CAGE UK.....

archangel

archangel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,024
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
No
:How the hell can an organisation like this be allowed to operate in the UK. I listened to one of their spokesman on radio this morning.....glorifying terrorism in my opinion......they represent some of the world top terrorists/terrorist supporters by assisting them in bringing their so called "human rights" to the fore. They are taking the"Jihadi John" saga as a cash cow to help them promote so called "radicalisation by the security services and others".....in another comment on the radio the commentator quoted the CAGE representative at a gathering stating that "we should follow the example of our brothers and sisters and their actions" (I paraphrased this as the original speech is quite long).

It is about time we as,a country, need to nip this sort of s*** in the bud......It's not a bit of wonder we are seen as a soft touch when we give idiots a media platform......
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
We are a free country. And Cage is the by product of that......I am sure they feel they are doing something worthwhile, but I can't see what myself.
Click to expand...


I am glad we are a free country with free speech but looking at their website it looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing.......surely the stuff they are writing is just short of a war on the western ideals, law and security....


Here is the text on the "about us" page...


CAGE is an independent advocacy organisation working to empower communities impacted by the War on Terror. The organisation highlights and campaigns against state policies, striving for a world free from oppression and injustice.
CAGE has been campaigning against the War on Terror for more than a decade. Its work has focussed on working with survivors of abuse and mistreatment across the globe. Its website is one of the leading resources documenting the abuse of due process and the erosion of the rule of law in the context of the War on Terror. CAGE has delivered more than 750 lectures across the UK, produced cutting edge reports and provided a voice to survivors of the War on Terror through its media work.


They support men like OMAR BAKRI MUHAMMAD FUSTUQ....a man who preached radial ideology against the UK and other western and democratic societies....a man who said that unless the west changed that "they" would give them a 9/11 everyday


You can see the other cases of so called "victims" on their website......

Free speech is great as long as it does not preach or promote hatred.
 
Last edited:
archangel said:
Free speech is great as long as.
Click to expand...

so you don't believe in free speech then..

you cant have free speech.. accept for....

In reality there has never been any such thing as free speech since man learnt to talk.... at least we done stone people to death for saying the wrong thing now.. but still . there are laws....

free speech does not and never has existed..


As for CAGE.. Who? never heard of them before you advertised them on here.....
 
KIPAX said:
so you don't believe in free speech then..

you cant have free speech.. accept for....

In reality there has never been any such thing as free speech since man learnt to talk.... at least we done stone people to death for saying the wrong thing now.. but still . there are laws....

free speech does not and never has existed..


As for CAGE.. Who? never heard of them before you advertised them on here.....
Click to expand...


Of course you can have free speech.."..accept for.."

Here is an excerpt which includes the clause from article19 of the human rights legislation.


The term "offense principle" is used to expand the range of free speech limitations to prohibit forms of expression where they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or " for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

The above is supposed to protect society from half wits hell bend on extremism and those with radical ideas that do not fit into the sociological group.

If we are to let idiots preach hatred against our western values by use threats, violence and terrorism we might as well let the sex offenders openly promote sexual exploitation of minors and the vulnerable.....

As for the group known as CAGE, they have only came to the surface since the naming of Jihadi John, basically using the media circus to self promote......
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
archangel said:
The above is supposed to protect society from half wits hell bend on extremism and those with radical ideas that do not fit into the sociological group.
Click to expand...

It is designed to allow laws that prohibit religious or racially motivated hate speech, not to prevent the expression of radical ideas.
 
archangel said:
just short of a war on the western ideals
Click to expand...

So, not actually crossing that line which could then be breaking the 'hate' laws in place to prevent such.

Fortunately we live in a country which upholds free speech, unfortunately that allows some people to say things you or I may strongly disagree with but, and it's a big but, I would defend their right to free speech as much as I would defend yours.

I'd never heard of this group or seen their website and I have no inclination to add to their website stats, presumably the website does not break any rules either otherwise the UK Gov would have applied for UK ISP's to block it.
 
PaulF said:
I'd never heard of this group or seen their website and I have no inclination to add to their website stats, presumably the website does not break any rules either otherwise the UK Gov would have applied for UK ISP's to block it.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that the government has that power. I hope it doesn't.

The courts do, but to my knowledge only to direct specific ISPs that are party to a case to block specific sites by court order - all the cases I am aware of have been regarding the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act and copyright violations.
 
Any organisation that condones, supports, defends, justifies or otherwise advocates terrorism or anything detrimental to the security of our country or the safety and wellbeing of it's residents should be outlawed and brought to book. End of!
 
onomatopoeia said:
I am not sure that the government has that power. I hope it doesn't.

