I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
Depends how cynical you are?
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.
Especially seeing as this new legislation *was* passed by the last government ...
Yeah but then there’s thing. And that other thing.
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
Leon in June. “Fucksake. Dark at 11pm”
Just hope he never holidays in Shetland at that time of year.
That reminds me of an acquaintance who visited Iceland and was excited beforehand by the prospect of possibly seeing the northern lights. The visit was in June.
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
We certainly had a school chaplain, generally the best schools do. For starters we had a 720 seat school chapel we had assembly in every morning
We had five of the buggers, all except the Canadian one were from clearly v wealthy old school backgrounds and had all sorts of high level academic qualifications.
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.
Oxbridge colleges also have chaplains and indeed chapels still too
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
The obvious way to limit the effects of this law would be to elect a government that would repeal it.
Realistically no government will simply repeal it, they would amend and replace it. History suggests whenever they do, whichever party is in charge, whatever they promise, they will increase the governments power and control.......be careful what you wish for.
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
We certainly had a school chaplain, generally the best schools do. For starters we had a 720 seat school chapel we had assembly in every morning
At my son's CofE school, assembly is now called 'worship'. I was a little freaked out by it until I realised it was the same thing with a different name.
(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!)
We are a free country, if religious parents wish to send their children to the third of state schools which are faith schools or a private religious school they are perfectly entitled to
Yeah but then there’s thing. And that other thing.
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
Leon in June. “Fucksake. Dark at 11pm”
Just hope he never holidays in Shetland at that time of year.
I’ve experienced 24 hour sunlight in northern Russia. It is very very strange
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
A few years back I was in Helsinki and needed to catch a stupidly early flight back which meant something like a 3am alarm call.
I have never been fully awake so quickly as that day when I opened the curtains and my body clock went - it looks like 11am you are fully awake
The RSS Conference 2025 is in Edinburgh, specifically the Edinburgh International Conference Centre. Does anybody have a comment, pro or con, about Edinburgh Airport?
It's fine. Public transport links to the city centre are good.
My mild upcoming Scottish transport irritation is arriving at Inverness station on the sleeper train but having to pick up a hire car from the airport because there are hardly any car hire firms in town. So a taxi fare. Kind of situation where you need a shuttle bus.
Did you decide which part of this dreich corner of paradise you are going to stay in?
On topic. Everyone would build the wall around the garden - keeping out anarchy of the nature state, a nature state that’s never remotely freedom compared with the freedom we have in the garden - in a different place, because we are all different, and feel different at different times. This is why we have invented democracy to argue the toss about it.
There isn’t an actual black and white answer to where the wall, within which we are restricted in our words and deeds in order to invent freedom from the anarchy of nature, is built - except that knowing if we push back on the boundaries set on individual freedom, we draw into the realm of nature, where there is no freedom.
For example, I view Musk’s recent Twitter posts as not free speech at all, but anarchy vandalising freedom of speech.
If this Act plays out badly I see no purpose in being a UK citizen
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
The advantage of being British is in our appreciation of poetry, history and much else.
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 can't stand that UK oath of allegiance. Has it always been like that? The only good bit for me is according to law. I suppose we can hardly avoid reference to the King.
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"
I’m a Church Counsellor, and I’m trying to help you.
I can drive out the naughty sprite, and save your soul.
The RSS Conference 2025 is in Edinburgh, specifically the Edinburgh International Conference Centre. Does anybody have a comment, pro or con, about Edinburgh Airport?
Its compact, normally easy to get into and out of, uniess it is the first week of the summer school holidays, The lounges are preferable to sitting about in the terminal, which isn't particularly comfortable but there is a decent gin bar which does some nice breakfast options if you're in a hurry.
Taxis to the city centre are fairly cheap but the tram runs through the west end and along Princes Street, I wouldn't generally bother with a cab unless there's a big gig or match on at Murrayfield when the tram is mobbed.
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
We certainly had a school chaplain, generally the best schools do. For starters we had a 720 seat school chapel we had assembly in every morning
At my son's CofE school, assembly is now called 'worship'. I was a little freaked out by it until I realised it was the same thing with a different name.
(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!)
We are a free country, if religious parents wish to send their children to the third of state schools which are faith schools or a private religious school they are perfectly entitled to
We are a free country and if taxpayers wish to stop funding faith schools they should also be able to.
Blimey, Justin Trudeau looks a completely shattered, broken man doesn't it?
All political careers end in failure, etc...
Honestly? No. I though he looked pretty good. His political destruction did not manifest in his appearance.
I don't think he looked shattered either.
After all his successor is now going to carry the can for a likely landslide Liberal defeat even if maybe not quite as much of a trouncing as if he had stayed PM.
Trudeau however will step down after nearly a decade as PM and with 3 Federal election wins under his belt. The third longest serving Liberal PM since WW2, the longest serving Canadian PM since WW2 of course being his late father Pierre.
Indeed like Biden and Boris he can put his feet up and watch the party that removed him get smashed at the next election, then shrug his shoulders and move on to a lucrative lecture circuit and book deal
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
You really do have your Hyperbole hat on today. At a conservative estimate, 99.99% of the universe of 'bad things to say' are not illegal.
Try it now as an experiment. Say some bad things to yourself at random and see how many would put you in jail if I heard them and reported you. Bet it's none.
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
We certainly had a school chaplain, generally the best schools do. For starters we had a 720 seat school chapel we had assembly in every morning
At my son's CofE school, assembly is now called 'worship'. I was a little freaked out by it until I realised it was the same thing with a different name.
(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!)
We are a free country, if religious parents wish to send their children to the third of state schools which are faith schools or a private religious school they are perfectly entitled to
We are a free country and if taxpayers wish to stop funding faith schools they should also be able to.
Religious taxpayers like me should also be able to refuse to fund secular state schools too I presume?
On topic. Everyone would build the wall around the garden - keeping out anarchy of the nature state, a nature state that’s never remotely freedom compared with the freedom we have in the garden - in a different place, because we are all different, and feel different at different times. This is why we have invented democracy to argue the toss about it.
