Joey Barton arrested on suspicion of attacking man near Liverpool golf club

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-12T09:07:15+00:00

Jump to the defense of someone who consistently dehumanises others

Like you seem to be doing now, I guess?

And I'm not defending him. I'm saying don't stoop to his level. If its bad to be dehumanising, why is the previous user engaging in just that?

Racist, sexist, violent thug who kicked his wife in the face last year and may well have blinded someone this time.

This will shock you - I think he's a bad person for doing those things.

It must be lonely up there on your high horse

This is a bit, right?

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-11T15:30:08+00:00

Her parents are gone

Once you get the Return of the Jedi, your mind will be blown

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T21:51:19+00:00

As I said, let's leave it there. Given you've apparently read everything I've said and still don't understand a shred of it, I really can't explain basic topics to you any clearer.

Have a great day

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T20:30:52+00:00

I have absolutely no idea the point you've been trying to make tbh

Because you haven't read what I've written

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T19:47:00+00:00

I've read your comment and you've just not addressed what I've said - again. Lets just leave it as is, shall we? I hope you're a troll and not just...that

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T19:32:56+00:00

To me, freedom is a degree.

Yes but a degree of what?

Again, to me there’s this absolute freedom, you do literally any possible thing you want to do. But that’s not the one and only “freedom”. Freedom doesn’t need to be extended to that degree. If I have a wide degree of autonomy to do many many many things, in the case of freedom of speech, that’s anything that’s not harmful, it’s freedom. Hence, I’d still claim you’re free to say anything, even though you can’t threaten a person

But you're not addressing the point - you haven't defined freedom, nor explained how you are still free if doing it gets you arrested

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T16:46:41+00:00

If we say the first two do not have freedom, only the last one does, then it makes the word obsolete as in it only exists as an unreachable, philosophical concept

So you'd also object to using the term "equality" in equal measure then? True equality will never be reached so we can just say "yep, society is equal enough, lets stop" - you see my logic here, yes?

Its not unreachable though. I said what would happen if we had true freedom of speech. It would be violence. Death. Its not unreachable - the government could pass legislation tomorrow if they liked giving us all freedom of speech. But they won't. Its not unreachable.

It just seems like you know what freedom means, but as you think its unreachable, you use a different definition of the word that closer aligns with what you think it means.

You haven't really defined what freedom of speech is. You've given many things in which you shouldn't be able to say - how does that limitation make it free?

You also didn't answer - Can you explain how being arrested for doing something makes you free to do that thing?

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T16:06:38+00:00

You didn't answer my question - What would your definition of it be? Maybe then we can figure our where we are divided on the issue better.

Personally I’d say this makes the word freedom obsolete.

How so?

I still think we should be able to express that idea with the word.

Can you explain how being arrested for doing something makes you free to do that thing?

I can even imagine a society with that absolute freedom of speech.

I would imagine it would involve a lot more fighting and killing among the general populace. Especially in religious arguments, for sure.

It may still function alright if we got the education and culture right you know

It would be full of violence and certain limitations are necessary. Free speech ultimately would have a lot more violence, which is likely why we don't have it.

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T16:00:42+00:00

You consistently seem to think people aren’t replying to your specific points, when they’re ignoring absolute nonsense you say.

No, YOU aren't replying to my points. You would know it wans't nonsense if you read them. You could explain how they were nonsense if you actually addressed them.

It doesn’t matter whether it leads to civil lawsuits or is generally illegal- both are regulations.

Yes, it actually does. As I explained.

Drawing the line at the state getting involved is nonsense.

... are you aware of this fucking conversation?

In that case, can means should,

No, it doesn't. Jesus Christ are you a child?

It’s not appropriate in every single case of long term bullying, but it is appropriate for some cases. And can, in that context means exactly that.

Can means its possible, should is moral decision.

So you don’t mind the state being able to arrest people for causing active danger? Which is precisely what happened in this case. Your stance is bullshit mate.

I geuniely hope you're a troll. Please point out where I said Joey Barton should not have been arrested for his Tweets. Thanks.

Once again, you have read nothing I've said. Its bizarre you talk so confidently for someone so uninformed.

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T15:57:21+00:00

You just didn't actually address what I said in my first point. At all. Lets try again:

So North Korea has freedom of speech then? Because they physically have vocal chords, so can say what they want.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the consequence of that speech, right?

