The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
The BIB is insane, it could cover anything, and how in the name of ruddy hell do you even define this "psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress"
How on earth did this bill make it through the committee stage and through the Lords.
The government had zero interest in governing and preferred to fight amongst themselves.
When I think how poor Labour are, and they are poor, my god the last lot were miles worse.
Nice to see a picture of our next Prime Minister in the header.
Bridget or the dog?
If the pooch is anything like the Westie who lives down the road from us ... Walk is a stately progress out and back. Never, ever distracted by actually doing anything (other than the ritual No 1 and No 2 obvs). Totally sedate, will sniff your hand amiably but that's it. Would meet Y Doethur's specification admirably.
Our dog would be the exact opposite. He would be changing policy every 5 minutes. Every single person who meets him says he is the most hyper dog they have met. He just goes bonkers when meeting anyone (in a very friendly way). He also eats anything he can find and is very adept at stealing food. He loves going to the vet even though on a regular basis he is being induced to vomit and spins around the room bouncing off the walls. He is a Sproodle (Springer/Poodle cross).
Some of the things he has eaten or tried to eat are: 1.5kg block of cheese, 250g block of butter, tin foil that had had a cake in it (he pooed sparkling poo for several days), food still in the bag (that was a serious one), a whole bag of potatoes, a regular diet of dead deer (hairy poo) and trying to get a skull and spine off him was a challenge, my wallet, iphone, glasses, binoculars and numerous peoples dinners if they don't put their plate in a safe place when getting up from the table, bowls of peanuts and crisps, etc, etc. He costs a fortune calling the toxic helpline and vets bills and trying to get the food off him when he has it is pretty well impossible
I've said it before and I'll say it again: dogs are idiots.
On reflection, cats are idiots too. But in a much more low-key way. Cats are BETTER idiots.
There are a lot of funny dog videos and I think this is because unlike most animals dogs are clever enough to try and work things out, but generally so stupid that when they try they cock it up and are therefore funny.
One of my favourites is of a door without any glass in it, but the dog waits outside because it is closed and the human walks through where the glass should be in the closed door and the dog still won't move until the door is opened when it then walks through.
Dogs, like many mammals, have an associative memory. They aren’t able to rationalise and abstract general theories from their experiences, and don’t try to ‘understand’ everything as we do, so they simply sort everything they encounter into ‘good’, ‘bad’ or harmless, and once something encountered is so sorted, they simply welcome or avoid the first and second and ignore the third, and thereafter it takes a huge effort to change anything’s categorisation. It’s why so many pets are fearful of the vets; it only takes one unpleasant examination or treatment and all vets’ premises go into the ‘bad’ category, however many treats they receive on subsequent visits.
The vet thing is interesting. Most people we know who have dogs tell us how their dogs hate the vet. Some will shake or refuse to get out of the car.
Ours loves the vet. If we walk past the surgery he will try and go in. He gets very excited when we go. He becomes deaf to commands he is so excited. Yet he has had several visits that should have been very unpleasant. But then he is generally excited about everything. He also doesn't cotton on to other dogs being aggressive to him. He loves being chased and so taunts dogs and humans to chase him and doesn't get it if another dog reacts aggressively. He will just go back again and again. He is not interested in chasing a ball, but knows if he steals a ball humans and dogs will chase him. Lots of apologising involved with that problem.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Get the editor of The Spectator to raise this insane law.
Oh wait, he was one of the architects of this bill and voted for it.
I'm genuinely surprised it didn't get dissected at the time by PB given its collective expertise and cynicism. Can't be because it was a Tory bill. Or can it?
I’m a right winger and I’m outraged by it. The Tories should hang their heads with shame. Ugh
My guess is there was no “conspiracy” to ignore it, more that we were all consumed by bigger things at the time - Brexit, Corbyn, Trump, Covid, Ukraine
So this lunatic law snuck under the radar. I confess I am genuinely stunned by the awfulness of it
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Get the editor of The Spectator to raise this insane law.
Oh wait, he was one of the architects of this bill and voted for it.
Presumably this will also impact the Below the line comments on videos on sites like Youtube.
Doubt it because that's US hosted and will be covered by the first amendment.
Under the cover of a single line in a huge bill the government has eliminated the right to free expression in the UK.
Even the Lib Dems wanted the Online Safety Bill to go even further. It's pretty much a consensus across all major parties. Not good.
I think it reflects the level of online abuse that politicians get, as well as the malign impact of social media on children. A disproportionate backlash against a real problem.
One to watch - Mumsnet. If that closes down (or threatens to do so) then things will really kick off.
Mumsnet should close down - the acronyms used there have previously caused me “psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress”
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's absolutely insane. It is going to have an incredibly chilling effect on free expression in this country.
Suella’s bill. But I expect she hoped it would only catch things she doesn’t like. That’s also the mistake governments frequently make. Like her Public Order Act, which sure as night follows day will end up being used against things she and her political allies approve of.
Yes, it was bad then and it's bad now. Having politicians in charge of what is and isn't allowed to be posted on the internet is completely stupid. One can only hope that the next government repeals this abomination and implements a first amendment style guarantee of free expression in it's place.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
The current government are not unique in having a shit understanding of the most basic concepts around the internet or technology generally, but it's a shame they're inflicting their shit understanding on the rest of us.
The bill was introduced by the Tories.
Fair enough. The shit understanding of the Conservatives is to blame for the bill. Labour should axe it immediately.
The present government's only objection to it is that it doesn't go far enough.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
The current government are not unique in having a shit understanding of the most basic concepts around the internet or technology generally, but it's a shame they're inflicting their shit understanding on the rest of us.
The current government?
The only criticism you can make of them is not binning this Conservative policy.
Labour supported the Bill. And at one point wanted to make it even stronger. Labour have IMV no instinctive support for free speech at all.
Just scanning through the various statements on it, politicians from all parties have been fighting to be seen as the most draconian on it.
They must be picking up a massive appetite for it from the public. Parents, I'd guess, but also perhaps older non-online people who blame technology for all of life's ills.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Get the editor of The Spectator to raise this insane law.
Oh wait, he was one of the architects of this bill and voted for it.
I'm genuinely surprised it didn't get dissected at the time by PB given its collective expertise and cynicism. Can't be because it was a Tory bill. Or can it?
The bills a complete mess - it wasn’t worth discussing it because it has no redeemable feature - just another attack on the internet written by people who don’t understand how it works
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
The current government are not unique in having a shit understanding of the most basic concepts around the internet or technology generally, but it's a shame they're inflicting their shit understanding on the rest of us.
The current government?
The only criticism you can make of them is not binning this Conservative policy.
Labour supported the Bill. And at one point wanted to make it even stronger. Labour have IMV no instinctive support for free speech at all.
Free speech is an American invention. Libel law came before even our first Prime Minister, so there has been plenty of time for any party to get rid of it had they actually supported free speech.
Even the Lib Dems wanted the Online Safety Bill to go even further. It's pretty much a consensus across all major parties. Not good.
I think it reflects the level of online abuse that politicians get, as well as the malign impact of social media on children. A disproportionate backlash against a real problem.
One to watch - Mumsnet. If that closes down (or threatens to do so) then things will really kick off.
Mumsnet should close down - the acronyms used there have previously caused me “psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress”
If anyone on Twitter wants to highlight this to Elon it might get him to take up the cause and make the politicians address it. The UK state is prioritising people's offence, well not actual offence but perceived potential offence, above the right to free expression. It's criminal.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
I think at one time or other almost all of us have been distressed by what others have posted on here.
I can see a 'maximalist' interpretation of this being applied.
AFAICS, after this Bill takes effect, PB will consist entirely of @kjh talking about his visits with his dog to the vet. But then they cause me “distress” by being slightly boring after a while, so they will go too
AFAICS, after this Bill takes effect, PB will consist entirely of @kjh talking about his visits with his dog to the vet. But then they cause me “distress” by being slightly boring after a while, so they will go too
The descriptions may be enough to trigger distress in those who don’t want to talk about bodily functions
Even the Lib Dems wanted the Online Safety Bill to go even further. It's pretty much a consensus across all major parties. Not good.
I think it reflects the level of online abuse that politicians get, as well as the malign impact of social media on children. A disproportionate backlash against a real problem.
One to watch - Mumsnet. If that closes down (or threatens to do so) then things will really kick off.
Mumsnet should close down - the acronyms used there have previously caused me “psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress”
I worry about many non-political forums which have all sorts of very useful content about esoteric (or otherwise) subjects which cannot be found elsewhere.