There isn’t an actual black and white answer to where the wall, within which we are restricted in our words and deeds in order to invent freedom from the anarchy of nature, is built - except that knowing if we push back on the boundaries set on individual freedom, we draw into the realm of nature, where there is no freedom.
For example, I view Musk’s recent Twitter posts as not free speech at all, but anarchy vandalising freedom of speech.
Why did you not loudly complain when Twitter and Facebook prohibited any discussion of the lab leak hypothesis for a year? That’s arguably far worse than anything Musk is doing. They covered up the genuine origins of a virus which has killed 20 million people and which has damaged the lives of billions. Musk is just ranting at 2am
I don't remember the outrage then. And they did this for partly political reasons - to hinder Trump
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
We certainly had a school chaplain, generally the best schools do. For starters we had a 720 seat school chapel we had assembly in every morning
At my son's CofE school, assembly is now called 'worship'. I was a little freaked out by it until I realised it was the same thing with a different name.
(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!)
We are a free country, if religious parents wish to send their children to the third of state schools which are faith schools or a private religious school they are perfectly entitled to
We are a free country and if taxpayers wish to stop funding faith schools they should also be able to.
Religious taxpayers like me should also be able to refuse to fund secular state schools too I presume?
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
I'm also unconvinced. I've not read in any detail but I find Cyclefree often quire alarmist about this sort of thing. People I trust more would be up in arms if it was as bad as she claims. Maybe I'm wrong though, but if so we will find out soon enough. If so happy to campaign to change the law.
Phew. Thanks. To clarify, I'm not any sort of gung-ho supporter of this act, I'm just not quite sharing the PB consensus on what a horror it is.
Also, why is it fine and dandy for UK Labour to pay for activists to go and interfere in American politics in America by campaigning for Kamala Harris but it’s a travesty and an evil if a private American citizen - however rich and bonkers - expresses an opinion on European politics?
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
We certainly had a school chaplain, generally the best schools do. For starters we had a 720 seat school chapel we had assembly in every morning
At my son's CofE school, assembly is now called 'worship'. I was a little freaked out by it until I realised it was the same thing with a different name.
(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!)
We are a free country, if religious parents wish to send their children to the third of state schools which are faith schools or a private religious school they are perfectly entitled to
Of course. But in a majority non-Christian country why are we taxed to provide religious indoctrination to our children?
My problem is not with people sending their kids to these schools (I do, afterall!). My problem is the relative lack of choice of non-religious schools in the state sector in some areas.
If this Act plays out badly I see no purpose in being a UK citizen
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
The advantage of being British is in our appreciation of poetry, history and much else.
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 can't stand that UK oath of allegiance. Has it always been like that? The only good bit for me is according to law. I suppose we can hardly avoid reference to the King.
The Crown is the State.
We used to be tribes and other things. Then the notion of a state with fixed boundaries evolved, and it was the area in which the King held sway. Then there was the American and French revolutions happened, and we had to work out what a state without a King looked like, and we invented the nation-state. Then the other Empires broke up and the remnants coalesced around nation-states. Then the British Empire collapsed down to the British Isles and entities such as the UK, the Channel Isles, Isle of Man resulted, each ruled by the Westminster System. Under this system the Crown appoints a Governor or Prime Minister to appoint a Government that can get legislation thru the local Assembly/Parliament. The Crown is the Sovereign from which all power flows.
The RSS Conference 2025 is in Edinburgh, specifically the Edinburgh International Conference Centre. Does anybody have a comment, pro or con, about Edinburgh Airport?
It's fine. Public transport links to the city centre are good.
My mild upcoming Scottish transport irritation is arriving at Inverness station on the sleeper train but having to pick up a hire car from the airport because there are hardly any car hire firms in town. So a taxi fare. Kind of situation where you need a shuttle bus.
Did you decide which part of this dreich corner of paradise you are going to stay in?
Yep, we're staying in Assynt, up in the North West close to the coast. Suilven etc. I'm looking forward to it and hopefully there will be at least one brief break in the dreichness.
Yeah but then there’s thing. And that other thing.
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
Leon in June. “Fucksake. Dark at 11pm”
Just hope he never holidays in Shetland at that time of year.
I’ve experienced 24 hour sunlight in northern Russia. It is very very strange
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
A few years back I was in Helsinki and needed to catch a stupidly early flight back which meant something like a 3am alarm call.
I have never been fully awake so quickly as that day when I opened the curtains and my body clock went - it looks like 11am you are fully awake
I managed to miss my early morning train to Helsinki (for a flight) from the more northern Tampere in the middle of summer. The Finns may have light mornings, but they have strong liquor that can overcome that!
US to announce sanction relief for Syria and to issue waivers to aid groups and companies providing essential services, such as water, electricity and other humanitarian supplies for next six months
The new leadership a lot smarter than some others about saying the right things and getting some results from that appraoch, hopefully it is not just talk.
If this Act plays out badly I see no purpose in being a UK citizen
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
The advantage of being British is in our appreciation of poetry, history and much else.
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 can't stand that UK oath of allegiance. Has it always been like that? The only good bit for me is according to law. I suppose we can hardly avoid reference to the King.
The Crown is the State.
We used to be tribes and other things. Then the notion of a state with fixed boundaries evolved, and it was the area in which the King held sway. Then there was the American and French revolutions happened, and we had to work out what a state without a King looked like, and we invented the nation-state. Then the other Empires broke up and the remnants coalesced around nation-states. Then the British Empire collapsed down to the British Isles and entities such as the UK, the Channel Isles, Isle of Man resulted, each ruled by the Westminster System. Under this system the Crown appoints a Governor or Prime Minister to appoint a Government that can get legislation thru the local Assembly/Parliament. The Crown is the Sovereign from which all power flows.
Well this is the tricky thing regards sovereignty. In theory it resides with the crown in practice it resides in Parliament. How does it work exactly in the other European monarchies? I can't help but feel we'd take more pride in ourselves if we were a nation rather than a Kingdom.
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
Depends how cynical you are?
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.
