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 test cases will probably by small blogs that can embarrass governments. I am thinking of Wings and Guido as examples.
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.
She wasn't saying the events in Cologne were just a bit of lairiness. She was criticising what happens in Birmingham. However, you can make a case that she was wrongly downplaying what happened in Cologne, which was more serious.
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.
People want to shut up people who disagree with them, and will be shocked when it's used against them.
Given the vitriol one sees in many online discussions this is not surprising.
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.
It astonishes me how much opposition there was to the XL Bully law, including the RSPCA - which went fully hyperbolic.
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”.
TBH some of the comments over the last few days could have landed PB in trouble, bill or no bill. It's not actually in place yet.
(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%”
Even in my wildest flights of fantasy, I can’t imagine such an unbelievable scanario.
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?
That is one of the predicted effects.
Lawfare will become a common method of shutting down debate.
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”.
I envy you your emigration to the USA and the 1st Amendment. Seriously
One of the ironies of this TORY Bill is that it vindicates one of Musk’s critiques of the UK. We really are turning into an Orwellian police state. A fairly polite British version, but Orwellian nonetheless
(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.
It’s incredible
Kemi needs to jump on this now, disown the previous Tory approach and link it to the current rape gang scandal and discussion. She needs to prove herself as an ally of freedom of expression and thought, she talks a big game about being anti-woke or whatever but this bill will after some time make speech that is anything other than the government approved woke nonsense illegal.
Excellent. The people who need meaningful support to stay out of poverty get it through pension credit, paid for by stopping a bung to wealthy pensioners.
We shouldn't look to make savings by denying welfare people qualify for, and need.
(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.
Can I just excuse myself from 'everyone else' here? I quite enjoy 80% of what Leon posts, even when I disagree with him. When I don't, I just scan past.
And I do sympathise - there have been other posters on the past who I haven't enjoyed at all, some of whom were constantly rude. When I found reading such a poster annoying rather than engaging, I just scanned past. It's very easy, online, not to engage in a discussion - not even to read a discussion - which you're not going to enjoy.
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”.
TBH some of the comments over the last few days could have landed PB in trouble, bill or no bill. It's not actually in place yet.
I think the issues with some of the comments over the past days were not their “intent to cause psychological harm” but rather their increasingly hysterical and strident tone.
The issue was a moderation problem, and it caused several posters to switch off, but not a matter of “online harm”.
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.
She wasn't saying the events in Cologne were just a bit of lairiness. She was criticising what happens in Birmingham. However, you can make a case that she was wrongly downplaying what happened in Cologne, which was more serious.
What happens in Broad Street is lairiness, I have been there a few times on a Friday and Saturday in the past, never seen it myself, but I don't doubt it happens. Her saying Broad Street is similar to Cologne is implying it was Lairiness.
Now I suspect she made the comments because she was not aware of the severity of what happened in Cologne as I doubt she would have made said comments otherwise.
She told the audience: "A very similar situation to what happened in Cologne could be describing Broad Street in Birmingham every week, where women are baited and heckled."
(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.
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”.
Not my call but I predict we'll be back on that very soon.
This might be a bad bill, not sure, but I find the "end of free speech!" takes to be hyperbolic and a teeny bit precious.
FWIW - I think PB can remain largely remain intact as it is with the OSB but it will require some PBers to tone it down and make some subjects off limits, we did this before with the phone hacking saga, Lord McAlpline etc before the OSB.
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”.
TBH some of the comments over the last few days could have landed PB in trouble, bill or no bill. It's not actually in place yet.
I think the issues with some of the comments over the past days were not their “intent to cause psychological harm” but rather their increasingly hysterical and strident tone.
The issue was a moderation problem, and it caused several posters to switch off, but not a matter of “online harm”.
I would agree with this although I was glad not to have been around too much on the Friday as I was watching, and updating, on the darts. But certainly over the weekend. It is an emotive subject and one where the victims have been let down
However how would anyone ever prove "intent to cause psychological harm"
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”.
TBH some of the comments over the last few days could have landed PB in trouble, bill or no bill. It's not actually in place yet.
I think the issues with some of the comments over the past days were not their “intent to cause psychological harm” but rather their increasingly hysterical and strident tone.
The issue was a moderation problem, and it caused several posters to switch off, but not a matter of “online harm”.
Just a reminder free speech champions Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick, and Kemi Badenoch all voted for this bill and some of them even guided it through the Commons.
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”.
I envy you your emigration to the USA and the 1st Amendment. Seriously
One of the ironies of this TORY Bill is that it vindicates one of Musk’s critiques of the UK. We really are turning into an Orwellian police state. A fairly polite British version, but Orwellian nonetheless
If you think the authoritarians you cheerlead would protect rather than limit free speech once they have power you really should give your head a wobble.
FWIW - I think PB can remain largely remain intact as it is with the OSB but it will require some PBers to tone it down and make some subjects off limits, we did this before with the phone hacking saga, Lord McAlpline etc before the OSB.
Out of curiosity, is X going to have to comply with the OSB?
Just a reminder free speech champions Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick, and Kemi Badenoch all voted for this bill and some of them even guided it through the Commons.
Indeed, and it was one of two specific actions that meant I didn't even consider voting for them last summer.
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 test cases will probably by small blogs that can embarrass governments. I am thinking of Wings and Guido as examples.
Guido, in his early days, made a big point of being published by a company in a Carribean tax haven, and Paul Staines has an Irish passport and now lives in Ireland IIRC. It would be interesting to see how his arrangement (from a couple of decades ago) stands up to new English law though, as he obviously has a couple of hacks hanging around the bars of Westminster.
For anyone who doesn’t need to be on the ground in the UK, a single site owner relocating to another jurisdiction might not be a mad idea. Could be either the US or Sandpit type of country, neither of which will have much interest in anything short of an extradition warrant presented to Interpol.
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”.
Not my call but I predict we'll be back on that very soon.
This might be a bad bill, not sure, but I find the "end of free speech!" takes to be hyperbolic and a teeny bit precious.
@TSE has just banned us from talking about “the thing”
The Bill isn’t even enacted and a moderator is using it to close down a headline debate which is dominating the news elsewhere. You don’t see how this might generally spread and kill off free speech, online, everywhere?