A lot of these are volunteer run (like this one) and cannot afford lawyers.
It will be quite a serious loss of knowledge if they are shut down through worry about the odd off-colour post. Knowledge of the kind that almost makes the internet useful.
I suppose the only answer is to host in another jurisdiction but even that is fraught with problems.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Imagine the pleasant surroundings of a saloon bar in some Home Counties pub. Probably situated across the road from the village green, in a timbered building, with a cosy interior, frequented by an interesting diversity of locals with a range of education, occupations and experience, who enjoy chatting with those with whom they agree, and being stimulated by the repartee with those that they don’t. In winter months like currently, there’s a nicely roaring open fire.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
Until further notice discussions about the grooming story are off limits on PB.
I cannot risk OGH’s financial future, particularly with the Online Safety Bill coming into force shortly.
If you are desperate to discuss this subject there are other places such as Elon Musk’s Twitter platform.
Just how draconian is this bill ?
I saw the cycling forum that was closing down and also the guy here who read it.
Is there a summary guide somewhere of the risks people face who run forums ?
Seems bizarre a law aimed at large corporate multinationals could trap well meaning people running groups for hobbyists.
Also why should OGH risk ruin if he was not the poster who made the comment ? Seems unfair.
That’s the point.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but IMHO the police and CPS are going to run the test cases on small blogs and forums, with the intention of quickly ending up with a very broad Supreme Court interpretation of the law which they will then use to go after Facebook and Google and X.
They absolutely don’t want the test cases to be against companies with practically unlimited legal budgets who could get a very narrow interpretation of the law ruled upon.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
I think at one time or other almost all of us have been distressed by what others have posted on here.
I can see a 'maximalist' interpretation of this being applied.
Absolutely
TBH I thought @TSE was being a tad hysterical about this law. I apologise to him, he was not being hysterical at all
The law is utterly chilling. Almost literally. Makes me shudder reading it: like seeing the Orwellian state constructed right in front of you
I spoke to someone who is well versed in the Online Safety Bill and he thinks most of PB’s content would be fine.
However persistently linking to say racist Twitter accounts, saying you only want white babies, accusing somebody of being a rape enabler is going to get you and PB in trouble.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
I think at one time or other almost all of us have been distressed by what others have posted on here.
I can see a 'maximalist' interpretation of this being applied.
I’m now slightly worried about the legions of lurking step-mothers waiting to make a class action sized complaint about the site.
If you want an example of why the Tories are in the doldrums, look no further than the provisions of that bill. They cynically banged on about freedoms and protecting free speech while enacting rubbish like that. And people wonder why there is real potential for them to be eclipsed on the right.
Even the Lib Dems wanted the Online Safety Bill to go even further. It's pretty much a consensus across all major parties. Not good.
I think it reflects the level of online abuse that politicians get, as well as the malign impact of social media on children. A disproportionate backlash against a real problem.
One to watch - Mumsnet. If that closes down (or threatens to do so) then things will really kick off.
Mumsnet should close down - the acronyms used there have previously caused me “psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress”
I worry about many non-political forums which have all sorts of very useful content about esoteric (or otherwise) subjects which cannot be found elsewhere.
A lot of these are volunteer run (like this one) and cannot afford lawyers.
It will be quite a serious loss of knowledge if they are shut down through worry about the odd off-colour post. Knowledge of the kind that almost makes the internet useful.
I suppose the only answer is to host in another jurisdiction but even that is fraught with problems.
Hosting elsewhere won’t solve your problem when the provider of your hosting service provides them with your UK address - so posts earlier today about a site where Cloudflare have provided the details of the customer to someone who complained via a California court order.
All you do there is add cost to the complainant which will impact things in court (and not in a good way for the website owner).
Lots of helpful suggestions from Musk and Trunp supporters underneath Musk's latest poll
According to "Magavoice", "Britain can become the 53rd state after Canada and Greenland." How on earth did Britain get into a position where a considerable number of people think that these people offer greater "independence" , than the E.U. ?
Numerically (and culturally) the UK would carry more weight as a US state than as a member of the EU.
Interesting debate to be had on the UK's accession to the USA. In order to gain influence we don't want be admitted as one state as that would give us only two US senators. Obvs the four home countries should go in separately, and there is surely a strong argument for Yorkshire demanding its own separate statehood. So there's ten senators for starters.
Incidentally @malcolmg would make an outstanding MAGA representative. No nonsense with him in Congress.
There's a good case for the UK to become part of the US, as a second best to EU membership. As a middle sized mid Atlantic country we risk being frozen out of trade blocs snd losing global influence. I agree though we would have to join as at least four states (although in reality could Ireland really be split between the EU and US?)
If England joined the US, Ireland would almost certainly remain in the EU.
I spoke to someone who is well versed in the Online Safety Bill and he thinks most of PB’s content would be fine.
However persistently linking to say racist Twitter accounts, saying you only want white babies, accusing somebody of being a rape enabler is going to get you and PB in trouble.
So moderators will use the bill as an excuse to ban commenters
Even the Lib Dems wanted the Online Safety Bill to go even further. It's pretty much a consensus across all major parties. Not good.
I think it reflects the level of online abuse that politicians get, as well as the malign impact of social media on children. A disproportionate backlash against a real problem.
One to watch - Mumsnet. If that closes down (or threatens to do so) then things will really kick off.
Consensus across all major parties is never good. Especially not when the legacy media also agrees.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
I think at one time or other almost all of us have been distressed by what others have posted on here.
I can see a 'maximalist' interpretation of this being applied.
The problem is not so much that a comment might cause distress to a PBer, but rather that one PBer thinks a comment will cause distress to another PBer and reports it (even if the no distress was caused at all).
I spoke to someone who is well versed in the Online Safety Bill and he thinks most of PB’s content would be fine.
However persistently linking to say racist Twitter accounts, saying you only want white babies, accusing somebody of being a rape enabler is going to get you and PB in trouble.
So moderators will use the bill as an excuse to ban commenters
OTOH there is an old Scottish saying: in demotic urban form, it runs "it's oor ba and ye're no playin".
If you want an example of why the Tories are in the doldrums, look no further than the provisions of that bill. They cynically banged on about freedoms and protecting free speech while enacting rubbish like that. And people wonder why there is real potential for them to be eclipsed on the right.
Likewise their public order legislation. Any protest that was "disruptively noisy" could be stopped, which was again just pure authoritarianism.
AFAICS, after this Bill takes effect, PB will consist entirely of @kjh talking about his visits with his dog to the vet. But then they cause me “distress” by being slightly boring after a while, so they will go too
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
I think at one time or other almost all of us have been distressed by what others have posted on here.
I can see a 'maximalist' interpretation of this being applied.
The problem is not so much that a comment might cause distress to a PBer, but rather that one PBer thinks a comment will cause distress to another PBer and reports it (even if the no distress was caused at all).
Does it have to be a PBer at all who reports it? Anyone who isn't even a PBer could report it, no? Anyone can look at the forum.
How long before the Online Safety law has the grooming gang reports taken down?
Not only might people be offended by speculation about race and religion but I'm probably not the only one who thinks child rape is a bad thing. No doubt some of the descriptions from news stories, official reports and sentencing remarks would be considered illegal if woven into fiction by AI.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Imagine the pleasant surroundings of a saloon bar in some Home Counties pub. Probably situated across the road from the village green, in a timbered building, with a cosy interior, frequented by an interesting diversity of locals with a range of education, occupations and experience, who enjoy chatting with those with whom they agree, and being stimulated by the repartee with those that they don’t. In winter months like currently, there’s a nicely roaring open fire.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
Imagine this fellow leaves the pub for a month, and then he gets secret visits from the regulars saying “please please please come back, it’s so boring in there now. It’s literally just this sad friendless git from Ventnor wanking on about his dog in a disturbingly erotic way, takings are down 87%”
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
Sir Keir seems to have done OK today. I'm not sure he's done enough to fend off the calls for an enquiry, but he did avoid calling the rape victims 'cake victims' or anything similar. It'll just get dicey if anything else comes to light.
Even the Lib Dems wanted the Online Safety Bill to go even further. It's pretty much a consensus across all major parties. Not good.
I think it reflects the level of online abuse that politicians get, as well as the malign impact of social media on children. A disproportionate backlash against a real problem.
One to watch - Mumsnet. If that closes down (or threatens to do so) then things will really kick off.
Mumsnet should close down - the acronyms used there have previously caused me “psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress”
I worry about many non-political forums which have all sorts of very useful content about esoteric (or otherwise) subjects which cannot be found elsewhere.
