Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

reds8n wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
I dont think anyone is thinking that,

I see you haven't had the misfortune to happen upon some of the more....... interesting..... comments and discussions in the various "have your say" and comments sections in some of the media outlets and forums.

Very wise. Insanity and rabid stupidity is still here for the longterm it appears.

@ Mr. Frazzled : the fifth horseman.

No I havent. I will rephrase 'I dont think anyone here is thinking that' which is what I actually meant.

OTOH, if he were of another ethnicity, I'll bet the Dems would allow him to come over and vote come in November...

Albatross wrote:It's not like the UK hasn't disallowed entry to people who say stuff we don't like... Our country, our rules. Same goes for the USA, and good luck to them.

Serves the little spanker right, if you ask me.

In general I agree, only that on the face of the report (which I disbelieve as indicated above) it is a case of "our country, not our rules".

I.e. the UK can ban someone because he is a notorious ranter of "hate speech" which is against our law. No matter how unjust our law may be he did at least have the chance to know it before he started hate speeching.

The teen drone in the report didn't break any UK or US laws though, even including the list of reasons for refusing entry.

That's part of why I disbelieve the report.

Orlanth wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Silly little tw*t, they should have put him in an orange jumpsuit and taken him to a secluded holiday camp near the sea...

So you don't believe in free speech either?

I don't believe sending an email to a world leader threatening them is a smart thing to do.

I don't believe the resources then wasted in employing the intelligence services to investigate the threats and who made them is a particularly good use of taxpayer dollars.

I don't think we have read the email and ascertained how the threat was made nor who this little sh*t claimed to be or represent.

The freedom of speech and veto were fought for over hundreds of years across the western world by brave people placing their lives on the line for a belief in civil rights. This little puke is an affront to that heritage. Let him suffer these (fairly minor) consequences.

oh and I want to pick your brain about BFG when you have some time.

Frazzled wrote:We haven't seen what was actually sent. All we have is the word of the teenager which to me is less than nothing.

Quoted for reasonable and fair justice.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Albatross wrote:It's not like the UK hasn't disallowed entry to people who say stuff we don't like... Our country, our rules. Same goes for the USA, and good luck to them.

Serves the little spanker right, if you ask me.

In general I agree, only that on the face of the report (which I disbelieve as indicated above) it is a case of "our country, not our rules".

I.e. the UK can ban someone because he is a notorious ranter of "hate speech" which is against our law. No matter how unjust our law may be he did at least have the chance to know it before he started hate speeching.

The teen drone in the report didn't break any UK or US laws though, even including the list of reasons for refusing entry.

That's part of why I disbelieve the report.

Sounds like he got a knock on the door from our authorities - the US would do the same thing to one of their citizens who threatened our head of state. If that's what happened - something which is admittedly unclear.

Under US law it is an offence to threaten the life of the President and you get a file on you at the FBI.

Kilkrazy wrote:Under US law it is an offence to threaten the life of the President and you get a file on you at the FBI.

True.

But calling someone a p***k isn't any sort of threat.

In Obama's case, it's a statement of FACT.


Plus, we're supposed to have "Freedom of speech", whatever that means now that the PC crowd is in control...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Under US law it is an offence to threaten the life of the President and you get a file on you at the FBI.

True.

But calling someone a p***k isn't any sort of threat.

In Obama's case, it's a statement of FACT.

Plus, we're supposed to have "Freedom of speech", whatever that means now that the PC crowd is in control...

No, it's still opinion, it's like me hypothetically calling you a fan-fluttering, simpering turd... That would be my hypothetical opinion, not necessarily everyone else's (I'm sure your mother would hold a different view, if I asked her).

If I hypothetically said you're a fan-fluttering, simpering turd and I'm going to come round to your house with my extremist buddies and reach my fist down your throat and tear out your ever-flapping tongue and strangle you with it, well, now that is threatening and if this kid was using that sort of sentence towards a state leader, you can see why the security services reacted as they did.

Indeed, and if, hypothetically, I called you a boorish 'tard who didn't understand the difference between the literal and figurative, that'd be additional FACT.

If, hypothetically, I informed you that "I'd like to see you try, because I'll kill you", that'd also be a FACT.


And bringing things back to reality, I would gladly invite you into my home. California has a model Castle Law, and I'd be glad to school you on it. I'm deadly serious about this offer.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OTOH, if he were of another ethnicity, I'll bet the Dems would allow him to come over and vote come in November...

You do realise that the kid is white, don't you?

Kilkrazy wrote:Under US law it is an offence to threaten the life of the President and you get a file on you at the FBI.

Hahaha I must have racked up several of those during the Dubyah years using myspace. I think they can sort out the sarcastic joking around from the truly dangerous threats though. At one point I challenged him to a sword duel to the death, just to see if they were 'watching'. Nobody has actually gotten ahold of me about it yet, but we all know how efficient government bureaucracies are; They'll get around to it when I'm 80 or something.

Goliath wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:OTOH, if he were of another ethnicity, I'll bet the Dems would allow him to come over and vote come in November...

You do realise that the kid is white, don't you?

Yup. Dems are very seriously courting the Latino vote and white isn't brown, so he's not part of their target market of new voters.

Orlanth wrote:So your a fan of real beers rather than American widdle, and rum too.

Culture, in Texas. Golly!

Yes. I was introduced by some Brits actually.

Pro tip never try to have adrinking contestwith a Brit not in his home country. You will lose.

Frazzled wrote:

Pro tip never try to have adrinking contestwith a Brit not in his home country. You will lose.

That reminds me of an old warning memo circulated in the Berlin garrison. I wish I had a copy.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I don't believe the resources then wasted in employing the intelligence services to investigate the threats and who made them is a particularly good use of taxpayer dollars.

I don't see how you can say that unless you think the President's security should not be handled by taxpayer dollars. If someone sends a threat to the person who's being guarded, a good bodyguard organization investigates the threat. If they don't, they're going to look really stupid if the guy later attacks the person they were supposed to be guarding. You can't determine that a threat is not real until you investigate it, so you have to spend some 'resources' on it. Though really I suspect this is more of having one guy read the email, check on the guy, send a couple of emails, get a signature on the 'do not enter', and email or fax the UK PD, not some sort of multi-agency investigation with dozens of people crossing the globe to get to the bottom of it.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I don't believe the resources then wasted in employing the intelligence services to investigate the threats and who made them is a particularly good use of taxpayer dollars.

I don't see how you can say that unless you think the President's security should not be handled by taxpayer dollars. If someone sends a threat to the person who's being guarded, a good bodyguard organization investigates the threat. If they don't, they're going to look really stupid if the guy later attacks the person they were supposed to be guarding. You can't determine that a threat is not real until you investigate it, so you have to spend some 'resources' on it. Though really I suspect this is more of having one guy read the email, check on the guy, send a couple of emails, get a signature on the 'do not enter', and email or fax the UK PD, not some sort of multi-agency investigation with dozens of people crossing the globe to get to the bottom of it.

The sentence, as you've quoted me by taking it out of context, has the reverse meaning to what I was saying.

If the investigation of a threat against the president led to a spotty little gakker with no means to anything out, then the resources deployed to do so were wasted as was the time used.

Over here there is a crime called wasting police time, which can carry a prison sentence. If he's ended up activating the security services and so on, that's going to cost and ultimately that money was wasted because some little chump was sending hatemail.