I'm really not sure. What we seem to have here is something both Con and Lab support but which is as popular as the proverbial bucket of on PB. That's unusual and (to me) interesting.
Yeah but then there’s thing. And that other thing.
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
Leon in June. “Fucksake. Dark at 11pm”
Just hope he never holidays in Shetland at that time of year.
That reminds me of an acquaintance who visited Iceland and was excited beforehand by the prospect of possibly seeing the northern lights. The visit was in June.
We visited Iceland in early August and I was rather surprised to see how light it still was at 11pm.
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
I'm also unconvinced. I've not read in any detail but I find Cyclefree often quire alarmist about this sort of thing. People I trust more would be up in arms if it was as bad as she claims. Maybe I'm wrong though, but if so we will find out soon enough. If so happy to campaign to change the law.
My general position is it is better to overreact than underreact to potential threats to free speech, as it is harder to overcome issues from the latter than the former.
Yeah but then there’s thing. And that other thing.
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
Leon in June. “Fucksake. Dark at 11pm”
Just hope he never holidays in Shetland at that time of year.
I’ve experienced 24 hour sunlight in northern Russia. It is very very strange
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
A few years back I was in Helsinki and needed to catch a stupidly early flight back which meant something like a 3am alarm call.
I have never been fully awake so quickly as that day when I opened the curtains and my body clock went - it looks like 11am you are fully awake
I managed to miss my early morning train to Helsinki (for a flight) from the more northern Tampere in the middle of summer. The Finns may have light mornings, but they have strong liquor that can overcome that!
I wanted to be home so had alarms configured to make sure I was up. It was more the shock of going from just about awake to fully awake as I drew the curtain back that I remember
And I was very used to not being that awake when catching morning flights home - aim was get to airport, get on plane and return to sleep
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
You're not alone. The PB collective is, I think, over-reacting, and the idea that the police/CPS/courts have the time or inclination to seek to prosecute 'publishers' because readers simply moan about stuff they don't like is palpable nonsense.
(I'm not, by the way, excluding the possibility that the OSB has been drawn too widely, but judicial interpretation will, I suspect, narrow its scope).
On a less serious note; Bravo @cyclefree for a prescient and clairvoyant article
I’d be quite happy with @Cyclefree as our prime minister, as long as she agrees to keep her speeches shorter than 4 hours
😂
Sweetie - have DM'd you. If we're both in London at the same time I'll even treat you to lunch while I shamelessly pick your brains.
Actually, I am a bloody wonderful speaker because (a) I never read out written down speeches - absolutely deadly; (b) have a few key points in my head I want to make and decide what I will say and how at about the time I stand up to make them and (c) above all - a talk is a performance and to get it right you have to read and respond to your audience. I love doing that and the consequence is that you are editing as you go in response to how what you are saying is landing. Any good speaker is listening at the same time. It's a conversation even if the audience is silent.
So tell me I have 3 mins or 30mins or 15 mins I can stick to that time, no problem. Writing OTOH is solitary and there isn't that immediate connection with a live audience which makes that editing process so much harder.
Also, why is it fine and dandy for UK Labour to pay for activists to go and interfere in American politics in America by campaigning for Kamala Harris but it’s a travesty and an evil if a private American citizen - however rich and bonkers - expresses an opinion on European politics?
I thought Labour didn't pay? There was some suggestion that they might get their accommodation paid for but I assumed that was by the Democrats. And Brits campaigning over in the US is hardly new is it?
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
You're not alone. The PB collective is, I think, over-reacting, and the idea that the police/CPS/courts have the time or inclination to seek to prosecute 'publishers' because readers simply moan about stuff they don't like is palpable nonsense.
(I'm not, by the way, excluding the possibility that the OSB has been drawn too widely, but judicial interpretation will, I suspect, narrow its scope).
It's about the real-world effect. I've been a bit shaken by that cycling forum going down.
If this Act plays out badly I see no purpose in being a UK citizen
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
The advantage of being British is in our appreciation of poetry, history and much else.
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 can't stand that UK oath of allegiance. Has it always been like that? The only good bit for me is according to law. I suppose we can hardly avoid reference to the King.
The Crown is the State.
We used to be tribes and other things. Then the notion of a state with fixed boundaries evolved, and it was the area in which the King held sway. Then there was the American and French revolutions happened, and we had to work out what a state without a King looked like, and we invented the nation-state. Then the other Empires broke up and the remnants coalesced around nation-states. Then the British Empire collapsed down to the British Isles and entities such as the UK, the Channel Isles, Isle of Man resulted, each ruled by the Westminster System. Under this system the Crown appoints a Governor or Prime Minister to appoint a Government that can get legislation thru the local Assembly/Parliament. The Crown is the Sovereign from which all power flows.
Well this is the tricky thing regards sovereignty. In theory it resides with the crown in practice it resides in Parliament. How does it work exactly in the other European monarchies? I can't help but feel we'd take more pride in ourselves if we were a nation rather than a Kingdom.
I don't quite follow the reasoning there. Surely some monarchical nations have plenty of pride, and some republics don't?
I wish the Lib Dems would live up to their name and campaign on things like this. They have sufficient MPs to make themselves heard and they did so on similar infringements on rights in the past.
Their failure to do so is making voting for them rather pointless as a liberal. There's a limit to the extent the 'don't scare the horses' tactic can go without undermining the party.
I think it's probably time Davey is replaced by someone more dynamic on policy. Have a proper contest while the number of MPs is high and give the new leader 2-3 years to make their mark.
Also, why is it fine and dandy for UK Labour to pay for activists to go and interfere in American politics in America by campaigning for Kamala Harris but it’s a travesty and an evil if a private American citizen - however rich and bonkers - expresses an opinion on European politics?
I thought Labour didn't pay? There was some suggestion that they might get their accommodation paid for but I assumed that was by the Democrats. And Brits campaigning over in the US is hardly new is it?
Edit. I got that wrong. Labour didn’t pay
The democrats paid BUT this contradicted starmer claiming that they would all pay their own way
Also, why is it fine and dandy for UK Labour to pay for activists to go and interfere in American politics in America by campaigning for Kamala Harris but it’s a travesty and an evil if a private American citizen - however rich and bonkers - expresses an opinion on European politics?