It is the end of PB except for the most mainstream boring moderator-approved Woke opinions. As you are boring and Woke you don’t have an issue with it. But eventually even you will when you have an opinion that others find agitating
FWIW - I think PB can remain largely remain intact as it is with the OSB but it will require some PBers to tone it down and make some subjects off limits, we did this before with the phone hacking saga, Lord McAlpline etc before the OSB.
Out of curiosity, is X going to have to comply with the OSB?
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.
Excellent. The people who need meaningful support to stay out of poverty get it through pension credit, paid for by stopping a bung to wealthy pensioners.
We shouldn't look to make savings by denying welfare people qualify for, and need.
Well done, Rachel Reeves!
It's great stuff isn't it. Good government in action.
FWIW - I think PB can remain largely remain intact as it is with the OSB but it will require some PBers to tone it down and make some subjects off limits, we did this before with the phone hacking saga, Lord McAlpline etc before the OSB.
Out of curiosity, is X going to have to comply with the OSB?
If they don't it will be even stranger than the governments (Tory) introduction of a tax on internet sales that hit small UK businesses but not Amazon.
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 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”.
Not my call but I predict we'll be back on that very soon.
This might be a bad bill, not sure, but I find the "end of free speech!" takes to be hyperbolic and a teeny bit precious.
@TSE has just banned us from talking about “the thing”
The Bill isn’t even enacted and a moderator is using it to close down a headline debate which is dominating the news elsewhere. You don’t see how this might generally spread and kill off free speech, online, everywhere?
It is the end of PB except for the most mainstream boring moderator-approved Woke opinions. As you are boring and Woke you don’t have an issue with it. But eventually even you will when you have an opinion that others find agitating
The fact is over the last few days about a dozen defamatory posts have had to be removed, that would have put the kibosh on the debate even if the OSB wasn’t looming on the horizon.
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.
She wasn't saying the events in Cologne were just a bit of lairiness. She was criticising what happens in Birmingham. However, you can make a case that she was wrongly downplaying what happened in Cologne, which was more serious.
What happens in Broad Street is lairiness, I have been there a few times on a Friday and Saturday in the past, never seen it myself, but I don't doubt it happens. Her saying Broad Street is similar to Cologne is implying it was Lairiness.
Now I suspect she made the comments because she was not aware of the severity of what happened in Cologne as I doubt she would have made said comments otherwise.
She told the audience: "A very similar situation to what happened in Cologne could be describing Broad Street in Birmingham every week, where women are baited and heckled."
Except that what happened in Cologne wasn’t “baiting and heckling”, it was a large number of rapes and serious sexual assaults. It was known when she appeared on QT, and if she didn’t then that was on her before making such a crass comment.
It wouldn’t have been international news if it was the ‘baiting and heckling’ that she claims happens in Birmingham on the average Saturday.
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”.
Not my call but I predict we'll be back on that very soon.
This might be a bad bill, not sure, but I find the "end of free speech!" takes to be hyperbolic and a teeny bit precious.
@TSE has just banned us from talking about “the thing”
The Bill isn’t even enacted and a moderator is using it to close down a headline debate which is dominating the news elsewhere. You don’t see how this might generally spread and kill off free speech, online, everywhere?
It is the end of PB except for the most mainstream boring moderator-approved Woke opinions. As you are boring and Woke you don’t have an issue with it. But eventually even you will when you have an opinion that others find agitating
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”.
TBH some of the comments over the last few days could have landed PB in trouble, bill or no bill. It's not actually in place yet.
I think the issues with some of the comments over the past days were not their “intent to cause psychological harm” but rather their increasingly hysterical and strident tone.
The issue was a moderation problem, and it caused several posters to switch off, but not a matter of “online harm”.
Just because there's no law preventing people being utterly obnoxious doesn't mean everyone else has to accept the behaviour. So the question arises, do you ignore or do you moderate, and where do you draw the line if you do?
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”.
TBH some of the comments over the last few days could have landed PB in trouble, bill or no bill. It's not actually in place yet.
I think the issues with some of the comments over the past days were not their “intent to cause psychological harm” but rather their increasingly hysterical and strident tone.
The issue was a moderation problem, and it caused several posters to switch off, but not a matter of “online harm”.
I would agree with this although I was glad not to have been around too much on the Friday as I was watching, and updating, on the darts. But certainly over the weekend. It is an emotive subject and one where the victims have been let down
However how would anyone ever prove "intent to cause psychological harm"
I think the law on assault and battery would be somewhat analogous. There, an assault is the act of causing physical harm or unwanted physical contact to another person, or, in some legal definitions, the threat or attempt to do so. The deliberate inflicting of fear, apprehension, or terror is another definition of assault that can be found in several legal systems.
One area where we might need to take a zero tolerance approach (as, in fairness, we already do) would be in relation to doxing, or willfully disclosing the identity of a poster who, by using a pseudonym, has reasonably demonstrated they wish to retain their anonymity. Having your identity revealed might be reasonably expected to cause psychological harm.
I think that there are ways of this being a workable system without it becoming a Snowflakes' Charter.
FWIW - I think PB can remain largely remain intact as it is with the OSB but it will require some PBers to tone it down and make some subjects off limits, we did this before with the phone hacking saga, Lord McAlpline etc before the OSB.
Out of curiosity, is X going to have to comply with the OSB?
Yes.
And so will Facebook, insta, TikTok, YouTube - every single social media. It will be impossible to express a political opinion or controversial fact on social media. So that’s the end of social media except for cat videos. Which I find distressing as I think keeping cats as pets is evil, as they destroy wildlife. So they will go too
FWIW - I think PB can remain largely remain intact as it is with the OSB but it will require some PBers to tone it down and make some subjects off limits, we did this before with the phone hacking saga, Lord McAlpline etc before the OSB.
Out of curiosity, is X going to have to comply with the OSB?
Yes.
To which their likely response is going to be withdraw from the country, costing a whole load of six-figure jobs from London, and dare the government to order ISPs to block their platform or banks to refuse payments.
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.
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.