A lot of these are volunteer run (like this one) and cannot afford lawyers.
It will be quite a serious loss of knowledge if they are shut down through worry about the odd off-colour post. Knowledge of the kind that almost makes the internet useful.
I suppose the only answer is to host in another jurisdiction but even that is fraught with problems.
Hosting elsewhere won’t solve your problem when the provider of your hosting service provides them with your UK address - so posts earlier today about a site where Cloudflare have provided the details of the customer to someone who complained via a California court order.
All you do there is add cost to the complainant which will impact things in court (and not in a good way for the website owner).
Presumably you would have to get someone actually based in the US to do the registering.
AFAICS, after this Bill takes effect, PB will consist entirely of @kjh talking about his visits with his dog to the vet. But then they cause me “distress” by being slightly boring after a while, so they will go too
I spoke to someone who is well versed in the Online Safety Bill and he thinks most of PB’s content would be fine.
However persistently linking to say racist Twitter accounts, saying you only want white babies, accusing somebody of being a rape enabler is going to get you and PB in trouble.
So moderators will use the bill as an excuse to ban commenters
Their site, their rules. It's not helpful to confuse that principle with the very real issues associated with this new law.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Imagine the pleasant surroundings of a saloon bar in some Home Counties pub. Probably situated across the road from the village green, in a timbered building, with a cosy interior, frequented by an interesting diversity of locals with a range of education, occupations and experience, who enjoy chatting with those with whom they agree, and being stimulated by the repartee with those that they don’t. In winter months like currently, there’s a nicely roaring open fire.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
This is nonsense, in your scenario the pub landlord has the choice to act or not act. After this new law is passed the landlord will be compelled to act because he will be liable for anything said in his pub. You're one of the people that is clapping thunderously as our freedom to express our opinions is taken away, what happened to the Liberal bit of the Lib Dems?
I spoke to someone who is well versed in the Online Safety Bill and he thinks most of PB’s content would be fine.
However persistently linking to say racist Twitter accounts, saying you only want white babies, accusing somebody of being a rape enabler is going to get you and PB in trouble.
So moderators will use the bill as an excuse to ban commenters
Their site, their rules. It's not helpful to confuse that principle with the very real issues associated with this new law.
No, it's not their site their rules after the bill. It's state enforced rules.
AFAICS, after this Bill takes effect, PB will consist entirely of @kjh talking about his visits with his dog to the vet. But then they cause me “distress” by being slightly boring after a while, so they will go too
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
I think at one time or other almost all of us have been distressed by what others have posted on here.
I can see a 'maximalist' interpretation of this being applied.
The problem is not so much that a comment might cause distress to a PBer, but rather that one PBer thinks a comment will cause distress to another PBer and reports it (even if the no distress was caused at all).
Does it have to be a PBer at all who reports it? Anyone who isn't even a PBer could report it, no? Anyone can look at the forum.
And it could be anyone who could be distressed, including an off-grid shepherd living on Boreray.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Get the editor of The Spectator to raise this insane law.
Oh wait, he was one of the architects of this bill and voted for it.
Presumably this will also impact the Below the line comments on videos on sites like Youtube.
Doubt it because that's US hosted and will be covered by the first amendment.
Under the cover of a single line in a huge bill the government has eliminated the right to free expression in the UK.
In which case it's challengeable under Article 10 as soon as there's a victim.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Imagine the pleasant surroundings of a saloon bar in some Home Counties pub. Probably situated across the road from the village green, in a timbered building, with a cosy interior, frequented by an interesting diversity of locals with a range of education, occupations and experience, who enjoy chatting with those with whom they agree, and being stimulated by the repartee with those that they don’t. In winter months like currently, there’s a nicely roaring open fire.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
Imagine this fellow leaves the pub for a month, and then he gets secret visits from the regulars saying “please please please come back, it’s so boring in there now. It’s literally just this sad friendless git from Ventnor wanking on about his dog in a disturbingly erotic way, takings are down 87%”
Clearly you are losing your ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
AFAICS, after this Bill takes effect, PB will consist entirely of @kjh talking about his visits with his dog to the vet. But then they cause me “distress” by being slightly boring after a while, so they will go too
Good to see Streeting, and now Starmer, giving full backing to Jess Phillips, and pointing out her track record in challenging violence against women and girls. But unless I've missed it, Jess herself has not commented on Musk's outrageous description of her as a 'rape genocide apologist' who should be in prison. Maybe she's keeping her powder dry, or consulting lawyers. And Richard Tice refused to condemn Musk's description of Phillips, saying it was just free speech.
I'm all for free speech within the law. But if somebody with a huge platform called me a 'rape genocide apologist' I'd be seeking some sort of redress.
Starmer rightly called out Tory MPs on this, saying this morning -
"I think only a few months ago it would have been unthinkable for the things that have been said about Jess Philips without all political parties and the leader of the opposition to call it out in terms...to condemn it...if you're not prepared to stand up as a Tory MP and denounce what's been said about her, then you need to seriously think about why you're in politics in my view."
All good stuff. And then I remember Tom Watson and his outrageous behaviour in Operation Midland and the things he said about various prominent people, including one ex-Tory MP, none of which - AFAICR - were criticised by fellow Labour MPs or his leader at the time. Plus the fact that it was the very same Starmer who nominated him in 2022 to the Lords. It was appallingly poor judgment by Starmer and, frankly, rather undercuts his criticism today. If an ex-DPP cannot understand why Watson should not have been elevated to the Lords after his conduct, then he has no business lecturing others about their similarly poor judgment.
I don't see what the word 'genocide' is doing in 'rape genocide apologist' - but if she genuinely said that the Cologne rape parties were just a bit of lairiness like Broad Street on a Friday night, then this sounds like, er, rape apology.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Get the editor of The Spectator to raise this insane law.
Oh wait, he was one of the architects of this bill and voted for it.
I'm genuinely surprised it didn't get dissected at the time by PB given its collective expertise and cynicism. Can't be because it was a Tory bill. Or can it?
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
I think at one time or other almost all of us have been distressed by what others have posted on here.
I can see a 'maximalist' interpretation of this being applied.
The problem is not so much that a comment might cause distress to a PBer, but rather that one PBer thinks a comment will cause distress to another PBer and reports it (even if the no distress was caused at all).
Does it have to be a PBer at all who reports it? Anyone who isn't even a PBer could report it, no? Anyone can look at the forum.
And it could be anyone who could be distressed, including an off-grid shepherd living on Boreray.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's absolutely insane. It is going to have an incredibly chilling effect on free expression in this country.
The bar is "psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress". I'm struggling to think of anything that has been posted that would meet that threshhold in all the time I have been on here.
Okay, maybe the one about biting into a pus-filled chicken leg.
I am seriously distressed by your lack of understanding of how things can be seriously distressing.
Good to see Streeting, and now Starmer, giving full backing to Jess Phillips, and pointing out her track record in challenging violence against women and girls. But unless I've missed it, Jess herself has not commented on Musk's outrageous description of her as a 'rape genocide apologist' who should be in prison. Maybe she's keeping her powder dry, or consulting lawyers. And Richard Tice refused to condemn Musk's description of Phillips, saying it was just free speech.
I'm all for free speech within the law. But if somebody with a huge platform called me a 'rape genocide apologist' I'd be seeking some sort of redress.
Starmer rightly called out Tory MPs on this, saying this morning -
"I think only a few months ago it would have been unthinkable for the things that have been said about Jess Philips without all political parties and the leader of the opposition to call it out in terms...to condemn it...if you're not prepared to stand up as a Tory MP and denounce what's been said about her, then you need to seriously think about why you're in politics in my view."
All good stuff. And then I remember Tom Watson and his outrageous behaviour in Operation Midland and the things he said about various prominent people, including one ex-Tory MP, none of which - AFAICR - were criticised by fellow Labour MPs or his leader at the time. Plus the fact that it was the very same Starmer who nominated him in 2022 to the Lords. It was appallingly poor judgment by Starmer and, frankly, rather undercuts his criticism today. If an ex-DPP cannot understand why Watson should not have been elevated to the Lords after his conduct, then he has no business lecturing others about their similarly poor judgment.
I don't see what the word 'genocide' is doing in 'rape genocide apologist' - but if she genuinely said that the Cologne rape parties were just a bit of lairiness like Broad Street on a Friday night, then this sounds like, er, rape apology.
I agree that the genocide is wrong of course.