Labour activists, and I think LibDem or at least Liberal ones, have crossed the pond to 'help Dem candidates for ages. And Young Conservatives have done their best for Rep ones (in the intervals between seeking Yank crumpet). It's just that it was picked up and made a 'thing' this time.
Also, why is it fine and dandy for UK Labour to pay for activists to go and interfere in American politics in America by campaigning for Kamala Harris but it’s a travesty and an evil if a private American citizen - however rich and bonkers - expresses an opinion on European politics?
But Labour didn't ask to invade the U.S. to "liberate it", nor does it control either the world's largest social media outlet or have a place in a government with the world's largest military and economic power.
If this Act plays out badly I see no purpose in being a UK citizen
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
The advantage of being British is in our appreciation of poetry, history and much else.
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 can't stand that UK oath of allegiance. Has it always been like that? The only good bit for me is according to law. I suppose we can hardly avoid reference to the King.
The Crown is the State.
We used to be tribes and other things. Then the notion of a state with fixed boundaries evolved, and it was the area in which the King held sway. Then there was the American and French revolutions happened, and we had to work out what a state without a King looked like, and we invented the nation-state. Then the other Empires broke up and the remnants coalesced around nation-states. Then the British Empire collapsed down to the British Isles and entities such as the UK, the Channel Isles, Isle of Man resulted, each ruled by the Westminster System. Under this system the Crown appoints a Governor or Prime Minister to appoint a Government that can get legislation thru the local Assembly/Parliament. The Crown is the Sovereign from which all power flows.
Well this is the tricky thing regards sovereignty. In theory it resides with the crown in practice it resides in Parliament. How does it work exactly in the other European monarchies? I can't help but feel we'd take more pride in ourselves if we were a nation rather than a Kingdom.
I don't quite follow the reasoning there. Surely some monarchical nations have plenty of pride, and some republics don't?
Obviously pride rests on lots of different things. But I think being British is a greater source of pride than belonging to the Kingdom of Charles III.
Also, why is it fine and dandy for UK Labour to pay for activists to go and interfere in American politics in America by campaigning for Kamala Harris but it’s a travesty and an evil if a private American citizen - however rich and bonkers - expresses an opinion on European politics?
I thought Labour didn't pay? There was some suggestion that they might get their accommodation paid for but I assumed that was by the Democrats. And Brits campaigning over in the US is hardly new is it?
Labour paid, I believe
So your believe without any evidence to back it up makes Labour guilty of interfering in a foreign election?
If this Act plays out badly I see no purpose in being a UK citizen
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
The advantage of being British is in our appreciation of poetry, history and much else.
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 can't stand that UK oath of allegiance. Has it always been like that? The only good bit for me is according to law. I suppose we can hardly avoid reference to the King.
The Crown is the State.
We used to be tribes and other things. Then the notion of a state with fixed boundaries evolved, and it was the area in which the King held sway. Then there was the American and French revolutions happened, and we had to work out what a state without a King looked like, and we invented the nation-state. Then the other Empires broke up and the remnants coalesced around nation-states. Then the British Empire collapsed down to the British Isles and entities such as the UK, the Channel Isles, Isle of Man resulted, each ruled by the Westminster System. Under this system the Crown appoints a Governor or Prime Minister to appoint a Government that can get legislation thru the local Assembly/Parliament. The Crown is the Sovereign from which all power flows.
Well this is the tricky thing regards sovereignty. In theory it resides with the crown in practice it resides in Parliament. How does it work exactly in the other European monarchies? I can't help but feel we'd take more pride in ourselves if we were a nation rather than a Kingdom.
Absolutely not, for starters I would despise and be embarrassed by a President Starmer as you would equally despise and be embarassed by President Farage or President Johnson.
Whereas I take great pride in our King and the Prince of Wales, even if actual legislative power resides in Parliament now rather than the monarch and has done since the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution with the executive in effect now being the King's chief minister and Cabinet not the King himself
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
I know you are the least self aware person on here, but does not your total isolation on this issue not make you wonder that maybe you’ve got it wrong?
It's not something I enjoy, being alone, but I'm sensing a bit of the old groupthink here.
Anyway looks like I'm not in complete isolation. Others have now bravely come forward. Although not many tbf.
I wish the Lib Dems would live up to their name and campaign on things like this. They have sufficient MPs to make themselves heard and they did so on similar infringements on rights in the past.
Their failure to do so is making voting for them rather pointless as a liberal. There's a limit to the extent the 'don't scare the horses' tactic can go without undermining the party.
I think it's probably time Davey is replaced by someone more dynamic on policy. Have a proper contest while the number of MPs is high and give the new leader 2-3 years to make their mark.
They’ve long since ceased to be liberal. The old right of the Labour Party which merged with the liberals was far from a bastion of personal liberty.
They were happy, cheery, flag wavers for this awful law.
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
In itself i think that is fair, people do tend to be a bit absolutist in rhetoric at least, though personally i do think our current balance is poor and getting poorer.
Speech is too restricted in this country iyo? What makes you think that?
Super injunctions and NDAs all over the place. All kinds of punishments for whistleblowers. Law of libel used to protect the rich and powerful.
Or do you think those noted alt-Right extremists at Private Eye are ignorant of what they are talking about?
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
We certainly had a school chaplain, generally the best schools do. For starters we had a 720 seat school chapel we had assembly in every morning
At my son's CofE school, assembly is now called 'worship'. I was a little freaked out by it until I realised it was the same thing with a different name.
(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!)
We are a free country, if religious parents wish to send their children to the third of state schools which are faith schools or a private religious school they are perfectly entitled to
Of course. But in a majority non-Christian country why are we taxed to provide religious indoctrination to our children?
My problem is not with people sending their kids to these schools (I do, afterall!). My problem is the relative lack of choice of non-religious schools in the state sector in some areas.