She wasn't saying the events in Cologne were just a bit of lairiness. She was criticising what happens in Birmingham. However, you can make a case that she was wrongly downplaying what happened in Cologne, which was more serious.
What happens in Broad Street is lairiness, I have been there a few times on a Friday and Saturday in the past, never seen it myself, but I don't doubt it happens. Her saying Broad Street is similar to Cologne is implying it was Lairiness.
Now I suspect she made the comments because she was not aware of the severity of what happened in Cologne as I doubt she would have made said comments otherwise.
She told the audience: "A very similar situation to what happened in Cologne could be describing Broad Street in Birmingham every week, where women are baited and heckled."
Except that what happened in Cologne wasn’t “baiting and heckling”, it was a large number of rapes and serious sexual assaults. It was known when she appeared on QT, and if she didn’t then that was on her before making such a crass comment.
It wouldn’t have been international news if it was the ‘baiting and heckling’ that she claims happens in Birmingham on the average Saturday.
Almost three quarters (72%) of 18-24 year olds who drink in bars, clubs or pubs said in a survey that they had seen sexual harassment on a night out. Just over a third of women (35%) and 9% of men have reported receiving unwanted sexual contact on a night out. One in nine women and one in 17 men in the UK say they have been the victim of drink spiking.
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 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”.
Not my call but I predict we'll be back on that very soon.
This might be a bad bill, not sure, but I find the "end of free speech!" takes to be hyperbolic and a teeny bit precious.
@TSE has just banned us from talking about “the thing”
The Bill isn’t even enacted and a moderator is using it to close down a headline debate which is dominating the news elsewhere. You don’t see how this might generally spread and kill off free speech, online, everywhere?
It is the end of PB except for the most mainstream boring moderator-approved Woke opinions. As you are boring and Woke you don’t have an issue with it. But eventually even you will when you have an opinion that others find agitating
TSE puts a short pause in on something getting nasty and spiralling.
No, this doesn't spell the end of free speech in the UK or of a 'vibrant' PB.
Bet you any money - £5? - that I prove to be right.
Excellent. The people who need meaningful support to stay out of poverty get it through pension credit, paid for by stopping a bung to wealthy pensioners.
We shouldn't look to make savings by denying welfare people qualify for, and need.
Well done, Rachel Reeves!
Except that she’s burned a massive amount of political capital with 10m voters for whom the benefit was withdrawn, 87.5% of whom are not in the top 10% of earners.
Even those in the upper middle, such as my parents, might like to argue that on a macro scale everyone’s energy bills go up if those who can afford to bugger off for the winter and leave their house colder don’t do so.
(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.
A lot of people very upset about politicians deciding the limits of our free speech seem to be far less bothered about them deciding what our human rights are.
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”.
Not my call but I predict we'll be back on that very soon.
This might be a bad bill, not sure, but I find the "end of free speech!" takes to be hyperbolic and a teeny bit precious.
@TSE has just banned us from talking about “the thing”
The Bill isn’t even enacted and a moderator is using it to close down a headline debate which is dominating the news elsewhere. You don’t see how this might generally spread and kill off free speech, online, everywhere?
It is the end of PB except for the most mainstream boring moderator-approved Woke opinions. As you are boring and Woke you don’t have an issue with it. But eventually even you will when you have an opinion that others find agitating
TSE puts a short pause in on something getting nasty and spiralling.
No, this doesn't spell the end of free speech in the UK or of a 'vibrant' PB.
Bet you any money - £5? - that I prove to be right.
A clever bet. If anyone takes it and then tries to collect, you can say it's highly distressing.
JFK is fucking terrible in general. One of the best things about moving to a Japanese bank was that my centre of gravity moved from NYC to Tokyo.
T5 is post renovation. However it just seems chaotically run (by JetBlue).
That's my experience of JFK in general, it's completely chaotic and nothing seems to be easy to find. I remember walking around for ages in Terminal 8 trying to find the correct lounge and then when I got in it was packed and the service was terrible.
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 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”.
Not my call but I predict we'll be back on that very soon.
This might be a bad bill, not sure, but I find the "end of free speech!" takes to be hyperbolic and a teeny bit precious.
@TSE has just banned us from talking about “the thing”
The Bill isn’t even enacted and a moderator is using it to close down a headline debate which is dominating the news elsewhere. You don’t see how this might generally spread and kill off free speech, online, everywhere?
It is the end of PB except for the most mainstream boring moderator-approved Woke opinions. As you are boring and Woke you don’t have an issue with it. But eventually even you will when you have an opinion that others find agitating
TSE puts a short pause in on something getting nasty and spiralling.
No, this doesn't spell the end of free speech in the UK or of a 'vibrant' PB.
Bet you any money - £5? - that I prove to be right.
A clever bet. If anyone takes it and then tries to collect, you can say it's highly distressing.
See, you're still allowed to carry on like this. QED. Where's my fiver.
I do need to plug LaGuardia, though. Post renovation, it’s actually pleasurable to depart from and arrive to.
How many airports can you say that about?
None in the UK, not even City which is absurdly overcrowded and also smells a bit.
City used to be like that but then they pushed into leisure travel so it got overcrowded, though it seems they've got planning approval to expand the terminal building so hopefully that will help with the overcrowding.
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..
Of course. But how much of a problem is largely in our own hands.
I do need to plug LaGuardia, though. Post renovation, it’s actually pleasurable to depart from and arrive to.
How many airports can you say that about?
None in the UK, not even City which is absurdly overcrowded and also smells a bit.
Not true. Luton is really quite agreeable now, unless you want oyster bars and all that malarkey. It now has a dedicated rail-link to the main station, which takes moments, and from there you can be in London St Pancras (one of the greatest train stations in the world) in 21 minutes. Yes
Also Heathrow is great if you are flying from The Queen's Terminal or T5. Properly lush, and excellent fast links to central London - Tube, Liz Line and Heathrow Express
Unfortunately, tonight I am flying from T4. Oh well
I do need to plug LaGuardia, though. Post renovation, it’s actually pleasurable to depart from and arrive to.
How many airports can you say that about?
None in the UK, not even City which is absurdly overcrowded and also smells a bit.