My admittedly cursory impression was that she was more likely to be comparing the way things were heading in Birmingham with what happened in Koln, in terms of her concern for her constituents, which is perfectly rational and rteasonable line of approach without downplaying the seriousness of either. You'd need to check the actual wording, of course. Edit: But the bit I read in the report seemed to indicate that.
More than half of companies plan to raise prices by early April, according to research, which found business confidence has slumped since the Budget.
A survey of more than 4,800 firms found that 55% of them expect prices to increase in the next three months, up from 39% in a similar poll in the second half of 2024.
The research, by trade group the British Chambers of Commerce, comes after Labour announced an increase in taxes related to employing people in the October Budget.
Firms of all shapes and sizes are telling us the national insurance hike is particularly damaging. Businesses are already cutting back on investment and say they will have to put up prices in the coming months
A bit weird that firms of all sizes think the NI hike is damaging given that over half of firms will pay no or less NI under the changes.
Labour are much worse at the selling of their policies than the policies themselves.
Bit late to this, but I thought I'd respond as I've a very relevant perspective.
I'm in exactly this position. I've a business with four on the payroll at present - I think when I ran the numbers it's pretty much a wash.
However I'm furious about the changes, because they leverage against growth. You see I have aspiration. I don't want to be a four employee business forever. I can see a potential future for the business, with maybe 10-15 employees rather than 4. Perhaps turning over 2 million rather than half a million. Maybe with its own, purpose built premises, rather than a rough couple of buildings in a rented yard.
But everywhere you look, business is squeezed till the proverbial pips squeak, and more so as you grow. For me to take on another employee, he costs me more than the first four, and more still after April because of the NI hit.
Business rates - free until you get premises worth £12kPA notional rent, the rapidly escalating to 50% of rent at £16kPA, and then another bonus 5% past £50k notional rent. Makes taking on larger premises in the hope of growing into them really really difficult.
Repeat with Corp tax... Etc etc etc.
All completely anti growth - at every step the system just encourages you to stop trying to build a business further and sit back and take the cash instead. And then they wonder why the economy is knackered, and over half of all businesses have under 5 employees!
AFAICS, after this Bill takes effect, PB will consist entirely of @kjh talking about his visits with his dog to the vet. But then they cause me “distress” by being slightly boring after a while, so they will go too
My wife's first attempt at crochet by copying our dog (sort of).
That fence across our garden is because without it he would be off at the sight of a deer, fox or pheasant and the rest of our garden beyond the fence doesn't have any fencing at all. The foxes just sit at the wire fence and taunt him.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Imagine the pleasant surroundings of a saloon bar in some Home Counties pub. Probably situated across the road from the village green, in a timbered building, with a cosy interior, frequented by an interesting diversity of locals with a range of education, occupations and experience, who enjoy chatting with those with whom they agree, and being stimulated by the repartee with those that they don’t. In winter months like currently, there’s a nicely roaring open fire.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
Imagine this fellow leaves the pub for a month, and then he gets secret visits from the regulars saying “please please please come back, it’s so boring in there now. It’s literally just this sad friendless git from Ventnor wanking on about his dog in a disturbingly erotic way, takings are down 87%”
Clearly you are losing your ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
No, that actually happened. You can believe it or not. I hope this doesn’t break any law as it is a mere statement of fact. However it could be argued I am causing distress to you because I am clearly aiming this at you, because that’s what was actually said “it’s just @IanB2, please come back”
Does the law protect statements of fact?! I mean, if you say something factual but distressing (to someone) is that also illegal?
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Imagine the pleasant surroundings of a saloon bar in some Home Counties pub. Probably situated across the road from the village green, in a timbered building, with a cosy interior, frequented by an interesting diversity of locals with a range of education, occupations and experience, who enjoy chatting with those with whom they agree, and being stimulated by the repartee with those that they don’t. In winter months like currently, there’s a nicely roaring open fire.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
This is nonsense, in your scenario the pub landlord has the choice to act or not act. After this new law is passed the landlord will be compelled to act because he will be liable for anything said in his pub. You're one of the people that is clapping thunderously as our freedom to express our opinions is taken away, what happened to the Liberal bit of the Lib Dems?
It was the explanation Leon asked for, behind the earlier comments by many PB’ers. He can take it or leave it, according to whether his exceptionally high IQ provides for any self-reflection.
As a liberal, I would always lean towards tolerance and free-speech, but this doesn’t prohibit me from pointing out when one person’s incessant, aggressive, offensive exercise of their free speech is causing so much grief for and destroying the enjoyment of everyone else.
Under the draconian new Tory laws, the following words are no longer to be used on PB:
B*m B*tty P*x Kn*ckers Kn*ckers W**-W** Semprini
Fart, fiddle, fornicate..
I hope you're not using the first English dictionary to look up rude words?
Its a Monty Python sketch. "Semprini" added as an unknown rude word which keeps getting dropped into sketches, usually with the perp hauled off by a copper.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Get the editor of The Spectator to raise this insane law.
Oh wait, he was one of the architects of this bill and voted for it.
I'm genuinely surprised it didn't get dissected at the time by PB given its collective expertise and cynicism. Can't be because it was a Tory bill. Or can it?
I don't think it was because it was a Tory bill because the Tories and other righties on here are as taken aback by its severity as anyone else.
I think the reason we are all so surprised is because legislation is boring so we don't pay attention. Kudos to cyclefree for having done so. If only ITV had dramatised it it might have gained some traction. Ah well. Free speech was nice while it lasted. Nice knowing you all these last 19 and a half years. See you in the gulag.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
The current government are not unique in having a shit understanding of the most basic concepts around the internet or technology generally, but it's a shame they're inflicting their shit understanding on the rest of us.
Wasn't this drafted by the Tories.
One former Tory Advised who pops up on GMB to chat about politics in the morning said she was proud of her part in drafting it when it went into law. Salma Shah IIRC.
It would have been drafted by the same CS “Blob” that tries to convince every new Home Secretary of the benefits of ID cards.
Nice to see a picture of our next Prime Minister in the header.
Bridget or the dog?
If the pooch is anything like the Westie who lives down the road from us ... Walk is a stately progress out and back. Never, ever distracted by actually doing anything (other than the ritual No 1 and No 2 obvs). Totally sedate, will sniff your hand amiably but that's it. Would meet Y Doethur's specification admirably.
Our dog would be the exact opposite. He would be changing policy every 5 minutes. Every single person who meets him says he is the most hyper dog they have met. He just goes bonkers when meeting anyone (in a very friendly way). He also eats anything he can find and is very adept at stealing food. He loves going to the vet even though on a regular basis he is being induced to vomit and spins around the room bouncing off the walls. He is a Sproodle (Springer/Poodle cross).
Some of the things he has eaten or tried to eat are: 1.5kg block of cheese, 250g block of butter, tin foil that had had a cake in it (he pooed sparkling poo for several days), food still in the bag (that was a serious one), a whole bag of potatoes, a regular diet of dead deer (hairy poo) and trying to get a skull and spine off him was a challenge, my wallet, iphone, glasses, binoculars and numerous peoples dinners if they don't put their plate in a safe place when getting up from the table, bowls of peanuts and crisps, etc, etc. He costs a fortune calling the toxic helpline and vets bills and trying to get the food off him when he has it is pretty well impossible
I've said it before and I'll say it again: dogs are idiots.
On reflection, cats are idiots too. But in a much more low-key way. Cats are BETTER idiots.
Yet they carry more political weight than children, I reckon.
For example, there might be a permanent end to Hogmanay celebrations in Edinburgh because of the impact of fireworks on canine mental health, and there are lobby groups trying to eliminate dog-free play parks.
I also think some elements of access rights/countryside code are weighted far too much in favour of dogs. I was walking in the Lakes and every farmer had put up signs describing how many lambs had been killed/injured, some with graphic imagery. Still had spaniels firing off all over the place.
There’s definitely been an increase in people who have no idea how to control a dog - or even a desire to control their dog.
I’m reminded of the fool, years back. He had his dog off the lead, and it started harassing the horses we were riding. One of the horses gave it a stable yard tap. He seemed to think it outrageous and actually got violent.
We are a misanthropic country: we founded the RSPCA decades before the NSPCC. We love animals and hate kids.
People tend to assume that if you don't like their dog, or it doesn't like you, then you're the one with the problem.
There would be more opposition in Britain to culling all dangerous dogs than to deporting all Muslims.
I spoke to someone who is well versed in the Online Safety Bill and he thinks most of PB’s content would be fine.
However persistently linking to say racist Twitter accounts, saying you only want white babies, accusing somebody of being a rape enabler is going to get you and PB in trouble.
