The gay horse

Post Reply New Topic

A British student was taken to court recently for calling a police horse "gay". It was decided he will not be prosecuted.

From the BBC website:

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfo ... 606022.stm for full story.

How do you know if a horse is gay?

Um, if it's a stallion and will not breed a mare in heat, but prefers to mount other males, the horse is gay. Seriously- these things happen.

Trumping up charges like that is really gay! Isn't there any ordinance about the police wasting tax dollars over drunks making stupid, gay comments? The only thing that isn't gay about this whole mess is this article that exposes such gay legislation.

This kind of thing is encouraged, actually. Police officers as well as civilian police workers have to attend regular indoctrination sessions. These cover all those heinous things people do against the causes of diversity and multiculturalism — crimes like upsetting gay people and Muslims, basically. Within the service itself, they have to very careful what they say and do. You can beat your wife up for example, and that's fine; but unwittingly disparage a minority and you're for the chop, so I hear. In fact you only have to use the wrong word, to get in serious trouble. These change year on year, too. For example one year it maybe OK to use the word "homosexual", the next that's out and the in word is "gay" . Same with coloured people. "Black" maybe OK one year, then it's something else (but what I really can't remember from my last conversation with someone in the know, as it were).

It is very difficult for the officer on the ground to cope with this, I reckon. The indoctrination is real and effective, it can distort their perception of reality over a period of time, until they see almost any reference to a minority group which isn't obviously full of praise and admiration, as an insult and crime. Luckily, I think those officers are not the majority. For the most part, the police service at the rank and file level despise such politicisation of their work.

Anyway, I've nothing against gay people or Muslims; just politicians who insist on telling me what I can and can't say. In fact, I hear that many of these minority groups think the current situation is as crazy as I do.

None of this s**t in California, eh Sean? I bet gay horses go straight to the knackers yard!

This is an old story,but is a very stupid one,and the police should realise what a mockery they made of their own force.

The student was drunk [enter drunken student steriotype here],and in a moment of drunken impulsitivity,he called the horse gay,so the police fine him.
He did not use homophobic wording,there is no negatives in his comment,and the police were more stupid than him for taking him to court over it,so many people get called gay,but the police wouldn't go around fining those who call them the sexuality type because of course,they are not in the police force.
They used the 'it would be offensive to gay people' line as an excuse.

I sort of doubt that the police officer was riding a stallion- very few people do. Probbaly it was a gelding, and the gelding was...hanging out, which sometimes randomly happens, and the horse ignorant drunk walked along and made he assumption that the horse was gay. Wait...I'm taking this too seriously!

i would agree with this statement if the word "minority" was replaced with the words "police officer."

the real reason why sam brown is being taken to court is not because he made a homophobic remark- it is because he insulted a police officer.

due to the police being selective about which crimes they investigate thoroughly, many genuine hate crimes go unpunished due to "lack of evidence." but when something happens to one of their own kind, the so-called criminal gets the book thrown at them- no matter how minor the incident.

i think we are all in agreement that sam brown is not guilty of the crime he has been accused of. this news story is an excellent example of how the police abuse their authority.

Hmm. There might be something in that, i.e., the police officer feeling the need to assert his authority in the heat of the moment. We don't know the full details of what happened of course.
But there have been other recent examples of police overreaction against people holding "offensive views", even when they weren't directed at police officers (or their horses).

A few months ago the Bishop of Chester, Dr Peter Forster offered the following in an interview:

"Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject. That's in the area of psychiatric health."

And he had to be interviewed by the police as a result. I can see why many would find his views offensive. But criminal?

Even more disturbing is the story of Harry Hammond.

From Christian Voice:



From issues-views.com



Since we are on the subject of "offensive language", I hope no one is too offended by the description of Harry Hammond as "suffering" from Asperger's Syndrome. It's not a phrase I like too much, but it's not too important in the context of the article (the rest of which some might find offensive!).

I agree. There are probably many who are tired of lobby groups purporting to represent them and telling the whole world how persecuted they are.

I guess being an aspie, and thus a member of a minority group myself, I should welcome political correctness. But I feel it encourages groups to compete for victimhood.

I wouldn't want to take part in that, but if you ask me, people with AS are a minority who can go to hell as far as many people are concerned. (Oh drat - what a hypocrite I am!)

I'm not being entirely flippant here. For one thing, people with AS are - by their very nature -among the least able to advocate for themselves.
Secondly, I feel political correctness often goes together with emotional correctness. People have to be seen to be emotionally responsive. Sometimes it seems as if, in the modern world, "the worst offence is to give offence", to hurt a person's feelings. And as far as some people are concerned autistic people don't have any feelings anyway.

Oh, I better shut up ...
It's getting late.

So did Airstrip One ban the use of the word "homosexual" and delete the above definition of "gay" in Newspeak version 2 or 3?

"He who controls the present controls the past; he who controls the past controls the future."

It must be a English thing even if this guy Sam Brown that He can not even tell the horse is gay to the Police Rider of the Horse. I am glad that the Courts decide to drop it. It was the best thing to do. The Police over stepped there bounds for sure in the end.

although i strongly disagree with the views of peter forster and harry hammond, i'm afraid that i'm probably not the best person to debate this with; as i am very much in favour of free speach.
the second article supports your argument very well, as i couldn't agree more that there is no excuse for violence. i guess there is a delicate line between voicing one's opinion and inciting hatred and intolerance. the only criticism i have to make is about the source of your information- with this type of journalism, it is very hard to establish exactly what the facts are.

anyway, i didn't realise you were an advocate of free speach. so i take it that you'll be making a stand the next time someone is arrested for promoting anti-western beliefs, klytus?



interesting.

although, i have to say that your government is a better example of the implementation of newspeak. the word "liberation" sounds much prettier than "occupation."

there's nothing "new" about newspeak. when one group of right-wingers want to motivate the masses in to fighting a war for them, they call it a "crusade." when another group of right-wingers attempt to do the same thing, they call it "jihad."

hahahahahah that is too insane!! !! well I suppose the horse could have been happy... right?

That type of cencorship/mind control does not exist in the US. Liberation and occupation are often used interchangably here and nobody has gone to jail or faced charges or any other court proceeding just for that alone. Here, you can go as far a joking about "killing fags" as long as you have some way of making it understood that you are not serious, do not intend to encourage anyone to commit a violent act, and do not use such language or jokes as a threat. I know this from personal experience. The same goes for Bush, government officials, or other groups.

In contrast to the free speech laws in the US, the British hate speech legislation was created, ratified, and enforced my a handful of people and forced upon the masses. It eliminates definitions and contexts for various words so that nobody has a way to form and convey any thoughts that would lead to two sided discussion on matters in which those with the powers of legislation and their supporters do not want questioned. Thus, the British anti-hate laws foster this extremely twisted, paradoxical view of "tolerance" that is the lowest, most malignant form of cencorship and mind control ever devised. Exactly what is it that the homosexuals, ehnic, and religious minorities have to hide that they fear would not withstand an objective, or at least free discusson?

As for the crusades, there were alot of atrocities comitted by everybody during the crusades, but not everything was as bad as it is portrayed, so next time do your homework first.

That's right Sean. Here, the leader of the right wing BNP is currently on trial for, basically, telling it how it is. Contrary to the oft quoted left-liberal propaganda, they are not Nazis, but speak for the millions of Britains who are sick of the sort of Orwellian s**t the Blair regime is imposing on us.

Here's an article from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/19/nbnp19.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/19/ixhome.html