Categories
Safety or Freedom? – politicalbetting.com
Safety or Freedom? – politicalbetting.com
This is what I wrote in a header in July 2021 about the Online Safety Bill – now the Online Safety Act 2023.
2
Safety or Freedom? – politicalbetting.com
This is what I wrote in a header in July 2021 about the Online Safety Bill – now the Online Safety Act 2023.
Comments
Sean_F said:
» show previous quotes
The cost is trivial, as a part of the US budget.
The opposition is based on the Republican right believing that Putin is the defender of white, Christian,civilisation.>>
I think those two dynamics are operating together and appealing to different groups of people. It's a bit like the old anti-Nuke and pacifist groupings on the left in the cold war. Some were simply horrified by the prospect of war, or frustrated that spending on missiles wasn't being diverted to health or social security, others were true believers - tankies.
I think there are some American politicians being vaguely isolationist in the US tradition, and some who really do believe Putin is their guy. The latter are dangerous. If they prevail, then at some stage we need to start seriously considering the prospect of the USA becoming a hostile actor.
Errol says he and Elon would like UK citizenship. Critical of Farage too.
On Tom Swarbrick on LBC.
When I look at the date - July 2021 - I can see why this crept in relatively unnoticed. At the time, we were all waiting for a draconian government to abolish the restrictions on freedom of assembly while the Labour opposition insisted further restrictions were necessary.
https://x.com/RightWingCope/status/1876273933386952848
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.
On the face of it, it is hard to see how this legislation can comply with Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.
Sorry, a Sunday is a long time in politics.
It would be fascinating though if this is taken to the ECHR. The Conservatives are then faced with a choice: either they decide their own act is a problem and embrace the litigation on the basis it could hand a defeat to Labour; or it defends the act against meddling "foreign judges" and therefore finds itself on the same side of Starmer.
I recall Kemi was one of those more sceptical of the act but assume she didn't vote against.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Justin: "I am a fighter" (and a quitter).
I sometimes worry for Justin from CBeebies but so far he's had a remarkably controversy-free career.
Polls suggest former Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland is most likely to improve Liberal fortunes she has 19% of all Canadian voters more likely to support the Liberals if she was leader compared to 11% for Carney, 10% for Joly, Champagne 6%, Leblanc 5% and Anand 5%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/clyjmy7vl64t#player
On a net basis Carney does slightly better including those less likely to vote Liberal under the named leaders on -8% to -10% for Freeland, -10% for Champagne and -12% for Joly and -13% for Leblanc and -13% for Anand.
Though the latter figures show none of the candidates are likely to make much difference to Trudeau in reality and could even end up polling worse than he now is. However it does look like Freeland could give the Liberals a small boost, taking them to 21% with the Conservatives on 36% (down 3% compared to v Trudeau) and the NDP 14% (down 5%) and the BQ on 7% (down 4%). Carney however sees the Liberals in 3rd on 14% to 18% for the NDP and 36% for the Conservatives and Joly also sees the Liberals 3rd on 16% to 19% for the NDP and 36% for the Conservatives
https://angusreid.org/the-freeland-factor-liberal-leadership/
The last election of virtually no change was funny, though he did well to be in power a decade.
Sometimes I think people imagine human rights to have come down on a tablet from a mountain. The word "universal" in "universal human rights" means pertaining to all people, not "incontrovertible". The human beings who built these structures are as fallible as the rest of us.
Somebody said that thing only the other day and then the response was thing thing thing and then of course you’ve got thing, which is typical
Fucksake. Dark at 4pm
Do we assume all publishers will have to prevent responses to their pieces ?
I’d be quite happy with @Cyclefree as our prime minister, as long as she agrees to keep her speeches shorter than 4 hours
There are some potential benefits, especially in a country with strong traditions on rule of law, but codified is not in itself offering more protections.
We’re becoming an absolute outlier in the west - poorer, crappier, crushed into tinier houses, with the worst health service and no dentists, hideous weather, hideous towns; and now some of the most anti free speech laws in the “free world” just after the government spent six months jailing people for Instagram posts
It’s not great is it?
Anyway, to Heathrow! Thank god
https://maps.app.goo.gl/nNB8E3uhHcx5KKhY9
https://rss.org.uk/training-events/conference-2025/
https://order-order.com/2025/01/06/labours-tiktok-video-song-young-girls-sit-on-dck-and-punching-py/
Indeed - no joke - my close friend who is trying to become a Tory MP (and might do it as she has amazing connections) - actually asked me how I felt about this task before Xmas
A written constitution wouldn't mean much as Crown in Parliament is sovereign in the UK and could repeal it and amend it if a new party took office at a subsequent election. Unless it required say a 2/3 majority to change it but that would require cross party approval for such a bill
(There is a secret shortcut that avoids some of the queuing/shopping maze...)