So moderators will use the bill as an excuse to ban commenters
Their site, their rules. It's not helpful to confuse that principle with the very real issues associated with this new law.
No, it's not their site their rules after the bill. It's state enforced rules.
No. Both sets of rules apply. Like the landlord in the pub analogy. Some landlords won't even allow the use of mobiles, which are perfectly legal things. Others don't care if their punters keep fighting or disappearing into the toilet for some dealing, or at least they won't care - until the police report at the next licensing board.
I spoke to someone who is well versed in the Online Safety Bill and he thinks most of PB’s content would be fine.
However persistently linking to say racist Twitter accounts, saying you only want white babies, accusing somebody of being a rape enabler is going to get you and PB in trouble.
So moderators will use the bill as an excuse to ban commenters
Their site, their rules. It's not helpful to confuse that principle with the very real issues associated with this new law.
No, it's not their site their rules after the bill. It's state enforced rules.
It was ever thus, shirley? Hate crime was a hate crime last year.
I saw Malcolm's post about "toff's children" on the prior thread.
From my friends' experience, privately educated children can have an awful time at school and there are plenty of examples of sexual and physical abuse happening at private schools, as demonstrated by the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry. No money in the world can mitigate being raped as a child.
It's during debates like this that I remember to be grateful for the safe, secure and loving environment I grew up in, cycling to a high-performing state school in a beautiful part of Scotland, and returning to a home full of books, music and great food.
Private education is just education. They get no funding from government so, if an independent school wants to set up - for example, to focus on children with more distinct education needs, or to provide a local better alternative, or deliver to an alternative educational philosophy - they have to charge a fee to be viable.
That fee means - outside a few bursaries and scholarships the school can self-fund for 10-20% of its pupils - parents have to pay. And, alas, not all parents will be able to afford that fee.
That's it. There's no "privilege" outside of that. It's the small, local, independent private schools that will be hit hardest by the VAT/business rate changes, and not the big public schools that educate the very wealthy, that virtually none of us can afford, which is why this policy is so vindictive and insidious.
Depends if you think such families should have given rely on charity or not. There are more SEND kids in the state sector than the private sector, as a proportion, and Labour have increased spending by £1 billion per annum.
Parents should have choice in educating their children and, to the greatest extent possible, I'd like to see this liberated from the ability to pay.
This is why I'd go the other way and support portable education vouchers.
Which merely subsidises those who can top them up with there own cash to send their kids to an elite school. Bad policy.
No, if you half the price you more than double those who can access it.
Your logic is the failed logic of putting VAT on school fees to attack privilege, which actually makes it even more privileged.
This is the classic dilemma of taxing luxuries. As true of air passenger duty or gas guzzling SUVs as it is of private education. It raises the price, which makes the luxury even more exclusive.
It's a tricky dilemma with no perfect answer. Other countries simply don't have the same two tier schooling system that we do, and I think most people would much prefer a situation where 95%+ of pupils make use of state education and private provision is more niche (for religion, or special needs, or musical geniuses etc), but getting from here to there is extremely difficult.
I'd prefer to blur the lines between private and state provision, but then that's because I'm a centrist (literal) dad. The private sector has huge resources and expertise which cannot simply be syphoned into the state sector by pricing parents out, but there need to be options out there that are less ruinously expensive than the current set up.
My daughter is sitting an entrance exam today (my son is in upper sixth at a private school) so we are on the cusp of renewing that eye-watering cost for another 7 years.
Agreed, and I'd say that I don't see it as a luxury.
Luxury is about self-indulgence, whereas education is a public good - and that applies even when it's not you directly.
But that's like saying caviar isn't a luxury because it's food.
Private education is a luxury substitute for a public good, not a public good in itself.
Absolute nonsense.
Education is a public good. In any form.
That's why it's been charitable for decades, including under all Labour governments, until this lot took over.
It's a simple choice to have a better version of something that is already available, at additional cost. That's a pretty good definition of a luxury imo.
I'd also argue private education lacks some of the public good attributes of state education, specifically the social mixing that occurs at state schools.
Nevertheless I do concede education of any form retains some of the facets of a public good and, if it turns out the impact of the VAT on private schools thing is just to reduce the amount of education available then it will have failed as a policy.
A university education (at least at a top university), could be considered a luxury, but universities are still treated as charities.
The bastions of privilege that make up Oxbridge colleges are very private and elitist institutions. They are never attacked or undermined because so many of the smug politicians of the Labour Party went there themselves and want you to believe it was all to do with them being so much cleverer than the oikish people they purport to represent.
In theory, they are open to everyone. In practice, your chances of getting into a top college, if you come from the top 1% of the population, are vastly greater than your chances of getting in if you come from the bottom 50%. And, that will be true of those of the top 1% who have been State-educated.
You just end up with the very elite schools being selected by very high house prices, with the added benefit that those house prices almost certainly rise over time so the excellent school costs you negative money if you can afford the buy-in.
I spoke to someone who is well versed in the Online Safety Bill and he thinks most of PB’s content would be fine.
However persistently linking to say racist Twitter accounts, saying you only want white babies, accusing somebody of being a rape enabler is going to get you and PB in trouble.
So moderators will use the bill as an excuse to ban commenters
Their site, their rules. It's not helpful to confuse that principle with the very real issues associated with this new law.
No, it's not their site their rules after the bill. It's state enforced rules.
Sure - I was just contesting this idea from Leon that, until this law comes in force, he had some sort of right to post here. OGH does not need an "excuse" to ban him.
(And PB already operates under dozens of state enforced rules, the vast majority of which are sensible and necessary. It's not even that principle that's a problem, just this particular law).
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
I think at one time or other almost all of us have been distressed by what others have posted on here.
I can see a 'maximalist' interpretation of this being applied.
The problem is not so much that a comment might cause distress to a PBer, but rather that one PBer thinks a comment will cause distress to another PBer and reports it (even if the no distress was caused at all).
Does it have to be a PBer at all who reports it? Anyone who isn't even a PBer could report it, no? Anyone can look at the forum.
And it could be anyone who could be distressed, including an off-grid shepherd living on Boreray.
I should clarify the Uist Boreray, not St Kilda.
I did wonder ... but you do get researchers on the Soay sheep, and there's always Starlink.
Even the Lib Dems wanted the Online Safety Bill to go even further. It's pretty much a consensus across all major parties. Not good.
I think it reflects the level of online abuse that politicians get, as well as the malign impact of social media on children. A disproportionate backlash against a real problem.
One to watch - Mumsnet. If that closes down (or threatens to do so) then things will really kick off.
Who was it that said that if any new law has the support of all of the politicians, it’s very unlikely to be something of benefit to the average person?
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Imagine the pleasant surroundings of a saloon bar in some Home Counties pub. Probably situated across the road from the village green, in a timbered building, with a cosy interior, frequented by an interesting diversity of locals with a range of education, occupations and experience, who enjoy chatting with those with whom they agree, and being stimulated by the repartee with those that they don’t. In winter months like currently, there’s a nicely roaring open fire.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
This is nonsense, in your scenario the pub landlord has the choice to act or not act. After this new law is passed the landlord will be compelled to act because he will be liable for anything said in his pub. You're one of the people that is clapping thunderously as our freedom to express our opinions is taken away, what happened to the Liberal bit of the Lib Dems?
It was the explanation Leon asked for, behind the earlier comments by many PB’ers. He can take it or leave it, according to whether his exceptionally high IQ provides for any self-reflection.
As a liberal, I would always lean towards tolerance and free-speech, but this doesn’t prohibit me from pointing out when one person’s incessant, aggressive, offensive exercise of their free speech is causing so much grief for and destroying the enjoyment of everyone else.
Again, you're missing the point. Let's say that pre-OSB this loudmouth gets kicked out of the pub, he would be free to go and open his own pub and have rules that allowed any kind of loudmouth to come and go and say what they please and offend whomever they please as long as they don't call for violence against those with whom they disagree.
After the OSB is passed not only would the first pub not be allowed to host this loudmouth, the loudmouth himself wouldn't be able to have his own establishment which allows the kind of rambunctious discussion he likes to have.
It is state control over about ability to express our opinions and you're supporting it because you don't like Leon? It's a bit sad really that you call yourself a liberal of any kind.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
I think at one time or other almost all of us have been distressed by what others have posted on here.
I can see a 'maximalist' interpretation of this being applied.
The problem is not so much that a comment might cause distress to a PBer, but rather that one PBer thinks a comment will cause distress to another PBer and reports it (even if the no distress was caused at all).