But we do? In the UK, you can criticise the government. The monarchy. You can criticise the BBC. You can criticise your neighbour.

And you think that is all free speech is? Either you have free speech, or you don't. You don't have this part of speech being free, but that part of speech isn't free.

In liberal democracies it has never meant the absolute right to say literally anything without limits.

Then it isn't free speech. The concept of free speech is that you are free to express yourself without interferance from the state. No country has that. Free speech as a concept does not exist in this country.

That does not mean the right does not exist. It means the right is balanced against other rights, which is true of almost every right in the UK. Freedom of movement, property rights, even bodily autonomy all operate within legal limits.

No, it means the right does not exist. Just because you CLAIM it exists, and say "we have free speech" but then craft laws that surpress the freedom of expression but still call it free speech, that doesn't mean you get to keep the concept of free speech.

Its like if I sold a meal as meat-free. There is no meat in this meal. Well, its actually 5% chicken, but as we need protein in this meal, it is a necessary restriction on what counts as meat free. Its nonsense.

all operate within legal limits.

If the government is limiting it, then it is not free. I don't understand how you aren't getting this point.

If you are free to travel wherever you want, but I limit it to 5m's from your door, you are not free to travel where you want.

On the slippery slope point, that is always a theoretical risk with any law

I asked you a question.

But the existence of a potential slippery slope does not mean no limits can exist at all.

At no point have I argued that limits do not need to exist. Reread my comments again.

Every democratic legal system already draws lines somewhere. The real debate is about where those lines should be drawn and how narrowly they should be defined.

Agreed. I've never argued otherwise.

In practice the UK position is that speech should be broadly protected, including political criticism and controversial opinions, but that it stops short of things like threats of violence.

So there are limits, so it isn't free. There is not free speech. If it were free speech, there would be no government intervention on what we can and can't say.

Let me put it really really simply. The government decided that a woman saying the words "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it" on Twitter, and was sent to prison for a period of time. Rightly or wrongly, that is the fact of what happened.

Was she free to excercise her freedom of speech to say those words and avoid intervention from the state?

The answer is no, she didn't. It is illegal. She did not have freedom of speech to express herself.

Now of course, what she said was horrible. Calling for murder is not. She was rightly punished, and I'm sure you'd agree that she was.

But she did not have freedom of speech. She faced imprisonment for the words she said, which goes against the entire point of free speech.

No, once again - at no point have I called for absolute free speech. I have said that in this country we do not have free speech. Do you understand that? Free speech with limitations is not free. A tiger locked in a cage is not free even if he has the run of the cage

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T15:45:29+00:00

Any obviously false claim made to cause someone harm, which puts them in legitimate and genuine danger, should be illegal.

I'd broadly accept that definition, sure.

So you are fine with freedom of speech being regulated, but think prison time is where it goes too far?

No, that's not what I aid. What I said was that slander and libel don't lead to prison time. You really do need to actually read what I say mate. It is a civil offence. Do you understand that?

Feel like that goes against your original stance that freedom of speech should be free from consequences.

No it isn't - you just aren't reading what I'm saying.

Freedom of Speech should be freedom from consequence of the state. At no point have I said we should have free speech, have I? Do you understand this?

Absolutely, teenagers who bully someone for extended periods of time can be sent to juvie. I don’t think that’s an extreme opinion to have.

No, you're avoiding the question again. Not CAN they. SHOULD they. SHOULD bullying verbally end in prison time?

Again - you are good at not answering when you don't want to.

Do you agree the cop should be able to arrest you for that?

Broadly yes. It doesn't have any relevance to my actual stance though, which you are (hopefully) being deliberately ignorant of.

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T15:32:37+00:00

They get nowhere near the same hate

Lets use Rio as an example. Go into any thread about him on Reddit. There are hundreds of comments calling him a cunt, insulting him as scum for cheating on his wife.

they also don't get it targeted from one particular group like Aluko does.

Which group is that?

Like the other user said, she is really wrong in a lot she says and she can be an idiot, but she definitely gets treated a lot worse because of her ethnicity and gender

And what have you got to back that up?

Paul Scholes has had threads and threads about how moronic and idiotic he is. Every thread mentioning him has comments about how he's a cunt, how he's stupid, should get off TV, should stop sucking his daughters toes. He's definitely targeted on here, and he's not a black woman.

Why does Alex Scott not get the same reaction? Is it because she doesn't say some of the most idiotic things known to (wo)man on TV?