The courts do, but to my knowledge only to direct specific ISPs that are party to a case to block specific sites by court order - all the cases I am aware of have been regarding the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act and copyright violations.
Click to expand...

That's why I said 'applied for UK ISP's to block'.

The main ISP's have an agreement with the Gov though:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/14/isps-filter-extremist-material-internet
 
onomatopoeia said:
This is why I don't use the big ISPs. Well, one reason.
Click to expand...
I really hope that was just badly formulated as the reason why they do it is quite clear :eek:

And that is why they filter and intercept the traffic of individuals connected with those small ISPs ;) you can't hide. It is a futile exercise.
 
dejongj said:
I really hope that was just badly formulated as the reason why they do it is quite clear :eek:

And that is why they filter and intercept the traffic of individuals connected with those small ISPs ;) you can't hide. It is a futile exercise.
Click to expand...

Mmm, quite.

Well, it is possible to hide if you use a vpn who do not keep logs in say Romania if you are that paranoid about your ISP seeing what you are accessing, or you could use the Opera browser in turbo mode to bypass the ISP blocking of websites but that's going off topic a little.
 
BRASH said:
Any organisation that condones, supports, defends, justifies or otherwise advocates terrorism or anything detrimental to the security of our country or the safety and wellbeing of it's residents should be outlawed and brought to book. End of!
Click to expand...

Well, one issue with that is that the UK definition of "terrorism" is a bit vague.

There are three cumulative elements to the UK’s current definition: (a) the actions (or threats of actions) that constitute terrorism, which encompass serious violence against a person; serious damage to property; and actions which endanger life, create a serious risk to health or safety, or are designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system;64 (b) the target to which those acts must be directed: they must be designed to influence a government or international organisation, or to intimidate the public or a section or the public;65 and (c) the motive that must be present: advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.66
Click to expand...

(From https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243472/9780108512629.pdf)

That means that the ex-soldier who died recently fighting against ISIS was a terrorist. So are the May Day protestors, Greenpeace, some animal rights groups, Anonymous and arguably most people who do stuff the government don't like.

I'm not sure we can really round all of them up.
 
Greenpeace and animal rights protesters we could.
 
BRASH said:
Greenpeace and animal rights protesters we could.
Click to expand...

And Anonymous...well at least we could start with anyone wearing that daft mask. :-)
 
JonathanRyan said:
Right. So you get to choose?

I mean, I don't like people with beards or clowns. When do I get my turn to lock them up?
Click to expand...
Feel free. I detest beards as well and have never found clowns particularly funny and there are a lot of em about.
 
Byker28i said:
Smaller ISP's use a lot of the larger ISP's infrastructure....
Click to expand...
To be precise, they use the backhaul network(s) operated by BT and / or talktalk. Since the Sky buyout, the Be backhaul network appears to be unavailable wholesale.

The backhaul networks operated by BT (20CN and 21CN) do not filter anything, at all and nor does the talktalk network in my experience. When the court order was made against BT Internet requring them to block TPB and other sites, other ISPs using the BT wholesale backhaul were unaffected, as the filtering is done by the ISP, not by the operator of the backhaul network.
 
I'm innocent...
 
onomatopoeia said:
To be precise, they use the backhaul network(s) operated by BT and / or talktalk. Since the Sky buyout, the Be backhaul network appears to be unavailable wholesale.

The backhaul networks operated by BT (20CN and 21CN) do not filter anything, at all and nor does the talktalk network in my experience. When the court order was made against BT Internet requring them to block TPB and other sites, other ISPs using the BT wholesale backhaul were unaffected, as the filtering is done by the ISP, not by the operator of the backhaul network.
Click to expand...
So that rather negates the reason you gave for using smaller ISPs?
 
Exploiting the freedoms our parents and their parents fought for.........
 
In case you missed it, the CAGE spokesman got a mauling on "This Week" last night. Probably on iPlayer.
 
Yes, he did get a bit of a seeing too. It's reasonably clear that he didn't want to answer many of the points brought up, clear acquiescence by silence or obstruction.

As a side issue, so obviously BBC news presenters can press points home when they want....So why do they so often let politicians get away with avoiding questions?????
 
Because they know if they press the point the politician will storm off, leaving them with 5 minutes of contentless airtime!
 
I'd consider 5 minutes of politician lying to be contentless.

If I want fiction there's plenty of it on sky.

What I do want is politicians being held to account by the press, like they are meant to, and meant to be.
 
Llamaman said:
Because they know if they press the point the politician will storm off, leaving them with 5 minutes of contentless airtime!
Click to expand...

And possibly because they're not an independent broadcasting company. They can be curtailed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top