It says the comment must be intended to cause serious psychological distress. Joking aside, that really doesn't apply to much on PB. If it did most of us wouldn't be here. It'd be a place that anyone with any sense would avoid.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
The current government are not unique in having a shit understanding of the most basic concepts around the internet or technology generally, but it's a shame they're inflicting their shit understanding on the rest of us.
Wasn't this drafted by the Tories.
One former Tory Advised who pops up on GMB to chat about politics in the morning said she was proud of her part in drafting it when it went into law. Salma Shah IIRC.
It would have been drafted by the same CS “Blob” that tries to convince every new Home Secretary of the benefits of ID cards.
Ah come on, politicians decide. All Sunak/Braverman/Cooper/Starmer need to say is "nah".
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Imagine the pleasant surroundings of a saloon bar in some Home Counties pub. Probably situated across the road from the village green, in a timbered building, with a cosy interior, frequented by an interesting diversity of locals with a range of education, occupations and experience, who enjoy chatting with those with whom they agree, and being stimulated by the repartee with those that they don’t. In winter months like currently, there’s a nicely roaring open fire.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
Imagine this fellow leaves the pub for a month, and then he gets secret visits from the regulars saying “please please please come back, it’s so boring in there now. It’s literally just this sad friendless git from Ventnor wanking on about his dog in a disturbingly erotic way, takings are down 87%”
Clearly you are losing your ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Losing? Lost along with the Titanic I would have thought.
Lots of helpful suggestions from Musk and Trunp supporters underneath Musk's latest poll
According to "Magavoice", "Britain can become the 53rd state after Canada and Greenland." How on earth did Britain get into a position where a considerable number of people think that these people offer greater "independence" , than the E.U. ?
Numerically (and culturally) the UK would carry more weight as a US state than as a member of the EU.
The UK (or Britain) would join the US as at least three separate states: England, Wales and Scotland. Similarly, any entry of Canada into the Union would be with the provinces as separate states: Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, etc.
So England would probably be something like the 64th state. Yorkshire's attempt to become the 65th state would fail.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Imagine the pleasant surroundings of a saloon bar in some Home Counties pub. Probably situated across the road from the village green, in a timbered building, with a cosy interior, frequented by an interesting diversity of locals with a range of education, occupations and experience, who enjoy chatting with those with whom they agree, and being stimulated by the repartee with those that they don’t. In winter months like currently, there’s a nicely roaring open fire.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
Imagine this fellow leaves the pub for a month, and then he gets secret visits from the regulars saying “please please please come back, it’s so boring in there now. It’s literally just this sad friendless git from Ventnor wanking on about his dog in a disturbingly erotic way, takings are down 87%”
Clearly you are losing your ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
No, that actually happened. You can believe it or not. I hope this doesn’t break any law as it is a mere statement of fact. However it could be argued I am causing distress to you because I am clearly aiming this at you, because that’s what was actually said “it’s just @IanB2, please come back”
Does the law protect statements of fact?! I mean, if you say something factual but distressing (to someone) is that also illegal?
Under that wording it doesn't protect statements of fact. There doesn't seem to be an exception made for facts that may be offensive or distressing to people, such as rape, migration or crime statistics.
Good to see Streeting, and now Starmer, giving full backing to Jess Phillips, and pointing out her track record in challenging violence against women and girls. But unless I've missed it, Jess herself has not commented on Musk's outrageous description of her as a 'rape genocide apologist' who should be in prison. Maybe she's keeping her powder dry, or consulting lawyers. And Richard Tice refused to condemn Musk's description of Phillips, saying it was just free speech.
I'm all for free speech within the law. But if somebody with a huge platform called me a 'rape genocide apologist' I'd be seeking some sort of redress.
Starmer rightly called out Tory MPs on this, saying this morning -
"I think only a few months ago it would have been unthinkable for the things that have been said about Jess Philips without all political parties and the leader of the opposition to call it out in terms...to condemn it...if you're not prepared to stand up as a Tory MP and denounce what's been said about her, then you need to seriously think about why you're in politics in my view."
All good stuff. And then I remember Tom Watson and his outrageous behaviour in Operation Midland and the things he said about various prominent people, including one ex-Tory MP, none of which - AFAICR - were criticised by fellow Labour MPs or his leader at the time. Plus the fact that it was the very same Starmer who nominated him in 2022 to the Lords. It was appallingly poor judgment by Starmer and, frankly, rather undercuts his criticism today. If an ex-DPP cannot understand why Watson should not have been elevated to the Lords after his conduct, then he has no business lecturing others about their similarly poor judgment.
I don't see what the word 'genocide' is doing in 'rape genocide apologist' - but if she genuinely said that the Cologne rape parties were just a bit of lairiness like Broad Street on a Friday night, then this sounds like, er, rape apology.
I agree that the genocide is wrong of course.
She did say something to that effect on BBC Question Time.
Lots of helpful suggestions from Musk and Trunp supporters underneath Musk's latest poll
According to "Magavoice", "Britain can become the 53rd state after Canada and Greenland." How on earth did Britain get into a position where a considerable number of people think that these people offer greater "independence" , than the E.U. ?
Numerically (and culturally) the UK would carry more weight as a US state than as a member of the EU.
Get real, william. None of those twats would actually want us as a US state, as amongst other things, it would cost them control of Congress.
I spoke to someone who is well versed in the Online Safety Bill and he thinks most of PB’s content would be fine.
However persistently linking to say racist Twitter accounts, saying you only want white babies, accusing somebody of being a rape enabler is going to get you and PB in trouble.
So moderators will use the bill as an excuse to ban commenters
Their site, their rules. It's not helpful to confuse that principle with the very real issues associated with this new law.
No, it's not their site their rules after the bill. It's state enforced rules.
Sure - I was just contesting this idea from Leon that, until this law comes in force, he had some sort of right to post here. OGH does not need an "excuse" to ban him.
(And PB already operates under dozens of state enforced rules, the vast majority of which are sensible and necessary. It's not even that principle that's a problem, just this particular law).
No, I’ve never contested the right of PB mods to ban me. Let’s face it I’ve been banned enough times - and generally I accept it. eg I accept I did bang on about THAT technology too much (my friends also complained, not a good sign) - so I was banned from talking about it. The one photo rule is also good - for all of us, not just me. Occasionally I’ve been banned - to my mind - unfairly - but hey ho. Life is short, move on
But this Bill encourages moderators to ban any commenter with a controversial opinion. I have a fair few of those. Legitimate but contentious. If you are one of those PBers I rather enjoy humiliating - hello @IanB2 - you will cheer my departure. But eventually it can and will be turned on anyone and everyone
It makes a free flowing multi-view forum like PB almost impossible to exist in anything but the most boring, inane form. It really will just be @IanB2 alone in the pub, talking to himself about that chair he sat in, in Norway, and maybe @Sunil_Prasannan mentioning a new branch line to Newent
Lots of helpful suggestions from Musk and Trunp supporters underneath Musk's latest poll
According to "Magavoice", "Britain can become the 53rd state after Canada and Greenland." How on earth did Britain get into a position where a considerable number of people think that these people offer greater "independence" , than the E.U. ?
Numerically (and culturally) the UK would carry more weight as a US state than as a member of the EU.
Get real, william. None of those twats would actually want us as a US state, as amongst other things, it would cost them control of Congress.
They're just enjoying winding you up.
I don't think it's really that. People like Musk see us as essentially a satellite, and sowant to exercise greater control. It could become a real issue. It could become a real issue for
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Imagine the pleasant surroundings of a saloon bar in some Home Counties pub. Probably situated across the road from the village green, in a timbered building, with a cosy interior, frequented by an interesting diversity of locals with a range of education, occupations and experience, who enjoy chatting with those with whom they agree, and being stimulated by the repartee with those that they don’t. In winter months like currently, there’s a nicely roaring open fire.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
This is nonsense, in your scenario the pub landlord has the choice to act or not act. After this new law is passed the landlord will be compelled to act because he will be liable for anything said in his pub. You're one of the people that is clapping thunderously as our freedom to express our opinions is taken away, what happened to the Liberal bit of the Lib Dems?
It was the explanation Leon asked for, behind the earlier comments by many PB’ers. He can take it or leave it, according to whether his exceptionally high IQ provides for any self-reflection.
As a liberal, I would always lean towards tolerance and free-speech, but this doesn’t prohibit me from pointing out when one person’s incessant, aggressive, offensive exercise of their free speech is causing so much grief for and destroying the enjoyment of everyone else.