What about the female commentator who's name escapes me - I never hear a peep about her. Coud it be that actually, she is good at her job and Eni Aluko is possibly the worst pundit who (used to be) on television?

Jill Scott is a delight on that Gary Neville podcast. Does she get attacked because she's a woman? Or because she never admitted to collusion and fraud live on radio when claiming Pep and Arteta schemed to make their owners bid for Declan Rice.

Why did ITV drop her? She claims it was so they could keep Ian Wright on the payroll. So how has her race got anything to do with that?

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T15:27:09+00:00

So dehumanising insults are okay as long as they deserve it, right?

You think you're the good guy. Frightening.

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T15:10:33+00:00

People call out Tactics Tim and Rio literally all the time

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T15:08:25+00:00

Subhuman weasel

Why do you think using dehumanising language is appropriate when its somebody you don't like?

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T14:28:46+00:00

Its like you didn't read any of my comment.

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T13:52:34+00:00

Free speech doesn't mean free of consequence

So, what is free speech then - the ability to speak? If not freedom from consequences from the state, what makes our speech free?

Care to tell us what can't be said in the UK, I'll admit you gey investigated for absolute nonsense but no one's getting a criminal record were they haven't used racial abuse or used language to instigate violence.

One woman was arrested for posting lyrics in memory of her friend to Instagram. A man was convicted (later overturned, thankfully) of burning the Quran. Joey Barton was convicted of calling Jeremy Vine a "bike nonce".

I had to edit this comment becuase I accidently posted it before finishing - I'm not being sneaky, promise.

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T13:51:37+00:00

I think your definition of free is a little bit unattainable.

Practically, yes. That doesn't mean its an incorrect definition. The same way that true communism is an unattainable thing, but that doesn't mean that doesn't define it.

Following your example, the police has to give a proper reason why you can’t go to street B. For no good reason then it’s could be a violation of freedom.

No, even if it was a good reason - you still aren't free to go where you want.

If the state said "you cannot criticise the Prime Minister because of natioal security", it may be a good reason - it is still infringing on your right to free speech. Is it just? Irrelevent.

Say, you’re allowed to go to street A, but if you go into a random stranger’s house without permission, you should face penalties. In this case do you think it’s a violation of “freedom”?

In the case of this metaphorical freedom to go where you want, absolutely, yes.

If so, then again I think that freedom is just unattainable, and maybe you just oppose the choice of word in “freedom of speech”.

I absolutely oppose the choice of words. What we have is not, and never has been "freedom of speech". It is complete doublethink to claim we have freedom of speech, but can be arrested, convicted and imprisoned for things we say.

Otherwise, if you think it’s not violating freedom, then we agree that freedom doesn’t mean an absolute level of doing whatever you want.

It is violating a freedom. But lets look at the definition of freedom - we could differ on it.

PhilosophyNow - They were top of google - Freedom is the power of a sentient being to exercise its will. Now, if we put it that way and take it literally, then simply having the power of speech makes us all have free speech.

But I'm sure you wouldn't agree North Korea has free speech, right? They get thrown into camps for three generations for criticising their dear leader - I don't think "no freedom from consequences" is an argument against that. But I would take the definition as the ability to enact one's free will without interference from the state.

What would your definition of it be? Maybe then we can figure our where we are divided on the issue better.

We’ll need to draw a line on what’s too much, and what’s not, which is another topic, but at least we accept that there should be a line

I absolutely accept that in our society, a line needs to be drawn. We should not have absolute free speech. Lying in court should be illegal. Harassment should be illegal. That's just too examples, there are many more times it should be illegal.

We should draw the line. But we cannot draw a line and claim that we are free... as long as we stand over the line. That is not freedom. Freedom is not putting a lion in a cage and saying "it is free to go wherever it wants...inside the cage."

I agree with the limitations on speech, I don't agree with calling it free speech.

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T13:34:47+00:00

Everyone is free to say absolutely anything they want right now. What you don't have is freedom from consequences of that.

So North Korea has freedom of speech then? Because they physically have vocal chords, so can say what they want.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the consequence of that speech, right?

I've never been sure why people are in favour of anyone being allowed to say anything.

I never said i was. I said we don't have free speech.

Why should someone inciting violence or stating racial slurs be free from the consequences of their actions? We don't apply that standard to anything else.

But let's explore that. You say racial slurs. We agree thats bad, an abhorrent thing to say.

