and we thought we were rid of him....

Yes my friends, Robet Kilroy Silk lives to fight another day.

We had thought we had gotten rid of him and his boring morning talkshow when he made a racest gibe and the BBC suspended him.

Then he began campaining for UKIP (UK Indepence party), so we vote him in as one of the only UKIP candiadtes for the European Council, and we thought, my god we've finally got rid of him, hes being shipped off to Brussels, but now what do we hear?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3857721.stm

Hes been pardoned of his gibe and may soon restart his talkshow, why, WHY!

What do you guys think?

O....K.... so, what they're basically saying is racism is OK? We need to alter the law slightly to make that kind of view illegal in the press. I don't care if it's his opinions or not, so long as he distributes them personally and not through an accepted media outlet.

I recall an incident similar to this some years ago in Georgia I believe, where the KKK donated money to buy a stretch of Highway. So, for that mile or so, they put up signs about the KKK and all the various things they believed in. As you can imagine, this sparked A LOT of problems. I believe this eventually went to the Courts, but in all honesty, I'm not sure how it turned out.

I agree with this statement though:
"We need to alter the law slightly to make that kind of view illegal in the press. I don't care if it's his opinions or not, so long as he distributes them personally and not through an accepted media outlet."

Very well put. The media certainly, in my opinion, should be objective and not hate driven.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

We need to alter the law slightly to make that kind of view illegal in the press. I don't care if it's his opinions or not, so long as he distributes them personally and not through an accepted media outlet.

---

Where do you draw the line, of what is acceptable and what isn't? If freedom of speech is not freedom for everyone, or any opinion... how do you handle it? And if the media is not free for all to speak through, hear and be heard, what use is it?

And besides, what he said (at least as stated in that article) isn't in the slightest bit racist. Hateful and resentful, certainly (and IMHO, understandable), but not racist. When did it become illegal to hate?

"When did it become illegal to hate?"

I would hope it's always been illegal to hate, myself.

Take care all.

Well, I guess freedom of expression should be allowed until it gets to the point of defending the ilegitimate use of violence against a sector.

As much as I despise racism, they DO have as much a right to express their opinions in public as the rest of them do. I do not support things that would take away our freedom of speech, if we were to allow any law that limits it it would weaken the already fragile but vital part of the constitution. Let him say what he wishes to say, it doesn't make us listen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

"When did it become illegal to hate?"

I would hope it's always been illegal to hate, myself.

Take care all.

---

It's never been illegal to hate. What is illegal is the violent actions that stem from hatred.

Kilroy make a remark that the arab world is barbaric and has given nothing to the modern world, this may be racist but i've seen no evidence that this anaylsis is inncorrect.

As I said I've got nothing against him expressing his view; he's entitled to that. However, the media (read: press) should be for unbiased reporting of facts, not opinion in any way shape or form. He especially shouldn't get money, as he did, for his opinions. His comments were racist and stereotypical, saying that all Arabs are terrorists and suicide bombers. Those views he can express, but at his own personal expense and not through the press, where they can, and did, cause a lot of unneeded tension.

he's a collumnist he's employed for his views, all papers are biased due to their publishers and editors political alliance.

He a TV TALK SHOW HOST whos supposed to be impartial and so on and does not work for the newspapers.

he had a poor quality tv morning chat show, like jerry springer but without the voilence and wit. But he was also a colluminst for the daily express and that's where he made his remarks.

Ok this is kilroy onthe bbc (in my own humble opinion)

Kilroy: "Hmm, today we are here to discuss the way the government are going to war without the support of the majority of the public"

Guest: "But they had a 51% support group..."

Kilroy (interrupting): "But we dont care about that they've gone to war without public support!@!"

guest: "They had a 51% support in favour of war"

Kilroy: "But we dont care about that!They've gone to war committed troops in an illegal war against public opinion"

in other words he doesnt listen to his guests

can i point out it was
49% for
51% against

whatever I didnt really pay attention it was obvious if we went to war we'd win after all we banned them using a lot of weapons for many years then for the uk and the usa to attack together? but the only threat was friendly fire

i think everyone new any war would involve us kicking Iraqs arse, thats not why most people were against it. Back to topic killroys shor was good especialy when he sat on people to get them to move out the way.