Again, you're missing the point. Let's say that pre-OSB this loudmouth gets kicked out of the pub, he would be free to go and open his own pub and have rules that allowed any kind of loudmouth to come and go and say what they please and offend whomever they please as long as they don't call for violence against those with whom they disagree.
After the OSB is passed not only would the first pub not be allowed to host this loudmouth, the loudmouth himself wouldn't be able to have his own establishment which allows the kind of rambunctious discussion he likes to have.
It is state control over about ability to express our opinions and you're supporting it because you don't like Leon? It's a bit sad really that you call yourself a liberal of any kind.
I don’t recall having posted anything in support of the OSB.
If it should happen to deliver a resolution to the ongoing problem facing this forum, that’s simply a silver lining.
How long before the Online Safety law has the grooming gang reports taken down?
Not only might people be offended by speculation about race and religion but I'm probably not the only one who thinks child rape is a bad thing. No doubt some of the descriptions from news stories, official reports and sentencing remarks would be considered illegal if woven into fiction by AI.
Do we end up at the point where a transcription of a judge’s sentencing remarks in a case of child murder or rape, would be effectively illegal for any non-mainstream media source to reproduce, because some activist would be claimed to be triggered?
Lots of helpful suggestions from Musk and Trunp supporters underneath Musk's latest poll
According to "Magavoice", "Britain can become the 53rd state after Canada and Greenland." How on earth did Britain get into a position where a considerable number of people think that these people offer greater "independence" , than the E.U. ?
Numerically (and culturally) the UK would carry more weight as a US state than as a member of the EU.
The UK (or Britain) would join the US as at least three separate states: England, Wales and Scotland. Similarly, any entry of Canada into the Union would be with the provinces as separate states: Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, etc.
So England would probably be something like the 64th state. Yorkshire's attempt to become the 65th state would fail.
By population, both Yorkshire and Scotland would be in the top half of a list of States by population. Even Wales would still have a higher headcount than Arkansas.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
That's pretty much any opinion ever and almost all facts.
I don't think so. You're potentially in scope if you post something that you hope and intend will cause serious psychological harm to a likely audience.
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
That’s exactly what it does NOT say, you fucking idiot retired accountant golfer (I’m getting in all my last insults, now, before the site shuts)
I think at one time or other almost all of us have been distressed by what others have posted on here.
I can see a 'maximalist' interpretation of this being applied.
The problem is not so much that a comment might cause distress to a PBer, but rather that one PBer thinks a comment will cause distress to another PBer and reports it (even if the no distress was caused at all).
It says the comment must be intended to cause serious psychological distress. Joking aside, that really doesn't apply to much on PB. If it did most of us wouldn't be here. It'd be a place that anyone with any sense would avoid.
OK, but on Britain’s premier political discussion forum, we’re ALREADY not allowed to discuss the “thing”, because of the chilling effect of this bill.
Even though one of the things about the “thing” is that people allegedly covered it up because of its “thinginess”.
How long before the Online Safety law has the grooming gang reports taken down?
Not only might people be offended by speculation about race and religion but I'm probably not the only one who thinks child rape is a bad thing. No doubt some of the descriptions from news stories, official reports and sentencing remarks would be considered illegal if woven into fiction by AI.
Do we end up at the point where a transcription of a judge’s sentencing remarks in a case of child murder or rape, would be effectively illegal for any non-mainstream media source to reproduce, because some activist would be claimed to be triggered?
Under the draconian new Tory laws, the following words are no longer to be used on PB:
B*m B*tty P*x Kn*ckers Kn*ckers W**-W** Semprini
Fart, fiddle, fornicate..
I hope you're not using the first English dictionary to look up rude words?
Its a Monty Python sketch. "Semprini" added as an unknown rude word which keeps getting dropped into sketches, usually with the perp hauled off by a copper.
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Get the editor of The Spectator to raise this insane law.
Oh wait, he was one of the architects of this bill and voted for it.
I'm genuinely surprised it didn't get dissected at the time by PB given its collective expertise and cynicism. Can't be because it was a Tory bill. Or can it?
I don't think it was because it was a Tory bill because the Tories and other righties on here are as taken aback by its severity as anyone else.
I think the reason we are all so surprised is because legislation is boring so we don't pay attention. Kudos to cyclefree for having done so. If only ITV had dramatised it it might have gained some traction. Ah well. Free speech was nice while it lasted. Nice knowing you all these last 19 and a half years. See you in the gulag.
If we learned anything from lockdown, it was that when the government proposes a draconian crackdown, the o pposition parties object only because it's not draconian enough, and the broadcast media are cheering along as it goes, then there's less than no point trying to stop it.
The Online Harms Bill can’t be very good if it effectively shuts down conversation about the country’s number 1 news story.
Although quite how it became number 1 news story is very odd and troubling.
This is the bit that scares a lot of forums.
Criminal Offences The OSB also introduces four new criminal offences.
1) Harmful communications: this criminalises sending a message if at the time of the sending ‘there was a real and substantial risk that it would cause harm to a likely audience’ and the sender of the message ‘intended to cause harm to a likely audience’.31 The definition of ‘likely audience’ includes those who might see the content after it has been forwarded or shared. ‘Harm’ is defined as ‘psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress’. As the Centre for Policy Studies and others have warned, this potentially allows for someone to be prosecuted for online content that ‘goes viral’ and causes psychological distress even if neither the spread of the content nor the distress caused by the content was intended by its creator.32 Even if no one is distressed by the content, its sender could still be in violation of the law if someone could in theory have been distressed by the content.
The current government are not unique in having a shit understanding of the most basic concepts around the internet or technology generally, but it's a shame they're inflicting their shit understanding on the rest of us.
Wasn't this drafted by the Tories.
One former Tory Advised who pops up on GMB to chat about politics in the morning said she was proud of her part in drafting it when it went into law. Salma Shah IIRC.
It would have been drafted by the same CS “Blob” that tries to convince every new Home Secretary of the benefits of ID cards.
Ah come on, politicians decide. All Sunak/Braverman/Cooper/Starmer need to say is "nah".
Oh indeed, I’ll quite happily hang all the politicians involved as well.
(Edit: just realised that under this law some random could say that’s an incitement to murder. Which it clearly isn’t, because metaphor).
(Edit) Even *if* Musk has a point about Starmer's involvement in the cases as DPP....
*If* you believe that, Musk has won.
I don't believe it. I haven't looked into it, but you would have to be quite a puppeteer to arrange things at such low levels, in so many places, over such a long period. My own view (having read a couple of the reports yonks ago), was that the decisions were made on an individual, and small group basis. Would decisions have got to the DPP's level?
Though having said that, Musk's statements are so wild that I'm not actually sure what he thinks Starmer did...
Suggestion by Starmer that threats have been made on Phillips.
She has already said she is resigned to death threats for the rest of her life and a man was jailed for threatening the most awful violence at her.
How does he know it is down to Musk ?
It's hard to see Musk as having helped the situation.
Agreed but by the same token you cannot blame Musk for abuse aimed at a politician who gets it regularly.
What would be interesting would be to see if it has increased markedly and if any comes from the US.
It doesn't have to come from the US.
She is more likely to be assassinated by an outraged Brummie than a US citizen who is outraged at Phillips after reading Liz Truss's response to Musk's lie
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss wrote, "This is Jess Phillips, the same Home Office Minister who excused masked Islamist thugs".
I saw you ranting about me earlier. I just want to point out that 1. I was absent for at least two weeks over Christmas, during which you all managed to have a bitter row about gangs by yourselves (so it’s really not me). 2. I’m not even allowed to mention “that thing” so I can hardly “bang on” about it and 3. I’m a MEMBER of the Groucho, not a guest
Thanks
There were a few family punch ups but it was a lot more agreeable on here over Christmas. I knew point 3 would wind you the f*** up. Over and out.
I’m not remotely wound up. I’m trying to calm you down
Nah, you're just a narcissistic wind-up merchant.
That’s clearly true, but I am ALSO trying to calm down @Mexicanpete
I somehow doubt you have ever gone anywhere and calmed anything down. I'm just glad you never tried bomb-disposal or hostage negotiation as careers...
… or indeed anything that requires judgement, responsibility, decision-making, common sense, thoughtful reflection, awareness and sensitivity to other people’s views and needs, accountability, respect for rules or social norms, or any kind of maturity.
This is just the sort of thing we were talking about. The amount of abuse Leon gets, even at one or two removes - even when he's not here - is out of all proportion to his contribution on the site. It's just odd.
Not really. It’s just that you aren’t appreciating the extent of the damage he is doing.