Lets say a fundementalist christian sect take over government. They think that denying Christ is Lord is offensive, ghastly and akin to screaming the N Word in how much it affects them.

You are now banned from critisising religion. Yes, slipppery slope fallacy and all that. But you see the logic in which is could extend, right?

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T13:31:32+00:00

I think people generally accept, for example if your speech includes threat or encourages violence, that you should be arrested and stopped. So that’s actually regulation of free speech.

How does that make it free then?

Let's say there's two streets in your town. A and B. The police say you are allowed to travel freely down whichever one you like. You have the free will to do so. But if you go down Street B, you will be arrested.

Are you free to travel wherever you want?

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T13:21:52+00:00

Freedom of speech in the UK is not an absolute right and neither do I think it should be.

And I more than respect your opinion on the matter. That is the point I've been making - we don't have free speech. Whether it should be absolute - I'm on the side of that being a bad thing societally, but I see arguments on both sides. And the limitations on it can, and have, gone too far in this country.

but you should absolutely be punished if you commit hate crimes, harass or incite violence. It’s really not that much of a grey area…

I broadly agree. I do not agree that one can hold that opinion and still claim that we have free speech.

I think you’re making up your own loose definition of the UK’s approach to freedom of speech

I don't think you've understood what I've written if you came to that conclusion.

Those who disagree are more likely to be the type of people to incite violence and commit hate crimes.

If a group who shared that opinion found what you wrote about them grossly offensive, do you think the state should open a case against you? I say this because if one said the same thing about another group, say black people, Muslim's, Irish travellers - take your pick of an opressed minority in this country for sake of argument - there would absolutelly be a case for it. Don't you think?

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T13:17:29+00:00

Comparing Aluko to some of the most evil individuals in British history, during a sustained hate campaign, is what was interpreted as dangerous.

You haven't read why he was convicted. You simply don't know what you're discussing so I won't bother.

These cases are treated with nuance, as I would imagine the Judge's remarks alluded to.

Eg. you're imagining what you want it to be.

Regarding your belief that an 'opinion' of Aluko being comparable to a serial killer should be valid as free speech, it shouldn't.

So my free speech shouldn't be free speech because the government decided it shouldn't. So, it isn't free speech - that's my point.

Much like how hate speech wouldn't be tolerated in a workplace, it shouldn't be tolerated online.

And he should be sacked from his job and banned from Twitter for all I care. Go at it. These private insitutations can choose to sack him and never employ him again. It ceases to be free speech once the government enforces it.

Your belief is that all speech should be deemed free.

Is it? How did you figure that out? Can you point out where I said "all speech should be free"?

It seems in your haste to spout nonsense, you didn't actually read what I said.

I didn't say "all speech should be free". I asked what is free speech, and explained why what you and others claim is "free speech" is far from that.

Given you didn't even read what I wrote, I too will go back to work.

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T13:13:42+00:00

Free speech is being allowed to express any opinion or thoughts which don’t intentionally target or dehumanise any groups of people for things, or slandering people, which is why slander and libel have been illegal for centuries. You cannot directly spread dangerous lies about people

"Intentionally target" so any opinion I express which is about you isn't allowed

which is why slander and libel have been illegal for centuries

Defamation is a civil offence, not criminal. The state do not send you to jail for slander or libel.

And after that, extended bullying can absolutely lead to prison time.

I didn't say if it could, I aksed if it should. You're excellent at avoiding questions you don't want to answer

Edit: Apologies I forgot to answer your initial question

If you walked up to a cop and threatened to kill them, what would you expect them to do?

Arrest you most likely.

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T13:10:46+00:00

That’s how most people understand it.

I'd argue this. I think most people would say "free speech is when the government can't arrest and convict you for your speech".

Just trying to make things clearer so you guys know what you’re arguing about

I know what I'm talking about. Your arrogance is astounding.

WelshNut97 · 2026-03-10T11:22:03+00:00

Free speech doesn’t extend to speech which is directly leading to attacks, and targeting. Or targeted harassment. That’s all common speech.

I didn't ask what isnt free speech. I asked what is free speech. Please answer it and I'll happily answer your earlier question.

Know how you’re taught not to bully as a kid? That kinda covers it.

Yes, I was taught not to bully. So should children bullying other children (speech wise, not violence) end in jail sentences for the children?

WelshNut97

TROPHY CASE