— WSJ
https://x.com/ragipsoylu/status/1876175141694243009
I've just had a memory of a debate at school with the school chaplain (why the hell did we have a school chaplain?) about free speech. It went something like
Chaplain: Should we have free speech?
Class: Yes
Chaplain: But what about racism? Racism is bad.
Class: Yes, racism is bad.
Chaplain: So we shouldn't have free speech?
Class: No, just because we don't like what someone says doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.
Chaplain: But racism! Racism!
Class: See above.
And so on.
We settled basically on free speech apart from libel and the 'fire in a crowded theatre' exception, but he didn't like it.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
If Musk comes along and funds a Tommy Robinson party (maybe a revival of the British Freedom Party of which Yaxley-Lennon was previously deputy leader), we'll see the right split three ways. Under FPTP, that means a massive win for Labour and the LibDems. Tories down to third largest party. Reform UK possibly wiped out. BFP struggling to win a seat.
Common sense would suggest that of course it would be fine, and that the law is only intended to cover content that manifestly causes harm - such as encouraging suicide and similar.
But common sense would be a comfort blanket in this case, because the law does not say that, and we don't know how it will be implemented.
The track record of the police approach to their powers over online speech - which are already quite broad - does not inspire confidence for a nuanced and balanced approach.
The appeal of this sort of crime to the police is that the evidence is all there on the internet, and so detection and prosecution are relatively a doddle, compared to more difficult crimes like burglary, fraud or sexual assault.
Some Thatcherite Tories might vote Farage but wouldn't touch an oik like Robinson with a bargepole. Robinson would pick up votes in Labour seats in the North and Midlands and South Wales and outer East London though where the BNP got their highest votes
Chaplain was probably one of those people not able to hold two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
Or do you think those noted alt-Right extremists at Private Eye are ignorant of what they are talking about?
This fretfest is reminding me a little of that.
It is more that the major online publishers have decided that they aren’t in fact publishing stuff they are simply “platforms” - you can argue either side of that. I think they are being pretty specious. However, it has led to an absolute Wild West of crime and damage to individuals.
The area I know is payments and if you look at what the regulator has published it basically says that Meta “platforms” are responsible for “enabling” over half of reported authorised payment scams in 2023 (https://www.psr.org.uk/news-and-updates/latest-news/news/new-report-from-psr-shows-how-fraudsters-exploit-major-platforms-to-scam-consumers/). Banks now have to clear up this mess out of their own pockets.
In years to come I suspect we’ll look back at how we let certain companies “move fast, break things and fail to clean up the mess they made” as baffling as any poor policy decision in recent years.
Of course I can’t imagine why a certain billionaire who happens to own one of those “platforms” is not keen at being held accountable for what his firm allows to be published.
I am looking forward, for practical purposes, to becoming an Irish citizen. But take a look at the "Declaration of fidelity" one is required to make to take up Irish citizenship.
“I (name) having applied to the Minister for Justice for a certificate of naturalisation, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the State.
I undertake to faithfully observe the laws of the State and to respect its democratic values.”
It doesn't stir the imagination. Compare to the Oath of Allegiance required of new British citizens.
"I... swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His Heirs and Successors according to law."
It moves even the black and shrivelled heart of a lifelong Republican like myself. Why? Because the language is straight out of the 17th century is why, instead of being some deathless bit of bureaucratese, written by a committee determined to write something less inspiring than a licence agreement.
(I'd rather have no religious schools - this one seems to give a fairly well rounded education, but with Christianity taught as fact. But he's a curious boy and keeps asking me questions, which ended up the other night with me explaining the difference between agnosticism and atheism!)
It does seem a lot of the last governments anti-stuff laws are incredibly broad brush and allow for selective prosecution and thus persecution of unaligned groups.
Most of PB's right wingers won't have been caught up in the legislation passed by the last government particularity around protest, but the political pendulum has swung and the outrage machine is at full choke.
Technically I think there was “a period of darkness” -
we were just below the Arctic Circle - but the air was so clear the sun light endured throughout and then the sun returned shortly after it dipped, anyway
I recommend it if you want to be totally disorientated and somewhat spooked. Apparently it can drive people mad
Almost like being chaplains was a bit of a lifestyle choice attached to their other lives, maybe they liked the stylish black or charcoal grey suits with dog collar look. I think all but one were also maths dons.