We are majority religious nation still, when you add the 6% of English and Welsh Muslims and 1.5% of English and Welsh Hindus, 1% of English and Welsh Sikhs and 0.5% of English and Welsh Jews to the 46% in England and Wales still Christian on the last census link you have just given.
Indeed given 65% of state primary schools and over 80% of state secondary schools in the UK are secular and non religious if anything faith schools are underrepresented in the UK relative to parents still with faith here
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
Depends how cynical you are?
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.
I'm really not sure. What we seem to have here is something both Con and Lab support but which is as popular as the proverbial bucket of on PB. That's unusual and (to me) interesting.
True, but I do think PB skews IT, also this stuff is more tangible to those who frequent online spaces.
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
We certainly had a school chaplain, generally the best schools do. For starters we had a 720 seat school chapel we had assembly in every morning
At my son's CofE school, assembly is now called 'worship'. I was a little freaked out by it until I realised it was the same thing with a different name.
(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!)
We are a free country, if religious parents wish to send their children to the third of state schools which are faith schools or a private religious school they are perfectly entitled to
We are a free country and if taxpayers wish to stop funding faith schools they should also be able to.
Religious taxpayers like me should also be able to refuse to fund secular state schools too I presume?
Yeah if you want to vote for it.
Given I disagree with you on 90% of issues, why would I want your vote anyway?
Also, why is it fine and dandy for UK Labour to pay for activists to go and interfere in American politics in America by campaigning for Kamala Harris but it’s a travesty and an evil if a private American citizen - however rich and bonkers - expresses an opinion on European politics?
I thought Labour didn't pay? There was some suggestion that they might get their accommodation paid for but I assumed that was by the Democrats. And Brits campaigning over in the US is hardly new is it?
Labour paid, I believe
So your believe without any evidence to back it up makes Labour guilty of interfering in a foreign election?
I’ve just corrected myself. It does appear that labour fibbed about their activists “paying their own way”
But anyway the wider point is that we constantly interfere in their politics - and Tories and Labour do it - and we do it in the most overt way by actually sending activists and advisors to help one side or another
How is this perfectly OK but what Musk does is outrageous? This is a genuine question, I am not trying to provoke. I am somewhat mystified
If this Act plays out badly I see no purpose in being a UK citizen
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
The advantage of being British is in our appreciation of poetry, history and much else.
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 can't stand that UK oath of allegiance. Has it always been like that? The only good bit for me is according to law. I suppose we can hardly avoid reference to the King.
The Crown is the State.
We used to be tribes and other things. Then the notion of a state with fixed boundaries evolved, and it was the area in which the King held sway. Then there was the American and French revolutions happened, and we had to work out what a state without a King looked like, and we invented the nation-state. Then the other Empires broke up and the remnants coalesced around nation-states. Then the British Empire collapsed down to the British Isles and entities such as the UK, the Channel Isles, Isle of Man resulted, each ruled by the Westminster System. Under this system the Crown appoints a Governor or Prime Minister to appoint a Government that can get legislation thru the local Assembly/Parliament. The Crown is the Sovereign from which all power flows.
Well this is the tricky thing regards sovereignty. In theory it resides with the crown in practice it resides in Parliament. How does it work exactly in the other European monarchies? I can't help but feel we'd take more pride in ourselves if we were a nation rather than a Kingdom.
Absolutely not, for starters I would despise and be embarrassed by a President Starmer as you would equally despise and be embarassed by President Farage or President Johnson.
Whereas I take great pride in our King and the Prince of Wales, even if actual legislative power resides in Parliament now rather than the monarch and has done since the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution with the executive in effect now being the King's chief minister and Cabinet not the King himself
But we are in effect a democracy. A democracy requires a demos. Is all pledging allegiance to the same King really sufficient to have a demos. Surely you need a common identity?
And I raised the issue of how things work in other European monarchies.
Also, why is it fine and dandy for UK Labour to pay for activists to go and interfere in American politics in America by campaigning for Kamala Harris but it’s a travesty and an evil if a private American citizen - however rich and bonkers - expresses an opinion on European politics?
But Labour didn't ask to invade the U.S. to "liberate it", nor does it control either the world's largest social media outlet or have a place in a government with the world's largest military and economic power.
But he’s a private citizen - albeit very powerful - expressing a personal opinion. On his own website
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
I'm also unconvinced. I've not read in any detail but I find Cyclefree often quire alarmist about this sort of thing. People I trust more would be up in arms if it was as bad as she claims. Maybe I'm wrong though, but if so we will find out soon enough. If so happy to campaign to change the law.
Phew. Thanks. To clarify, I'm not any sort of gung-ho supporter of this act, I'm just not quite sharing the PB consensus on what a horror it is.
Well let's look at the Miller case and non-crime hate incidents. The Court of Appeal ruled that the police had overreached and were acting unlawfully. And our Home Secretary has basically ignored what the court has said.
So I think I am right to be alarmist about a law which is wide-ranging and whose interpretation will depend on regulations set out by a regulator, without debate in Parliament.
Also, sad as the case of the girl committing suicide was, I really don't think that is a justification for a law such as this.
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
I know you are the least self aware person on here, but does not your total isolation on this issue not make you wonder that maybe you’ve got it wrong?
It's not something I enjoy, being alone, but I'm sensing a bit of the old groupthink here.
Anyway looks like I'm not in complete isolation. Others have now bravely come forward. Although not many tbf.
I'll stick my head up and say I'm at least unsure about how I feel about the bill and am suspicious of the groupthink that PB often gets into.
I don't like the negative effects on free speech, but nor do I like the ability of algorithms to rapidly spread misinformation that is poisoning political debate in this country.
At the moment, I'm not sure which is the worst of the two worlds.
On a less serious note; Bravo @cyclefree for a prescient and clairvoyant article
I’d be quite happy with @Cyclefree as our prime minister, as long as she agrees to keep her speeches shorter than 4 hours
😂
Sweetie - have DM'd you. If we're both in London at the same time I'll even treat you to lunch while I shamelessly pick your brains.