Not true. Luton is really quite agreeable now, unless you want oyster bars and all that malarkey. It now has a dedicated rail-link to the main station, which takes moments, and from there you can be in London St Pancras (one of the greatest train stations in the world) in 21 minutes. Yes
Also Heathrow is great if you flying from The Queen's Terminal or T5. Properly lush, and excellent fast links to central London - Tube, Liz Line and Heathrow Express
Unfortunately, tonight I am flying from T4. Oh well
I'm T5 to Berlin next week to speak to a German company that's looking to relocate it's data and product teams to London, they initially suggested going from Stansted which I politely declined.
Macron has reportedly intervened to urge Ukraine to be "realistic about territory".
This is singularly unhelpful and demonstrates that Macron has learnt nothing from the war since 2022. It is not Ukraine's desire to retain as much of itself as possible that blocks peace, but Russia's desire to seize the sovereign territory of another country.
There is, sadly, very little chance that the major European powers - Britain, France, or Germany - will step into the breach if Trump cuts support for Ukraine.
We are choosing a desperately dangerous future by acquiescing to Russian subjugation of a democracy. It doesn't have to be this way, but time is running out to change course.
It is a fact of life at universities in the U.K. that if the student union invites a speaker about Tibet or the Uyghurs, Chinese students will attempt to have it stopped, to the point of demanding students be investigated for racism.
I do need to plug LaGuardia, though. Post renovation, it’s actually pleasurable to depart from and arrive to.
How many airports can you say that about?
None in the UK, not even City which is absurdly overcrowded and also smells a bit.
City used to be like that but then they pushed into leisure travel so it got overcrowded, though it seems they've got planning approval to expand the terminal building so hopefully that will help with the overcrowding.
Flatland airport (also known as DSA) was quite pleasant by all accounts - but unfortunately you couldn't fly anywhere other than Poland or Magaluf.
Peel Holdings pulled the plug but I understand it is to start operating again soon. Their cunning plan to turn it into development land seems to have failed for now, no doubt at some cost to the taxpayer.
@mikeysmith · 48m Suspect Keir Starmer’s insistence on continuing to call it “Twitter” will be as infuriating to Musk as anything he said today.
Proper microaggression.
I thought that last night. It's bound to irritate the hell out of Musk
I'm with SKS here. 98% of the time, changing the name of a thing - whether that is a company, a pub, a sports team, a product, a stadium - is the wrong decision. The only name changes I will accept are upon marriage.
I'm now visualising you munching sadly away on a Marathon ice cream bar purchased from Bejam while driving your Datsun Leaf and bemoaning the GPO's price gouging on broadband.
Just a reminder free speech champions Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick, and Kemi Badenoch all voted for this bill and some of them even guided it through the Commons.
Can you also remind us which opposition leaders spoke out against it?
I do need to plug LaGuardia, though. Post renovation, it’s actually pleasurable to depart from and arrive to.
How many airports can you say that about?
None in the UK, not even City which is absurdly overcrowded and also smells a bit.
City used to be like that but then they pushed into leisure travel so it got overcrowded, though it seems they've got planning approval to expand the terminal building so hopefully that will help with the overcrowding.
Flatland airport (also known as DSA) was quite pleasant by all accounts - but unfortunately you couldn't fly anywhere other than Poland or Magaluf.
Peel Holdings pulled the plug but I understand it is to start operating again soon. Their cunning plan to turn it into development land seems to have failed for now, no doubt at some cost to the taxpayer.
I flew from Flatland (aka DSA, aka RHA, aka RHADS) about 20 years ago to Geneva. It was lovely. Uncrowded, efficient, comfortable. It didn't have hundreds of bars but the one or two it had were fine.
I do need to plug LaGuardia, though. Post renovation, it’s actually pleasurable to depart from and arrive to.
How many airports can you say that about?
None in the UK, not even City which is absurdly overcrowded and also smells a bit.
Not true. Luton is really quite agreeable now, unless you want oyster bars and all that malarkey. It now has a dedicated rail-link to the main station, which takes moments, and from there you can be in London St Pancras (one of the greatest train stations in the world) in 21 minutes. Yes
Also Heathrow is great if you are flying from The Queen's Terminal or T5. Properly lush, and excellent fast links to central London - Tube, Liz Line and Heathrow Express
Unfortunately, tonight I am flying from T4. Oh well
I used Luton for the first time in my life a few weeks ago and expected some dystopian hell-hole and was shocked how pleasant (for an airport) it was. It seemed clean and organised, enough shops and restaurants bars but not some monstrosity like a 90s mall.
A remarkably concentrated number of pretty women as well.
Apologies if this post distressed anyone by mentioning Luton.
Macron has reportedly intervened to urge Ukraine to be "realistic about territory".
This is singularly unhelpful and demonstrates that Macron has learnt nothing from the war since 2022. It is not Ukraine's desire to retain as much of itself as possible that blocks peace, but Russia's desire to seize the sovereign territory of another country.
There is, sadly, very little chance that the major European powers - Britain, France, or Germany - will step into the breach if Trump cuts support for Ukraine.
We are choosing a desperately dangerous future by acquiescing to Russian subjugation of a democracy. It doesn't have to be this way, but time is running out to change course.
The idea that government in those countries could fund and support a war in Ukraine against the wishes of the US without collapsing immediately is simply naive.
Also and btw I actually agree the site has become more anguished and polarised of late. But I don’t believe this is because of any one poster, eg me, much as I would like to be that important. I’m simply not
Fact is
1. The news is dominated by a particularly unpleasant story, that affects us 2. British politics itself is becoming more polarised: cf the rise of Reform (mirroring politics elsewhere in the west). Again we exhibit that 3. A lot of PB lefties, it turns out, really can’t cope with the criticism that comes with governance, as against the joys of oppositional carping. This is not helped by the new Labour government being so obviously shite, and difficult to defend
That’s it. That’s what’s happening
“It’s unpleasant for them because we are witnessing the collapse of their lifelong religion - liberal multiculturalism - in realtime. In days. That’s it “
Are we?
Any actual evidence to support that post of yours? Or was it just clearly meant as a wind up?
