But I’m not though, am I?



I did not seek to restrict the soldier’s freedom of speech, rather, I sought to criticise their behaviour and tell others about it. Most on here agree with me that they were out of order but not one single poster has said that the soldiers should be deprived of their right to express their own views.



So that’s one big pile of BS, isn’t it?







I agree, see above.







You are free to hold that view, however it may be advisable, given the trending opinions on this thread, for you to justify why you think they were right to act in such an aggressive manner.







My son wanted to buy a poppy and wear it on his coat.



I’m sorry for expecting a less hostile response from them.

I recently donated to the [iHelp For[/i Iraqi civilian [iHeroes[/i charity.

No, you don't have news for me because I had already realised all by myself that the poppy seller is entitled to a point of view and the same freedom of expression.... where did I say or even hint otherwise?



The poppy seller, however, needs to learn a bit better sales technique.

Ah, so you were perfectly cool with it. When you said you “certainly don't think it is appropriate to judge or criticise people who choose not to wear a poppy” you in fact meant the opposite. OK.





… Look, either they were “out of order” – ergo should not have done it, or else you disagree with them but respect their right to voice their views so they are NOT out of order.





Either they’re NOT out of order, or they’re out of order. You think they are out of order. Your post isn’t about them having a “right to express” what they expressed, your post is about “they jolly well shouldn’t have done that”, but you fail to see it.





Seemingly, not.







At least you concede you were wrong, even if rather quaintly you won’t admit it and pretend that when you said the sellers were “out of order”, you meant that what they did was fine, even if you disagree with them.





It’s not “for me” to do anything at all, and as long as the soldiers acted within the law (and you do not allege – so far – they didn’t) then that is its own answer.



Having said which, if there is an issue with saying "and where is your poppy, Sir?" then you are probably too sensitive to be allowed contact with other humans, and should avoid it.





They seem to have simply strongly tried to convince you that you should be wearing a poppy. Which is presumably their conviction, and one they are free to express. Forcefuly, if they feel strongly, as long as they remain within the law.



You complained that they expressed the following:





Either they broke the law, which I would deprecate, or they exercised their freedom to hold and express views in a legal manner. You have not even hinted that any law was broken, and so they could not have been more “in order”, now could they?

People being gay or black in a built-up area can 'incite' some people.



That doesn't mean we ban gay or black people or view them as the problem.



My understanding of incitement would be someone calling for a jihad against X, Y or Z, for instance.



There's a reason that Nick Griffin has (thus far) stayed out of prison – because he's been careful to avoid obvious incitement. Although he may have fallen foul of this for his recent tweets calling for a 'demonstration' at a gay couple's home, and providing the address.

Well, no, that’s why I created the thread.







No, I meant what I said. It is possible label their behaviour inappropriate without seeking to restrict their right to say such things.







‘Out of order’ is an expression which conveys personal, or even societal, dismay at certain behaviour. It does not mean I wish to impinge fundamental human freedoms.



If someone said it was out of order to refuse to tip a waiter in a restaurant, would you interpret that as an indication that they wanted such acts prohibited by law?







In my view, they were out of order.







Correct.







Correct.







Yes I do.



I think they jolly well shouldn’t have done that, and I was sharing my opinion on a public forum.







The problem with this is you are still relying on your bizarre interpretation of the well-known phrase, 'out of order'.







You do what you want, however you are running the risk of appearing to take the opposite view to me for the sake of it.







It was extremely rude. Most on here seem to agree that it was out of order.







They may or may not have tried to convince me. Either way, I feel it was the wrong way to go about it. Do you think they could have gone about it better?







I’m perfectly aware of what the law says, but you seem to think for some reason that I am not allowed to apply a moral or social judgement to lawful behaviour which I find inappropriate. The phrase I used to convey my views was 'out of order'.



You, again, are relying on a particularly strange interpretation of that phrase. Why? I’ve no idea.

Sorry, your attempts at swerving are about as good as Roman Grosjean's. You wrote:-







So you said it was - in your view - not appropriate for them to judge or criticise you [iat all[/i.



Now you are saying that it was entirely appropriate to judge or criticise, you just are upset at the way they went about it. But what i objected to is your unqualified claim that any judgement or criticism was inappropriate [iper se[/i.



You said it. If it isn't what you meant, just say so instead of trying to pretend you wrote something else!

Show me where I have said that.







Of course, which I why I started this thread and called their behaviour inappropriate.







I honestly don't see what you're getting at here. Can you develop that point?



Also, do you want to clarify your interpretation of 'out of order'? I thought you'd do this is your reply but you obviously forgot.

Should have told the Squaddie to mind his own chuffing business kirkstaller!

Why, can't you do it yourself? Oh, I forgot, you are far too busy to spend seconds looking back in a thread. Well, here it is:









"Honestly"? Give over. Oh, go on then, you said:





Straightforward statement. Unambiguous. Judgment or criticism of non-poppy-wearers is, [iper se[/i, inappropriate.

1. You accused me of saying it is entirely appropriate to judge or criticise:







2. I asked you to show me where I had said that:







3. After the usual sanctimonious twaddle, you supplied the following quote:







Where in quote 3 did I say it was appropriate to judge non-poppy-wearers?







Like I have said numerous times, I stand by that view. The conduct of the soldiers was not admirable.



By the way, you've dodged your explanation of your interpretation of 'out of order', again

You said:





Either they can express their views, or they should not be able to.



Either they have freedom of speech (within the law), or they do not.



Therefore either it is appropriate for them to express those views, or it is inappropriate. It can't be both.



But I note that is indeed your explanation - you're now barmily claiming that they were within their rights to say what they did, but it was simultaneously also "inappropriate" for them to do so.



That is the final word on the subject as honestly the above cannot usefully have anything added to it.



Now, for some bizarre reason you keep asking me to explain what i meant by "out of order". This is another of the regular exanples of your irritating unwillingness to spend a few seconds looking back in the thread to answer your own question.







In context, that is precisely what I said, and precisely what I meant. Which word/s are you struggling with?