Actually, I am a bloody wonderful speaker because (a) I never read out written down speeches - absolutely deadly; (b) have a few key points in my head I want to make and decide what I will say and how at about the time I stand up to make them and (c) above all - a talk is a performance and to get it right you have to read and respond to your audience. I love doing that and the consequence is that you are editing as you go in response to how what you are saying is landing. Any good speaker is listening at the same time. It's a conversation even if the audience is silent.
So tell me I have 3 mins or 30mins or 15 mins I can stick to that time, no problem. Writing OTOH is solitary and there isn't that immediate connection with a live audience which makes that editing process so much harder.
I will DM you back quite soon when I get a chance. Am on the Heathrow Express…
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
You're not alone. The PB collective is, I think, over-reacting, and the idea that the police/CPS/courts have the time or inclination to seek to prosecute 'publishers' because readers simply moan about stuff they don't like is palpable nonsense.
(I'm not, by the way, excluding the possibility that the OSB has been drawn too widely, but judicial interpretation will, I suspect, narrow its scope).
Voice of reason. That's a few of us now. All good solid posters too.
If this Act plays out badly I see no purpose in being a UK citizen
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
The advantage of being British is in our appreciation of poetry, history and much else.
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 can't stand that UK oath of allegiance. Has it always been like that? The only good bit for me is according to law. I suppose we can hardly avoid reference to the King.
The Crown is the State.
We used to be tribes and other things. Then the notion of a state with fixed boundaries evolved, and it was the area in which the King held sway. Then there was the American and French revolutions happened, and we had to work out what a state without a King looked like, and we invented the nation-state. Then the other Empires broke up and the remnants coalesced around nation-states. Then the British Empire collapsed down to the British Isles and entities such as the UK, the Channel Isles, Isle of Man resulted, each ruled by the Westminster System. Under this system the Crown appoints a Governor or Prime Minister to appoint a Government that can get legislation thru the local Assembly/Parliament. The Crown is the Sovereign from which all power flows.
Well this is the tricky thing regards sovereignty. In theory it resides with the crown in practice it resides in Parliament. How does it work exactly in the other European monarchies? I can't help but feel we'd take more pride in ourselves if we were a nation rather than a Kingdom.
Absolutely not, for starters I would despise and be embarrassed by a President Starmer as you would equally despise and be embarassed by President Farage or President Johnson.
Whereas I take great pride in our King and the Prince of Wales, even if actual legislative power resides in Parliament now rather than the monarch and has done since the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution with the executive in effect now being the King's chief minister and Cabinet not the King himself
But we are in effect a democracy. A democracy requires a demos. Is all pledging allegiance to the same King really sufficient to have a demos. Surely you need a common identity?
And I raised the issue of how things work in other European monarchies.
The King is head of state of the whole nation so as close to a demos as we have, he is also not a party politician.
Beyond that, is there anything much which really unites 21st century Brits? Terry Eagleton has a good article on the growing cultural disunity not just in the UK but across the western world
One thing that fu... I mean, one thing that inconvenienced the Tories at the last general election was the right being split between them and Reform UK. (I acknowledge that's a simplistic analysis.)
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.
I'm not sure a Robinson-led, Musk-funded party (i.e. BNP 2.0) would hurt the Tories. Any 2019 Tory voter tempted by Robinson probably voted Reform last election, and the current Tory voters Reform are trying to win wouldn't go within a mile of BNP 2.0. Any damage they would do would pretty much be inflicted on Reform.
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
I know you are the least self aware person on here, but does not your total isolation on this issue not make you wonder that maybe you’ve got it wrong?
It's not something I enjoy, being alone, but I'm sensing a bit of the old groupthink here.
Anyway looks like I'm not in complete isolation. Others have now bravely come forward. Although not many tbf.
I'll stick my head up and say I'm at least unsure about how I feel about the bill and am suspicious of the groupthink that PB often gets into.
I don't like the negative effects on free speech, but nor do I like the ability of algorithms to rapidly spread misinformation that is poisoning political debate in this country.
At the moment, I'm not sure which is the worst of the two worlds.
Hardly a ringing endorsement, I grant you.
That'll do. You're in. You're part of the Resistance.
If this Act plays out badly I see no purpose in being a UK citizen
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
The advantage of being British is in our appreciation of poetry, history and much else.
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 can't stand that UK oath of allegiance. Has it always been like that? The only good bit for me is according to law. I suppose we can hardly avoid reference to the King.
The Crown is the State.
We used to be tribes and other things. Then the notion of a state with fixed boundaries evolved, and it was the area in which the King held sway. Then there was the American and French revolutions happened, and we had to work out what a state without a King looked like, and we invented the nation-state. Then the other Empires broke up and the remnants coalesced around nation-states. Then the British Empire collapsed down to the British Isles and entities such as the UK, the Channel Isles, Isle of Man resulted, each ruled by the Westminster System. Under this system the Crown appoints a Governor or Prime Minister to appoint a Government that can get legislation thru the local Assembly/Parliament. The Crown is the Sovereign from which all power flows.
Well this is the tricky thing regards sovereignty. In theory it resides with the crown in practice it resides in Parliament. How does it work exactly in the other European monarchies? I can't help but feel we'd take more pride in ourselves if we were a nation rather than a Kingdom.
Absolutely not, for starters I would despise and be embarrassed by a President Starmer as you would equally despise and be embarassed by President Farage or President Johnson.
Whereas I take great pride in our King and the Prince of Wales, even if actual legislative power resides in Parliament now rather than the monarch and has done since the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution with the executive in effect now being the King's chief minister and Cabinet not the King himself
But we are in effect a democracy. A democracy requires a demos. Is all pledging allegiance to the same King really sufficient to have a demos. Surely you need a common identity?
And I raised the issue of how things work in other European monarchies.
That's the "nation" bit. A sovereign nation state is in three parts
The sovereign: the fount of all legal power. In the UK it's the Crown. In other countries it's different things The nation: a group of people: it's what we speak about when we speak about "us". The state: a legal concept with the authority to negotiate or wage war with other states. It usually, but not always, has physical borders (eg the WWII Polish Government in Exile didn't)
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
People with a deontological outlook on life very rarely do.