You are the canniest bestest wind up merchant I’ve ever come across. 🙂
I do need to plug LaGuardia, though. Post renovation, it’s actually pleasurable to depart from and arrive to.
How many airports can you say that about?
None in the UK, not even City which is absurdly overcrowded and also smells a bit.
Not true. Luton is really quite agreeable now, unless you want oyster bars and all that malarkey. It now has a dedicated rail-link to the main station, which takes moments, and from there you can be in London St Pancras (one of the greatest train stations in the world) in 21 minutes. Yes
Also Heathrow is great if you are flying from The Queen's Terminal or T5. Properly lush, and excellent fast links to central London - Tube, Liz Line and Heathrow Express
Unfortunately, tonight I am flying from T4. Oh well
I used Luton for the first time in my life a few weeks ago and expected some dystopian hell-hole and was shocked how pleasant (for an airport) it was. It seemed clean and organised, enough shops and restaurants bars but not some monstrosity like a 90s mall.
A remarkably concentrated number of pretty women as well.
Apologies if this post distressed anyone by mentioning Luton.
Yeah, they've done great things with Luton. The DART rail-link is a game-changer
I'd like Luton even if I didn't live 3 minutes Uber from St Pancras, which is 20-30 mins from Luton. But I do, so I like it even more
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.
Indeed. If the Online Safety Bill prevents a site like PB from discussing “anything controversial” then that is surely the end of PB. Much as I enjoy conversations about cricket, dog handling, bus timetables and drinks in sunny tropical countries (with accompanying pictures) without politics as a base - and politics is necessarily controversial - what’s left?
Also and btw I actually agree the site has become more anguished and polarised of late. But I don’t believe this is because of any one poster, eg me, much as I would like to be that important. I’m simply not
Fact is
1. The news is dominated by a particularly unpleasant story, that affects us 2. British politics itself is becoming more polarised: cf the rise of Reform (mirroring politics elsewhere in the west). Again we exhibit that 3. A lot of PB lefties, it turns out, really can’t cope with the criticism that comes with governance, as against the joys of oppositional carping. This is not helped by the new Labour government being so obviously shite, and difficult to defend
That’s it. That’s what’s happening
“It’s unpleasant for them because we are witnessing the collapse of their lifelong religion - liberal multiculturalism - in realtime. In days. That’s it “
Are we?
Any actual evidence to support that post of yours? Or was it just clearly meant as a wind up?
You are the canniest bestest wind up merchant I’ve ever come across. 🙂
Not sure that’s a good thing. 🤔
I'm no longer allowed to say factual things as they might distress people, so I will just have to let you imagine what I mean
Also and btw I actually agree the site has become more anguished and polarised of late. But I don’t believe this is because of any one poster, eg me, much as I would like to be that important. I’m simply not
Fact is
1. The news is dominated by a particularly unpleasant story, that affects us 2. British politics itself is becoming more polarised: cf the rise of Reform (mirroring politics elsewhere in the west). Again we exhibit that 3. A lot of PB lefties, it turns out, really can’t cope with the criticism that comes with governance, as against the joys of oppositional carping. This is not helped by the new Labour government being so obviously shite, and difficult to defend
That’s it. That’s what’s happening
“It’s unpleasant for them because we are witnessing the collapse of their lifelong religion - liberal multiculturalism - in realtime. In days. That’s it “
Are we?
Any actual evidence to support that post of yours? Or was it just clearly meant as a wind up?
You are the canniest bestest wind up merchant I’ve ever come across. 🙂
Not sure that’s a good thing. 🤔
I'm no longer allowed to say factual things as they might distress people, so I will just have to let you imagine what I mean
We know the answer, because you posted a laughably ludicrous claim. Why not use your talents to break down simplistic black and white perceptions, and help get to actual truth and history of what really happened? You are wasting yourself, your God given talents, and time on this earth, as a spinning top all the time.
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.
Indeed. If the Online Safety Bill prevents a site like PB from discussing “anything controversial” then that is surely the end of PB. Much as I enjoy conversations about cricket, dog handling, bus timetables and drinks in sunny tropical countries (with accompanying pictures) without politics as a base - and politics is necessarily controversial - what’s left?
Macron has reportedly intervened to urge Ukraine to be "realistic about territory".
This is singularly unhelpful and demonstrates that Macron has learnt nothing from the war since 2022. It is not Ukraine's desire to retain as much of itself as possible that blocks peace, but Russia's desire to seize the sovereign territory of another country.
There is, sadly, very little chance that the major European powers - Britain, France, or Germany - will step into the breach if Trump cuts support for Ukraine.
We are choosing a desperately dangerous future by acquiescing to Russian subjugation of a democracy. It doesn't have to be this way, but time is running out to change course.
The idea that government in those countries could fund and support a war in Ukraine against the wishes of the US without collapsing immediately is simply naive.
It would depend how the US opposition was framed. If they simply stepped away and adopted neutrality then I think Ukraine with European help could continue for a long time. After all Russia has only limited Chinese help and some North Koreans. If the US set out to take the side of Russia and threaten European countries that continued to support Ukraine - which is possible especially if Musk retains influence - then it's a different story. But in that situation all bets are off. We're talking, in effect, a new axis of evil.
@mikeysmith · 48m Suspect Keir Starmer’s insistence on continuing to call it “Twitter” will be as infuriating to Musk as anything he said today.
Proper microaggression.
I thought that last night. It's bound to irritate the hell out of Musk
I'm with SKS here. 98% of the time, changing the name of a thing - whether that is a company, a pub, a sports team, a product, a stadium - is the wrong decision. The only name changes I will accept are upon marriage.
I'm now visualising you munching sadly away on a Marathon ice cream bar purchased from Bejam while driving your Datsun Leaf and bemoaning the GPO's price gouging on broadband.
That is pretty much me, yes. Also going to the Reebok Stadium (you can sell your naming rights once, but once only: it will always be the Reebok thereafter) for the visit of Leicester Fosse. And using Jif to clean my sink. I still insist on calling that soap set in the Yorkshire Dales "Emmerdale Farm". And call my local airport "Ringway".
Snickers/Marathon is a confusing one because I understand it was originally called Snickers back in the dawn of time.
