to say enough is enough. I had enough of Trump back in 2016 and yet he seems tame and ineffective compared to now.

Why are we all falling for this clap-trap?

I know a US citizen living in this country who believes a lot of the stuff the US puts out about the UK on-line- most of which is stirring the pot, and even though this individual says they have no time for politics, they believe these lies even though they live here!

I've decided US citizens are the craziest and most dangerous people on the planet right now...are there any sane ones left?

I presume you've read my details about the school harassment issue, namsnanny In the light of full information, ie criminal offences, how can you justify what the parents did?

OK, lets ask others.

keepingquiet

I really don't know how crazy this whole has to get before the grown ups begin to say enough is enough. I had enough of Trump back in 2016 and yet he seems tame and ineffective compared to now.

Why are we all falling for this clap-trap?

I know a US citizen living in this country who believes a lot of the stuff the US puts out about the UK on-line- most of which is stirring the pot, and even though this individual says they have no time for politics, they believe these lies even though they live here!

I've decided US citizens are the craziest and most dangerous people on the planet right now...are there any sane ones left?

Lots, thankfully! If you read the Trump thread imaround and others are documenting protests of different kinds, but there is a lot of fear on speaking up (so much for free speech!)

If freedom of speech is absolutely absolute, then I can stand in the middle of my busy high street and shout that Mrs X is embezzling money from her job, is having seven simultaneous affairs with married men and keeps her husband tied up in the cellar, having murdered her previous husband and buried him under the patio.

I could block the entrance to A & E by standing in the doorway with a placard proclaiming that someone who is being delivered there by an ambulance which brought them from a serious car crash should be arrested for drunk driving immediately and not examined or treated for his extensive and life-threatening injuries until he has paid for the ambulance ride (including a 25% tip for the driver and assistant) and signed a waiver releasing those about to treat him from legal action if he should not survive, even if he is currently unconscious.

I could stand at the gate of a primary school holding a placard showing several people occupied in various graphic sexual acts, and issuing invitations to follow me if they would like to stroke some cuddly kittens, as children stream past.

I can't do any of these things, because they would be breaking one law or another. That doesn't mean we don't have freedom of speech - only that we also have laws about facts, truth, consideration for the freedom of others, and protection of children.

I have a feeling Namsnanny doesn't understand the meaning of "absolute".

Its OK. She's said, In real life there are safeguards.

The women protected going to the abortion clinic,

the staff, parents and governors of the school undergoing criminal levels of harassment,

the public, against politicians using a WhatsApp group to mock citizens,

of emotional domestic abuse not previously recognised as criminal

and so on.

Trump doesn't understand the concept of pragmatism, if a UK/US trade deal is agreed it will be a disaster, Starmer will view it as a great victory but Trump will continue to add condition after condition, he'll want the NHS privatised under US control, he'll demand a say over employment law in the UK, he'll insist on tax breaks for all US companies and on and on it will go, every time he disagrees with the UK government he'll threaten the deal. Why on earth can Starmer not see that the deal with Canada meant absolutely nothing when Canada refused to become the 51st state?

mae13

Oh, he'll grovel in an attempt to appease Madman Trump. He still believes in the so-called Special Relationship. Ha!

He cannot simply ditch that so-called Special Relationship. It would be irresponsible of him to do so.