Freedom of Expression is part of the Human Rights Act 1998.

It's not the Labour party that's campaigning to repeal this act.

Yes and replace it with one that’s fit for purpose and actually protects freedom of speech.

You are being facetious. Repealing the current act does not mean that there would be no human rights or statute protecting them. Nobody is arguing for that.

Except since no parliament can bind a future parliament it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

The loudest voices calling for a scrap are exactly the people you DON'T want deciding what human rights you'll be "allowed".

And incitement to violence is, and always should be, unprotected speech - your silly "two tier kier" is informing me greatly that you're on the "they locked them up for hurty words!" bandwagon.

Weird, the bill of rights act of 1689 is still in force.

It’s literally the policy of this country to sentence white men to harsher custodial sentences with more chance of a custodial sentence than any other group, simply for the crime of being a white man. Are these the sorts of people you think should decide our rights?

If the government would do what people have been voting for for decades and end mass immigration and take real action on this ridiculous and purposeful misuse of the human rights act, then nobody would want to redact it.

But they won’t.

> [things identical to neonazi propaganda]

Please provide some evidence that you aren't coming from the same place as the neonazis, lest you be viewed as one because you're saying the exact same things as they do.

Ah yes, because being concerned about mass immigration makes you a nazi. Thanks for your contribution. The men that fought and died fighting the real nazis would have the very same concern. Were they nazis too?

It is not the "policy of this country" you need to actually read how things work, what bodies have what power, and who is doing what.

The sentencing council is an independant body, they are not the government, and the government has said "no, that's not right" so they're passing a bill to stop the new guidelines coming into effect: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-introduce-l...

It's the policy of this country, it doesn't matter who sets it.

It doesn't matter if it's set by parliament. It doens't matter if it's set by an independent body. The fact is that you will receive a harsher sentence for being a white male than you will if you belong to any other group. That is the policy. The Conservative government thought that was the right thing to do.

Apparently the new government 'will' introduce a bill to stop this, but they haven't yet. So it's still the policy.

Meanwhile it's legal and popular to discriminate against white men and women on the basis of being white - the government, police and military regularly put out jobs only for none whites. But if I were to put out a role only for whites, that's against the law. This discrimination extends to our top universities where it's becoming much more difficult (relative to population %) to obtain a spot as a white student.

That's why people think this country is now a two tier system, and they're right. Opportunities are being taken from those who have earned them and given to those who have not. Meritocracy and equality under the law is already long gone.

Again, you're just regurgitating what Reform talking heads are saying.

You probably didn't even realise that the sentencing guidelines were put on hold on the 31st of March.

Got any proof that the fall in white admission to university is down to discrimination, and not the relative poorer showing of the native population compared to first and second generation immigrants who put a higher premium on doing well at school?

Also can you respond with some of the "non whites only" job postings?

Between 2019 and 2023 28.8% [0] of students admitted to Oxford were of ethnic minority background. Cambridge admitted 34% [1] ethnic minority students in 2023. That means you're roughly twice as likely to be admitted to a top university as a minority student.

It's possible that some percentage of this is because of better academic achievement, though in that case it's confusing that Oxbridge are looking to remove exams due to underperformance of students of ethnic minority background in tests [2] - which would support my view that it is easier to study at these institutions if you aren't white. but it's also possible that the education system is systematically 'letting down' white boys, which is a view supported by an education committee report (and countless others) in 2021. [3]

- 31 white pilots were let go / held back / paid off so that the RAF could prioritise diversity hires [4], [5].

- Police roles only open to BME candidates [6] - there are countless other examples of this, various government departments have used 'positive action' racism clauses in the same way.

You're just regurgitating what Labour talking heads are saying. You probably didn't even realise that it's legal to be racist against white people. Perhaps you should read more of the news, so you can understand what's really going on.

[0] https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-stat...

[1] https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/file...

[2] https://www.yahoo.com/news/oxford-cambridge-move-away-tradit...

[3] https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/203/education-com...

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490

[5] https://news.sky.com/story/raf-recruiters-were-advised-again...

[6] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/09/west-yorkshire-p...

On [2] you conveniently left out the key quote: "minority groups and poorer students." why are you against helping out disadantaged people whatever their stripes?

On [3] it was found to be unlawful so your assertion that "It's legal to be racist against white people" careers headlong into reality that no, it's not.

As for the west yorkshire story, do you not want the police to be representative of the area they serve? There are far more white men than there are as a proportion of the local population.

It feels like you're grasping at straws here.

Do you think Brexit has helped the UK?

I think it could have been a great help to the UK.

If we'd of done what, out of interest?

Personally I don't 'agree' with brexit, but it's the reality that we're in. In typical british fashion we're trying to stay friends with the EU, even though they basically hate us, while also trying to do trade with the rest of the world. Predictably we can't really do much of 2 without 1 becoming a problem (and vice versa). However 1 is currently our biggest trading partner (as a bloc, US as a country) so what have we done? Sat in the middle not doing anything radical hoping we can be best friends with everyone.

We don't hate the UK. We are just waiting (impatiently) for you to come to your senses.

So would we be able to get the exact same deal we had? We are under the impression the answer is no, as whenever we try and negotiate away stuff that's in neither of our interests it gets rejected.