In the spirit of @TSE's new PB, and the banning of all discussion of "things", I'd like to point out that I am considering making a pot of tea. But my dilemma is should I put in two tea bags or one, when often I only drink half the pot? So, arguably, just one tea bag is sufficient
However, I may develop a thirst for more tea as I drink the tea, and go on to finish most of the rest of the pot, perhaps even as much as 80-85%, thus requiring two bags if I want proper taste
An alternative is that I put a bag in a mug, and then pour the boiling water straight into the mug, but for some reason I find this method of making tea unpleasing, and I wonder if the taste suffers. This will be my seventh pot of tea in eight days. I generally have a pot once a day but I skipped a day last week because I woke up late and I only wanted coffee. The coffee was Nespresso, I find that if you press the button twice and make a double espresso from one podule you can get a more satisfying small cup of coffee
I have seven or eight cups which are suitable for espresso and fit into my Nespresso machine under the nozzle. However there is one problematic cup which doesn't quite fit but I like it because it reminds me of a holiday. Several of the cups have various colourful desings, others are more plain
Now I am going to make the tea, and then I will be available for wide ranging discussion and free wheeling debate on its flavour and warmth
Just a reminder free speech champions Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick, and Kemi Badenoch all voted for this bill and some of them even guided it through the Commons.
Also and btw I actually agree the site has become more anguished and polarised of late. But I don’t believe this is because of any one poster, eg me, much as I would like to be that important. I’m simply not
Fact is
1. The news is dominated by a particularly unpleasant story, that affects us 2. British politics itself is becoming more polarised: cf the rise of Reform (mirroring politics elsewhere in the west). Again we exhibit that 3. A lot of PB lefties, it turns out, really can’t cope with the criticism that comes with governance, as against the joys of oppositional carping. This is not helped by the new Labour government being so obviously shite, and difficult to defend
That’s it. That’s what’s happening
“It’s unpleasant for them because we are witnessing the collapse of their lifelong religion - liberal multiculturalism - in realtime. In days. That’s it “
Are we?
Any actual evidence to support that post of yours? Or was it just clearly meant as a wind up?
You are the canniest bestest wind up merchant I’ve ever come across. 🙂
Not sure that’s a good thing. 🤔
I'm no longer allowed to say factual things as they might distress people, so I will just have to let you imagine what I mean
You should perhaps be rather more worried that you can no longer say fictional things - in case they might distress people.
No more stories about blood eagles for you, my lad...
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.
Indeed. If the Online Safety Bill prevents a site like PB from discussing “anything controversial” then that is surely the end of PB. Much as I enjoy conversations about cricket, dog handling, bus timetables and drinks in sunny tropical countries (with accompanying pictures) without politics as a base - and politics is necessarily controversial - what’s left?
If the Bill is this bad, it sounds catastrophic
AI?
We don't want to risk hurting the feelings of our new robot overlords (whom I for one welcome, natch.)
In the spirit of @TSE's new PB, and the banning of all discussion of "things", I'd like to point out that I am considering making a pot of tea. But my dilemma is should I put in two tea bags or one, when often I only drink half the pot? So, arguably, just one tea bag is sufficient
However, I may develop a thirst for more tea as I drink the tea, and go on to finish most of the rest of the pot, perhaps even as much as 80-85%, thus requiring two bags if I want proper taste h
Also and btw I actually agree the site has become more anguished and polarised of late. But I don’t believe this is because of any one poster, eg me, much as I would like to be that important. I’m simply not
Fact is
1. The news is dominated by a particularly unpleasant story, that affects us 2. British politics itself is becoming more polarised: cf the rise of Reform (mirroring politics elsewhere in the west). Again we exhibit that 3. A lot of PB lefties, it turns out, really can’t cope with the criticism that comes with governance, as against the joys of oppositional carping. This is not helped by the new Labour government being so obviously shite, and difficult to defend
That’s it. That’s what’s happening
“It’s unpleasant for them because we are witnessing the collapse of their lifelong religion - liberal multiculturalism - in realtime. In days. That’s it “
Are we?
Any actual evidence to support that post of yours? Or was it just clearly meant as a wind up?
You are the canniest bestest wind up merchant I’ve ever come across. 🙂
Not sure that’s a good thing. 🤔
I'm no longer allowed to say factual things as they might distress people, so I will just have to let you imagine what I mean
We know the answer, because you posted a laughably ludicrous claim. Why not use your talents to break down simplistic black and white perceptions, and help get to actual truth and history of what really happened? You are wasting yourself, your God given talents, and time on this earth, as a spinning top all the time.
I think you will find I have made a highly relevant, informative, non-distressing and fact filled comment - wholly in accordance with @TSE's new edicts - about my intention to make a reasonably sized pot of tea, just a few moments ago. I hardly think this is "wasting my time"
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”.
Not my call but I predict we'll be back on that very soon.
This might be a bad bill, not sure, but I find the "end of free speech!" takes to be hyperbolic and a teeny bit precious.
@TSE has just banned us from talking about “the thing”
The Bill isn’t even enacted and a moderator is using it to close down a headline debate which is dominating the news elsewhere. You don’t see how this might generally spread and kill off free speech, online, everywhere?
It is the end of PB except for the most mainstream boring moderator-approved Woke opinions. As you are boring and Woke you don’t have an issue with it. But eventually even you will when you have an opinion that others find agitating
He’s banned it because it was dominating the conversation and driving others away.
It’s important, yes, but so are other things and there was more heat than light over the last 48 hours
Macron has reportedly intervened to urge Ukraine to be "realistic about territory".
This is singularly unhelpful and demonstrates that Macron has learnt nothing from the war since 2022. It is not Ukraine's desire to retain as much of itself as possible that blocks peace, but Russia's desire to seize the sovereign territory of another country.
There is, sadly, very little chance that the major European powers - Britain, France, or Germany - will step into the breach if Trump cuts support for Ukraine.
We are choosing a desperately dangerous future by acquiescing to Russian subjugation of a democracy. It doesn't have to be this way, but time is running out to change course.
The idea that government in those countries could fund and support a war in Ukraine against the wishes of the US without collapsing immediately is simply naive.
