Thread: Sean Gabb at Exeter

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Only a few weeks ago, UKIP members and former UKIP members, arranged in Bournemouth a public meeting to discuss policies and, listen to speakers, concerned about serious issues, which affect the lives ordinary voters.

Uhuh. Went well didn't it?

Several of our invited speakers, Professor Congdon, for example, reluctantly withdrew following pressure from senior UKIP figures and their EU paid employees. Yet, it appears, that the attendance of Sean Gabb at Exeter was known and approved by those same individuals.

You're right. The EU is controlling UKIP staff and subverting the organisation of fringe meetings. Everything is so clear now.
And wow, the rally organisers invited the director of the Libertarian Alliance. Must be some dodgy dealing going on somewhere!

Can any person, who resides on the right side of sanity, see how the cause of UKIP, was enhanced by those sick opinions espoused by Mr Gabb? Was it a mistake for which the leadership would like to apologise? Did Mr Gabb receive any financial assistance, from UKIP funds, to defray his costs? I know not.

He didn't express these opinions at the rally. He is a libertarian. A hard line libertarian, almost anarchist. He makes clear he does not necessarily approve of child porn but rather his view, for some reason, is that it should be illegal to posses it. (I can't see why, personally). Why would the leadership like to apologise? I despise some UKIP members views but they have a right to hold them and it does not mean i disagree with everything they say. Of course it was right to have him speak. I thought you liked democracy Geoffrey?

As for whether he received expenses, i don't know. He may have done, and there is nothing wrong with that. He was invited as a speaker and gave an interesting perspective on the problem of Government.

An American Supreme Court judge, once defined the limits of free speech, as being a prohibition on shouting, 'Fire', in a crowded auditorium, when it was known that no fire existed. Perhaps, future UKIP conference organisers, should bear in mind, the spirit of that jugement, when they next approve sick obscenities as being within the parameters of free speech and the Party's own cultural map. What a dreadful thing for them to have done.

Er...what? UKIP has not 'approved sick obscenities'. These are personal views held by Sean Gabb and are completely irrelevant. Once again I will say that he is not endorsing child porn, merely saying that in his view possession of it should not be illegal.

Originally Posted by kernow

The very fact he thinks possession of child porn should not be illegal, is all I need to know about this "warped" individual!

I am not trying to defend his views. I agree with you. I guess what he is saying is that posession is harmless, it is only if put in to action it becomes illegal. i.e. somebody might like keeping pictures of dead animals, we would think they were sick and twisted, but so long as they didn;t kill the animals or subsequently kill animals then they are infringing on nobody elses liberty. I think Sean is making a similar kind of argument, although i can't help feeling he is purposefully being contrarian because he enjoys the reaction.

The possession of "child porn" First we need to define what is child porn

This site gives age of consent for sexual acts
A table of worldwide ages of consent, including US states

As low as 12 and as high as 18 so how can we define a child with cultures varying so much ?

Perhaps under 12 ? but we all have had pictures taken in the past when very young which these days are deemed inappropriate or perhaps it's the use that the pictures are put to ?
What about families that practice nudism or naturism any pictures they have could be deemed offensive but could just be family or social group pictures

We are in the realms of mind control just because a person possess these pictures does not mean that they are likely to partake in illegal acts and followed to it's logical conclusion means that someone making a threatening statement could be prosecuted as if they had performed the act - would that justify the death penalty for someone only threatening murder where do we draw the line ?

It requires a judgement of Solomon

And just to pre empt any silly replies I believe in the age of consent in this country and that 16 or at a pinch 15 is as low as we go and I believe that there should be an anti predator law which has an upper differential limit of 5 years until the age of 18 is reached e.g. 15 year old should not have sex with anyone over 20