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
I know you are the least self aware person on here, but does not your total isolation on this issue not make you wonder that maybe you’ve got it wrong?
It's not something I enjoy, being alone, but I'm sensing a bit of the old groupthink here.
Anyway looks like I'm not in complete isolation. Others have now bravely come forward. Although not many tbf.
I'll stick my head up and say I'm at least unsure about how I feel about the bill and am suspicious of the groupthink that PB often gets into.
I don't like the negative effects on free speech, but nor do I like the ability of algorithms to rapidly spread misinformation that is poisoning political debate in this country.
At the moment, I'm not sure which is the worst of the two worlds.
Hardly a ringing endorsement, I grant you.
That'll do. You're in. You're part of the Resistance.
It’s the pb woke centrist dads. And you approve because you’re too stupid and unimaginative to realise that one day this law is likely to be used against YOU
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
I'm also unconvinced. I've not read in any detail but I find Cyclefree often quire alarmist about this sort of thing. People I trust more would be up in arms if it was as bad as she claims. Maybe I'm wrong though, but if so we will find out soon enough. If so happy to campaign to change the law.
I think in this case she's right to be alarmist.
While it's the case that the ill drafted bil allows a huge latitude for interpretation, and it might turn out to be relatively anodyne in operation regarding free speech, that won't be because it's a good law.
That latitude would equally allow for a significant contraction of free speech, which British courts wouldn't be able to challenge.
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
You really do have your Hyperbole hat on today. At a conservative estimate, 99.99% of the universe of 'bad things to say' are not illegal.
Try it now as an experiment. Say some bad things to yourself at random and see how many would put you in jail if I heard them and reported you. Bet it's none.
Under this law, I would expect that the first targets will include
- pro-Palestinian websites - pro-Israeli websites - Websites that publish stuff that upsets the kind of billionaires that indulge in Libel Tourism. See Private Eye.
Note that the law carves out exceptions for Real Journalism - aka big media.
Yeah but then there’s thing. And that other thing.
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
Leon in June. “Fucksake. Dark at 11pm”
Just hope he never holidays in Shetland at that time of year.
I’ve experienced 24 hour sunlight in northern Russia. It is very very strange
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
"Drive people mad?" You should hear what South Norwegians think about North Norwegians.
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
I know you are the least self aware person on here, but does not your total isolation on this issue not make you wonder that maybe you’ve got it wrong?
It's not something I enjoy, being alone, but I'm sensing a bit of the old groupthink here.
Anyway looks like I'm not in complete isolation. Others have now bravely come forward. Although not many tbf.
I'll stick my head up and say I'm at least unsure about how I feel about the bill and am suspicious of the groupthink that PB often gets into.
I don't like the negative effects on free speech, but nor do I like the ability of algorithms to rapidly spread misinformation that is poisoning political debate in this country.
At the moment, I'm not sure which is the worst of the two worlds.
Hardly a ringing endorsement, I grant you.
I have read some very detailed legal analyses of the Act from reputable lawyers specialising in this area of law and the general view is that it is a mess because it has not properly taken into account other important legal requirements, its definitions are vague, it gives too much power to unaccountable regulators with little scrutiny and will result in endless court challenges. It will have a chilling effect - especially on smaller forums.
I'm afraid that, nice as @kinabalu is, in my experience he tends not to bother actually informing himself in detail of what laws or Bills actually say before declaring himself "relaxed" about them. My starting point is that I do not think it is the job of the state to prevent "offence". People have a choice about whether they take offence or not and in a democracy debate should not be left at a level suitable only for babies. Good manners and respectful disagreement are great and desirable but there is a difference between unlawful conduct and very bad manners and these days the distinction between the two is being elided, to our detriment. The law should not seek to impose good manners.
Thanks Cyclefree and TSE for repeating this header.
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.
Yes, and what I recall was loads of people of a "libertarian" bent confidently predicting that They - The Authorities - would hang on to those powers long after the pandemic was over, and probably forever, having got a taste for bossing us all around.
This fretfest is reminding me a little of that.
I was one of those lots of people - and you were largely right on that occasion. But they hung on for far too long, and wanted to hang on longer. The December 21 incident with Fraser Nelson showed that.
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
I'm also unconvinced. I've not read in any detail but I find Cyclefree often quire alarmist about this sort of thing. People I trust more would be up in arms if it was as bad as she claims. Maybe I'm wrong though, but if so we will find out soon enough. If so happy to campaign to change the law.
Phew. Thanks. To clarify, I'm not any sort of gung-ho supporter of this act, I'm just not quite sharing the PB consensus on what a horror it is.
Well let's look at the Miller case and non-crime hate incidents. The Court of Appeal ruled that the police had overreached and were acting unlawfully. And our Home Secretary has basically ignored what the court has said.
So I think I am right to be alarmist about a law which is wide-ranging and whose interpretation will depend on regulations set out by a regulator, without debate in Parliament.
Also, sad as the case of the girl committing suicide was, I really don't think that is a justification for a law such as this.
I know you think you're right and I do get the concern. It's not that. It's about the extent of the concern. For me it's overegged.
Many people in Canada LOVE being the 51st State. The United States can no longer suffer the massive Trade Deficits and Subsidies that Canada needs to stay afloat. Justin Trudeau knew this, and resigned. If Canada merged with the U.S., there would be no Tariffs, taxes would go way down, and they would be TOTALLY SECURE from the threat of the Russian and Chinese Ships that are constantly surrounding them. Together, what a great Nation it would be!!!
Also, why is it fine and dandy for UK Labour to pay for activists to go and interfere in American politics in America by campaigning for Kamala Harris but it’s a travesty and an evil if a private American citizen - however rich and bonkers - expresses an opinion on European politics?
Europe may become our only chance of regaining some autonomy, if things continue, on the current trajectory.
We can join an Empire (US or EU), recreate our own (British) or become an agile independent flexible nation state that can nimbly cooperate on a case-by-case basis, at the cost of a little bit of economic friction.
Europe may become our only chance of regaining some autonomy, if things continue, on the current trajectory.