It would depend how the US opposition was framed. If they simply stepped away and adopted neutrality then I think Ukraine with European help could continue for a long time. After all Russia has only limited Chinese help and some North Koreans. If the US set out to take the side of Russia and threaten European countries that continued to support Ukraine - which is possible especially if Musk retains influence - then it's a different story. But in that situation all bets are off. We're talking, in effect, a new axis of evil.
Financially and militarily? Possibly, freely admit I don't know enough on the military side.
Electorally? No chance. Any incumbant government at the moment is immediately under pressure and very constrained on spending. Party and coalition discipline would break very quickly in each of UK, Germany and France, all of which have governments already struggling with their own priorities.
Macron has reportedly intervened to urge Ukraine to be "realistic about territory".
This is singularly unhelpful and demonstrates that Macron has learnt nothing from the war since 2022. It is not Ukraine's desire to retain as much of itself as possible that blocks peace, but Russia's desire to seize the sovereign territory of another country.
There is, sadly, very little chance that the major European powers - Britain, France, or Germany - will step into the breach if Trump cuts support for Ukraine.
We are choosing a desperately dangerous future by acquiescing to Russian subjugation of a democracy. It doesn't have to be this way, but time is running out to change course.
The idea that government in those countries could fund and support a war in Ukraine against the wishes of the US without collapsing immediately is simply naive.
I don't think Trump is actively pro-Russia*. He's simply indifferent about the war. If European countries wanted to spend money on US armaments to send them to Ukraine I don't think he'd stand in the way.
* He greatly admires Putin as a strongman leader, but that's a slightly different thing.
I do need to plug LaGuardia, though. Post renovation, it’s actually pleasurable to depart from and arrive to.
How many airports can you say that about?
None in the UK, not even City which is absurdly overcrowded and also smells a bit.
Not true. Luton is really quite agreeable now, unless you want oyster bars and all that malarkey. It now has a dedicated rail-link to the main station, which takes moments, and from there you can be in London St Pancras (one of the greatest train stations in the world) in 21 minutes. Yes
Also Heathrow is great if you are flying from The Queen's Terminal or T5. Properly lush, and excellent fast links to central London - Tube, Liz Line and Heathrow Express
Unfortunately, tonight I am flying from T4. Oh well
I used Luton for the first time in my life a few weeks ago and expected some dystopian hell-hole and was shocked how pleasant (for an airport) it was. It seemed clean and organised, enough shops and restaurants bars but not some monstrosity like a 90s mall.
A remarkably concentrated number of pretty women as well.
Apologies if this post distressed anyone by mentioning Luton.
I live there. The advantage is that you can afford a big house and garden, at prices that you would normally find about 200 miles further North.
I do need to plug LaGuardia, though. Post renovation, it’s actually pleasurable to depart from and arrive to.
How many airports can you say that about?
None in the UK, not even City which is absurdly overcrowded and also smells a bit.
City used to be like that but then they pushed into leisure travel so it got overcrowded, though it seems they've got planning approval to expand the terminal building so hopefully that will help with the overcrowding.
Flatland airport (also known as DSA) was quite pleasant by all accounts - but unfortunately you couldn't fly anywhere other than Poland or Magaluf.
Peel Holdings pulled the plug but I understand it is to start operating again soon. Their cunning plan to turn it into development land seems to have failed for now, no doubt at some cost to the taxpayer.
I flew from Flatland (aka DSA, aka RHA, aka RHADS) about 20 years ago to Geneva. It was lovely. Uncrowded, efficient, comfortable. It didn't have hundreds of bars but the one or two it had were fine.
Although I never flew from it, it did also have one thing no other airport had, at least for a while:
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”.
Not my call but I predict we'll be back on that very soon.
This might be a bad bill, not sure, but I find the "end of free speech!" takes to be hyperbolic and a teeny bit precious.
@TSE has just banned us from talking about “the thing”
The Bill isn’t even enacted and a moderator is using it to close down a headline debate which is dominating the news elsewhere. You don’t see how this might generally spread and kill off free speech, online, everywhere?
It is the end of PB except for the most mainstream boring moderator-approved Woke opinions. As you are boring and Woke you don’t have an issue with it. But eventually even you will when you have an opinion that others find agitating
He’s banned it because it was dominating the conversation and driving others away.
It’s important, yes, but so are other things and there was more heat than light over the last 48 hours
The phrase "still waters" is used to talk about water that doesn’t move much, like in a pond or a lake. It just stays there, doing nothing, and looking flat. Sometimes, people say "still waters" to mean something about people or other things, but mostly it’s just water that is still. When thinking about this, it’s nice to have a reasonably sized pot of tea. A big pot can be a bit much because it might go cold before you finish it, but a small one can feel like it ends too quickly, which isn’t satisfying at all
Still waters are often quiet, which makes them different from running water like rivers. They just sort of sit there, which is useful for some animals and plants. If you’re thinking about this for a while, you’d probably want to make sure your tea stays warm. That’s why the pot size is important - it should hold just enough for a couple of cups but not so much that you need to rush. Really, it’s a balance, much like still waters themselves, except they don’t have tea
Comments
Given the vitriol one sees in many online discussions this is not surprising.
Lawfare will become a common method of shutting down debate.
One of the ironies of this TORY Bill is that it vindicates one of Musk’s critiques of the UK. We really are turning into an Orwellian police state. A fairly polite British version, but Orwellian nonetheless
We shouldn't look to make savings by denying welfare people qualify for, and need.
Well done, Rachel Reeves!
And I do sympathise - there have been other posters on the past who I haven't enjoyed at all, some of whom were constantly rude. When I found reading such a poster annoying rather than engaging, I just scanned past. It's very easy, online, not to engage in a discussion - not even to read a discussion - which you're not going to enjoy.
The issue was a moderation problem, and it caused several posters to switch off, but not a matter of “online harm”.
Now I suspect she made the comments because she was not aware of the severity of what happened in Cologne as I doubt she would have made said comments otherwise.
She told the audience: "A very similar situation to what happened in Cologne could be describing Broad Street in Birmingham every week, where women are baited and heckled."
As should politicians.