Take this Eitas Visa for example, this is literally just sowing resentment towards the EU in the UK. It benefits nobody and is totally insane, it's just making people hate the EU. Same with not being able to use the digital passport machines at airports.. why?? We're a pretty secure country, we have digital passports. Brexit happens and now every time I go to Europe, which is a lot I've got a 50/50 chance of waiting 3 hours at the border for someone to stamp my passport while the digital gates have no queue. That means I now have to arrive 3 hours early every time just in case. If I bring a tool for work I need to spend weeks of paperwork on something called a carnet so I end up buying there and throwing out.

At the moment we're trying to give security backing for Ukraine and you're asking us to give up our fishing rights for the honour of helping secure Europe.

I get it, actions have consequences, but the thing is that only a minority voted for Brexit, most of us didn't. Each year you're disenfranchising a new generation of would be Europeans with this path. To me it's all dreadfully regrettable, the whole things a mess.

It's impossible for us to 'come to our senses' while we get treated like this in my view.

You are perhaps unaware that since last week, Britain has required EU citizens to go through an e-visa process.

The offer from the EU for a youth exchange program was rejected by the UK.

The fish thing looks like anti-EU nonsense. The anonymous source "hinted", whereas the people speaking on the record denied it.

Starmer ruled out joining the customs union, so blame him for the tool import paperwork.

> but the thing is that only a minority voted for Brexit,

So with such a failure of democracy, it's no wonder that the EU would require changes to the voting system (for example) before Britain can rejoin.

The EU doesn't want a half-in half-out Britain. It had that for decades.

I am aware. Of course, if you require a visa from us then it becomes politically impossible NOT to require a visa from you in return. We were very clear that we didn't want it at all.

Re the fish;

>But in an interview with POLITICO, the minister said EU member governments were unlikely to sign off on a security deal with the U.K. unless negotiations are also resolved on other “sensitive” issues, including access to British waters for European fishing fleets. A deal on fish would also help in “building trust” between London and Brussels, she added.(1)

It's just a combination of low turn out and a 52/48 marginal split, it does not mean we have a failure of democracy, that's a bit of a stretch.

(1) https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-eu-defense-pact-really-do...

>At the moment we're trying to give security backing for Ukraine and you're asking us to give up our fishing rights for the honour of helping secure Europe.

You are not trying to secure Europe, you are trying to sell something to Europe. We would rather build capacity to make whatever you want to sell us ourselfs.

I agree we should work closely together, more so after US started dancing naked around burning brides. But everyone is looking into how to secure themselfs, without depending on 3rd party, and from EU's perspective UK is on the outside (even if not as crazy as US has become).

You'd rather build capacity because you think you're likely to be at war with us one day or we'd stop defending Europe? That would be the only reason to say that surely? If so I simply don't know what to say to that.

So then you won't be wanting our troops there for peace-keeping, something only ourselves and France have even offered. Nor any of our finance, we can stop giving billions a year to Ukraine as the EU want to take over?

Seriously it's ridiculously isolationist to be thinking like this. Not working with us just because we left your club is beyond mad.

Historical record does not bode well for UK defending anyone when not directly threatened.

It took serious damage to imports and an invasion for them to move during the last World War.

That's nonsense, but even if we take as true for a moment;

The argument here is they don't want to buy our weapons because we might decide to stop selling to them. Do you really see that as even vaguely likely in a war against Russia?

We want to make our own weapons because depending on someone else can be more costly. But some parties in UK do have worrying ties to Russia (reform uk and conservatives). I mean who would have thought that Republicans in US would be 3rd best allies of Putin, right after China and North Korea

1.those are not the only options, far from it. If EU buys from 3rd party, that party gets to dictate what we can do with those weapons. How long have EU countries been asking US to allow them to transfer F-16, longer ranged artillery, missiles, MBT,... to Ukraine? Also, lets remember that UK has prevented shipping vaccine manufactured there to 3rd countries, even when some other country paid for it already. EU did not do that.

2. Thank you for confirming our fears. We decide not to buy something for you and now you go full crybaby and deny Ukrain help. Yes, you guys sound like totally dependable.

3. It's not isolationist and we do want (or should want to) cooperate with you, but Eu has just learnt what happens if you outsource your own defense and US elects idiot for the 2nd time. And lets not forget that you have political party on the rise, (Reform UK), that seems to be a bit too friendly with Trump, Farage supposedly received money from RT (russ sponsored Tv) in 2022. One of your previous PMs (Boris Johnson) had appointed Russian oligarch as Lord and is said to have ditched his own security to party with Russian intelligence officers while he was in office. So, if eu and russia come to blows, whos side will UK be on? Depends on what party is in government.

Yes, a small majority agreed.

But that isn’t what I asked.

This is the problem - brexit meant something different to everyone who voted for it ... and the reality was never going to match up because we have binding agreements like the GFA which meant Northern Ireland was always going to have to be treated differently than mainland UK.

Well, only if you think the IRA/Sinn Fein should set UK foreign policy. We could have implemented an (EU-requested) north/south border in Ireland. Or not implemented one at all.

The signatories to the GFA include the US as well - if you want to rip up the GFA to install a hard border you have to own the second order effects of that.

Or decide that Brexit was never going to work the way those who peddled it said it would.

this is not a hypothetical, brexit happened...

> brexit means we've halved our US tarrif rate

As of time of writing this comment, I believe both are at 10%? Of course that could change at any time.

> enshrine freedom of speech in law

ECHR already does this. I presume there's some other weird definition of free speech going on here like unrestricted use of the N-word on TV or something.