Can you explain this? I’d like to know before PB is finally closed down thanks to this insane Tory law
Imagine the pleasant surroundings of a saloon bar in some Home Counties pub. Probably situated across the road from the village green, in a timbered building, with a cosy interior, frequented by an interesting diversity of locals with a range of education, occupations and experience, who enjoy chatting with those with whom they agree, and being stimulated by the repartee with those that they don’t. In winter months like currently, there’s a nicely roaring open fire.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
Imagine this fellow leaves the pub for a month, and then he gets secret visits from the regulars saying “please please please come back, it’s so boring in there now. It’s literally just this sad friendless git from Ventnor wanking on about his dog in a disturbingly erotic way, takings are down 87%”
Clearly you are losing your ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
No, that actually happened. You can believe it or not. I hope this doesn’t break any law as it is a mere statement of fact. However it could be argued I am causing distress to you because I am clearly aiming this at you, because that’s what was actually said “it’s just @IanB2, please come back”
Does the law protect statements of fact?! I mean, if you say something factual but distressing (to someone) is that also illegal?
Under that wording it doesn't protect statements of fact. There doesn't seem to be an exception made for facts that may be offensive or distressing to people, such as rape, migration or crime statistics.
Comments
The vast majority of posts (here or elsewhere) don't fit that bill.
Ours loves the vet. If we walk past the surgery he will try and go in. He gets very excited when we go. He becomes deaf to commands he is so excited. Yet he has had several visits that should have been very unpleasant. But then he is generally excited about everything. He also doesn't cotton on to other dogs being aggressive to him. He loves being chased and so taunts dogs and humans to chase him and doesn't get it if another dog reacts aggressively. He will just go back again and again. He is not interested in chasing a ball, but knows if he steals a ball humans and dogs will chase him. Lots of apologising involved with that problem.
My guess is there was no “conspiracy” to ignore it, more that we were all consumed by bigger things at the time - Brexit, Corbyn, Trump, Covid, Ukraine
So this lunatic law snuck under the radar. I confess I am genuinely stunned by the awfulness of it
Under the cover of a single line in a huge bill the government has eliminated the right to free expression in the UK.
They must be picking up a massive appetite for it from the public. Parents, I'd guess, but also perhaps older non-online people who blame technology for all of life's ills.
1. "He has given his Assent to Laws, the most harmful and injurious to the public good."
I can see a 'maximalist' interpretation of this being applied.
A lot of these are volunteer run (like this one) and cannot afford lawyers.
It will be quite a serious loss of knowledge if they are shut down through worry about the odd off-colour post. Knowledge of the kind that almost makes the internet useful.
I suppose the only answer is to host in another jurisdiction but even that is fraught with problems.
Sadly, this ranty, loud-mouthed, red-faced old bloke keeps turning up, often having had a few drinks already before he arrives, and he positions himself at the corner of the bar and regales everyone passing by with his highly opinionated, often extreme views, fixated on the same issue, hour after hour, day after day, usually ending with the usual prediction that the whole world is going to shit.
Those regulars have the choice of trying to ignore him - difficult, given that his whole shtick is to be loud and proud and as provocative as he can - or engage, which rarely leads to any sort of enlightenment, since his every utterance demonstrates a contempt for others and unwillingness to learn from either fact or experience, and this simply tends to encourage him to keep coming back in the misguided belief that people want to hear what he has to say.
Eventually, either the landlord steps in, or the regulars find somewhere else to drink.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but IMHO the police and CPS are going to run the test cases on small blogs and forums, with the intention of quickly ending up with a very broad Supreme Court interpretation of the law which they will then use to go after Facebook and Google and X.
They absolutely don’t want the test cases to be against companies with practically unlimited legal budgets who could get a very narrow interpretation of the law ruled upon.
TBH I thought @TSE was being a tad hysterical about this law. I apologise to him, he was not being hysterical at all
The law is utterly chilling. Almost literally. Makes me shudder reading it: like seeing the Orwellian state constructed right in front of you
However persistently linking to say racist Twitter accounts, saying you only want white babies, accusing somebody of being a rape enabler is going to get you and PB in trouble.
All you do there is add cost to the complainant which will impact things in court (and not in a good way for the website owner).
Not only might people be offended by speculation about race and religion but I'm probably not the only one who thinks child rape is a bad thing. No doubt some of the descriptions from news stories, official reports and sentencing remarks would be considered illegal if woven into fiction by AI.
B*m
B*tty
P*x
Kn*ckers
Kn*ckers
W**-W**
Semprini
*I’m practising being nice for the new Bill
But he is genuinely quite cute
A bonnie wee critter
I agree that the genocide is wrong of course.
I hope you're not using the first English dictionary to look up rude words?
1. Lab 40 Con 32 LD 18 Ref 35
2. Lab 20 Con 15 LD 6 Ref 12
3. 13
4. 8
5. 6
6. 5
7. 161
8. 2.9%
9. 120bn
10. 1.5%
11. 1.7%
12. 1.1%
13. 80
14. AUS 4 ENG 0.
Thanks!
I'm in exactly this position. I've a business with four on the payroll at present - I think when I ran the numbers it's pretty much a wash.
However I'm furious about the changes, because they leverage against growth. You see I have aspiration. I don't want to be a four employee business forever. I can see a potential future for the business, with maybe 10-15 employees rather than 4. Perhaps turning over 2 million rather than half a million. Maybe with its own, purpose built premises, rather than a rough couple of buildings in a rented yard.
But everywhere you look, business is squeezed till the proverbial pips squeak, and more so as you grow. For me to take on another employee, he costs me more than the first four, and more still after April because of the NI hit.
Business rates - free until you get premises worth £12kPA notional rent, the rapidly escalating to 50% of rent at £16kPA, and then another bonus 5% past £50k notional rent. Makes taking on larger premises in the hope of growing into them really really difficult.
Repeat with Corp tax... Etc etc etc.
All completely anti growth - at every step the system just encourages you to stop trying to build a business further and sit back and take the cash instead. And then they wonder why the economy is knackered, and over half of all businesses have under 5 employees!
That fence across our garden is because without it he would be off at the sight of a deer, fox or pheasant and the rest of our garden beyond the fence doesn't have any fencing at all. The foxes just sit at the wire fence and taunt him.
Does the law protect statements of fact?! I mean, if you say something factual but distressing (to someone) is that also illegal?
As a liberal, I would always lean towards tolerance and free-speech, but this doesn’t prohibit me from pointing out when one person’s incessant, aggressive, offensive exercise of their free speech is causing so much grief for and destroying the enjoyment of everyone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHthezt5iGw
I think the reason we are all so surprised is because legislation is boring so we don't pay attention. Kudos to cyclefree for having done so. If only ITV had dramatised it it might have gained some traction.
Ah well. Free speech was nice while it lasted. Nice knowing you all these last 19 and a half years. See you in the gulag.
(And PB already operates under dozens of state enforced rules, the vast majority of which are sensible and necessary. It's not even that principle that's a problem, just this particular law).
After the OSB is passed not only would the first pub not be allowed to host this loudmouth, the loudmouth himself wouldn't be able to have his own establishment which allows the kind of rambunctious discussion he likes to have.
It is state control over about ability to express our opinions and you're supporting it because you don't like Leon? It's a bit sad really that you call yourself a liberal of any kind.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/government-support-and-welfare/reeves-losing-winter-fuel-cut-savings-due-to-pension-credit-uptake/ar-AA1x1hJz
So England would probably be something like the 64th state. Yorkshire's attempt to become the 65th state would fail.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-35440954
None of those twats would actually want us as a US state, as amongst other things, it would cost them control of Congress.
They're just enjoying winding you up.
But this Bill encourages moderators to ban any commenter with a controversial opinion. I have a fair few of those. Legitimate but contentious. If you are
one of those PBers I rather enjoy humiliating - hello
@IanB2 - you will cheer my departure. But eventually it can and will be turned on anyone and everyone
It makes a free flowing multi-view forum like PB almost impossible to exist in anything but the most boring, inane form. It really will just be @IanB2 alone in the pub, talking to himself about that chair he sat in, in Norway, and maybe @Sunil_Prasannan mentioning a new branch line to Newent
It could become a real issue for
If it should happen to deliver a resolution to the ongoing problem facing this forum, that’s simply a silver lining.
It could become a real issue for us, if Musk retains Trump's favour.
Even though one of the things about the “thing” is that people allegedly covered it up because of its “thinginess”.
Can't believe no-one got it.
(Edit: just realised that under this law some random could say that’s an incitement to murder. Which it clearly isn’t, because metaphor).