This might be a bad bill, not sure, but I find the "end of free speech!" takes to be hyperbolic and a teeny bit precious.
However how would anyone ever prove "intent to cause psychological harm"
For anyone who doesn’t need to be on the ground in the UK, a single site owner relocating to another jurisdiction might not be a mad idea. Could be either the US or Sandpit type of country, neither of which will have much interest in anything short of an extradition warrant presented to Interpol.
The Bill isn’t even enacted and a moderator is using it to close down a headline debate which is dominating the news elsewhere. You don’t see how this might generally spread and kill off free speech, online, everywhere?
It is the end of PB except for the most mainstream boring moderator-approved Woke opinions. As you are boring and Woke you don’t have an issue with it. But eventually even you will when you have an opinion that others find agitating
It wouldn’t have been international news if it was the ‘baiting and heckling’ that she claims happens in Birmingham on the average Saturday.
This is a general issue, not limited to PB.com
One area where we might need to take a zero tolerance approach (as, in fairness, we already do) would be in relation to doxing, or willfully disclosing the identity of a poster who, by using a pseudonym, has reasonably demonstrated they wish to retain their anonymity. Having your identity revealed might be reasonably expected to cause psychological harm.
I think that there are ways of this being a workable system without it becoming a Snowflakes' Charter.
Almost three quarters (72%) of 18-24 year olds who drink in bars, clubs or pubs said in a survey that they had seen sexual harassment on a night out.
Just over a third of women (35%) and 9% of men have reported receiving unwanted sexual contact on a night out.
One in nine women and one in 17 men in the UK say they have been the victim of drink spiking.
However it just seems chaotically run (by JetBlue).
I’d have thought this was now acceptable via custom.
I demand a shrubbery.
It’s time to summon the US ambassador to ask why an incoming US official is suggesting the UK government should be overthrown."
https://x.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1876258736131416409
I agree.
However, Musk's DOGE is not actually a governmental department, so is Musk going to be a US official?
No, this doesn't spell the end of free speech in the UK or of a 'vibrant' PB.
Bet you any money - £5? - that I prove to be right.
Even those in the upper middle, such as my parents, might like to argue that on a macro scale everyone’s energy bills go up if those who can afford to bugger off for the winter and leave their house colder don’t do so.
Post renovation, it’s actually pleasurable to depart from and arrive to.
How many airports can you say that about?
None in the UK, not even City which is absurdly overcrowded and also smells a bit.
With a path down the middle?
It’s time for a Davey Musk stoush.
He’s an unpaid advisor to the Executive.
An interesting followup question is who is paying the salaries of DOGE employees, and what is the legal entity that pays them?
But how much of a problem is largely in our own hands.
Also Heathrow is great if you are flying from The Queen's Terminal or T5. Properly lush, and excellent fast links to central London - Tube, Liz Line and Heathrow Express
Unfortunately, tonight I am flying from T4. Oh well
Worst airport experience in recent years was Dublin at the peak of the tourist season. Utterly unsuited to such huge volumes of travellers.
This is singularly unhelpful and demonstrates that Macron has learnt nothing from the war since 2022. It is not Ukraine's desire to retain as much of itself as possible that blocks peace, but Russia's desire to seize the sovereign territory of another country.
There is, sadly, very little chance that the major European powers - Britain, France, or Germany - will step into the breach if Trump cuts support for Ukraine.
We are choosing a desperately dangerous future by acquiescing to Russian subjugation of a democracy. It doesn't have to be this way, but time is running out to change course.
It is a fact of life at universities in the U.K. that if the student union invites a speaker about Tibet or the Uyghurs, Chinese students will attempt to have it stopped, to the point of demanding students be investigated for racism.
Peel Holdings pulled the plug but I understand it is to start operating again soon. Their cunning plan to turn it into development land seems to have failed for now, no doubt at some cost to the taxpayer.
A remarkably concentrated number of pretty women as well.
Apologies if this post distressed anyone by mentioning Luton.
Are we?
Any actual evidence to support that post of yours? Or was it just clearly meant as a wind up?
You are the canniest bestest wind up merchant I’ve ever come across. 🙂
Not sure that’s a good thing. 🤔
I'd like Luton even if I didn't live 3 minutes Uber from St Pancras, which is 20-30 mins from Luton. But I do, so I like it even more
I still insist on calling that soap set in the Yorkshire Dales "Emmerdale Farm". And call my local airport "Ringway".
Snickers/Marathon is a confusing one because I understand it was originally called Snickers back in the dawn of time.
However, I may develop a thirst for more tea as I drink the tea, and go on to finish most of the rest of the pot, perhaps even as much as 80-85%, thus requiring two bags if I want proper taste
An alternative is that I put a bag in a mug, and then pour the boiling water straight into the mug, but for some reason I find this method of making tea unpleasing, and I wonder if the taste suffers. This will be my seventh pot of tea in eight days. I generally have a pot once a day but I skipped a day last week because I woke up late and I only wanted coffee. The coffee was Nespresso, I find that if you press the button twice and make a double espresso from one podule you can get a more satisfying small cup of coffee
I have seven or eight cups which are suitable for espresso and fit into my Nespresso machine under the nozzle. However there is one problematic cup which doesn't quite fit but I like it because it reminds me of a holiday. Several of the cups have various colourful desings, others are more plain
Now I am going to make the tea, and then I will be available for wide ranging discussion and free wheeling debate on its flavour and warmth
No more stories about blood eagles for you, my lad...
One teabag, hot water, let it steep.
It’s important, yes, but so are other things and there was more heat than light over the last 48 hours
Electorally? No chance. Any incumbant government at the moment is immediately under pressure and very constrained on spending. Party and coalition discipline would break very quickly in each of UK, Germany and France, all of which have governments already struggling with their own priorities.
* He greatly admires Putin as a strongman leader, but that's a slightly different thing.
Still waters are often quiet, which makes them different from running water like rivers. They just sort of sit there, which is useful for some animals and plants. If you’re thinking about this for a while, you’d probably want to make sure your tea stays warm. That’s why the pot size is important - it should hold just enough for a couple of cups but not so much that you need to rush. Really, it’s a balance, much like still waters themselves, except they don’t have tea