What do you mean by "autonomy"? No amount of political integration with the rest of Europe could insulate us from Anglosphere cultural influences.
I'm not talking about cultural influences, but direct political control and loss of sovereignty. Musk seems to have his eye on greater control.
What if they have their eye on greater control of Western Europe in general? France is the only major country without US military bases.
Always makes me smile how people such as yourself (well your post 2016 persona anyway) bang on about "sovereignty" when you are (I guess) in favour of US bases on our territory?
If this Act plays out badly I see no purpose in being a UK citizen
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
The advantage of being British is in our appreciation of poetry, history and much else.
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 can't stand that UK oath of allegiance. Has it always been like that? The only good bit for me is according to law. I suppose we can hardly avoid reference to the King.
The Crown is the State.
We used to be tribes and other things. Then the notion of a state with fixed boundaries evolved, and it was the area in which the King held sway. Then there was the American and French revolutions happened, and we had to work out what a state without a King looked like, and we invented the nation-state. Then the other Empires broke up and the remnants coalesced around nation-states. Then the British Empire collapsed down to the British Isles and entities such as the UK, the Channel Isles, Isle of Man resulted, each ruled by the Westminster System. Under this system the Crown appoints a Governor or Prime Minister to appoint a Government that can get legislation thru the local Assembly/Parliament. The Crown is the Sovereign from which all power flows.
Well this is the tricky thing regards sovereignty. In theory it resides with the crown in practice it resides in Parliament. How does it work exactly in the other European monarchies? I can't help but feel we'd take more pride in ourselves if we were a nation rather than a Kingdom.
Absolutely not, for starters I would despise and be embarrassed by a President Starmer as you would equally despise and be embarassed by President Farage or President Johnson.
Whereas I take great pride in our King and the Prince of Wales, even if actual legislative power resides in Parliament now rather than the monarch and has done since the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution with the executive in effect now being the King's chief minister and Cabinet not the King himself
But we are in effect a democracy. A democracy requires a demos. Is all pledging allegiance to the same King really sufficient to have a demos. Surely you need a common identity?
And I raised the issue of how things work in other European monarchies.
The King is head of state of the whole nation so as close to a demos as we have, he is also not a party politician.
Beyond that, is there anything much which really unites 21st century Brits? Terry Eagleton has a good article on the growing cultural disunity not just in the UK but across the western world
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
You really do have your Hyperbole hat on today. At a conservative estimate, 99.99% of the universe of 'bad things to say' are not illegal.
Try it now as an experiment. Say some bad things to yourself at random and see how many would put you in jail if I heard them and reported you. Bet it's none.
Well no, absolutely not - most bad things to say are quite rightly not illegal now - but it looks to me like this bill will make them so, if I were to say them online. If I were to say 'people named after south east Asian mountains are all nasty pieces of work' (which I don't think at all, of course) - that would almost certainly be interpreted as 'intending to cause distress' and therefore be illegal. And it would be an unpleasant and bad and wrong thing to say. But there is a big gap between that and 'should be illegal'.
I am not outraged by the online safety act and do not consider it a threat to freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Is there literally nobody else on PB who feels the same? Am I truly the special one?
I know you are the least self aware person on here, but does not your total isolation on this issue not make you wonder that maybe you’ve got it wrong?
It's not something I enjoy, being alone, but I'm sensing a bit of the old groupthink here.
Anyway looks like I'm not in complete isolation. Others have now bravely come forward. Although not many tbf.
I'll stick my head up and say I'm at least unsure about how I feel about the bill and am suspicious of the groupthink that PB often gets into.
I don't like the negative effects on free speech, but nor do I like the ability of algorithms to rapidly spread misinformation that is poisoning political debate in this country.
At the moment, I'm not sure which is the worst of the two worlds.
Hardly a ringing endorsement, I grant you.
When Cyclefree says, above:
It is a...... bill which will result in censorship of any views someone somewhere does not like
I take leave to doubt this assertion. And as I doubt this, I doubt the underlying wider argument and keep an open mind.
Its 241 sections and 17 schedules means that I don't intend to master its contents, and I am not convinced that most others have either. But those who defend and attack it, for whom I have every sympathy - and most of all for those involved in its implementation - need to be able to do so in detail, citing chapter and verse in that very boring way which helps elicit truth.
What is obvious is that the internet drives a coach and horses through our laws of defamation and our customs of civilised discourse, and at its extremes this is not tolerable. I feel genuine sympathy with our legislators. One betting tip certainty: A lot of lawyers, including very expensive ones, are going to be on the case.
Thanks Cyclefree and TSE for repeating this header.
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.
Yes, and what I recall was loads of people of a "libertarian" bent confidently predicting that They - The Authorities - would hang on to those powers long after the pandemic was over, and probably forever, having got a taste for bossing us all around.
This fretfest is reminding me a little of that.
I was one of those lots of people - and you were largely right on that occasion. But they hung on for far too long, and wanted to hang on longer. The December 21 incident with Fraser Nelson showed that.
Can't recall the Fraser incident but fwiw I agree that some of it was OTT and too prolonged.
Also, why is it fine and dandy for UK Labour to pay for activists to go and interfere in American politics in America by campaigning for Kamala Harris but it’s a travesty and an evil if a private American citizen - however rich and bonkers - expresses an opinion on European politics?
Why are you allowed to post alternative facts?
Because I corrected my own error within 90 seconds, and admitted to it. Which is a lot more than some other posters
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
I don't think it does. The assumption of the law appears to be that anything which is bad to say should be illegal.
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.
We certainly had a school chaplain, generally the best schools do. For starters we had a 720 seat school chapel we had assembly in every morning
We had five of the buggers, all except the Canadian one were from clearly v wealthy old school backgrounds and had all sorts of high level academic qualifications.
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.
Oxbridge colleges also have chaplains and indeed chapels still too
Am I allowed to agreed with this? I haven't checked the implementation date.
Yes, when is that? Does anybody know?
According to s194 Ofcom has 18 months from when the Act was passed (which I think was 23rd October last year) in which to publish its guidance. Which is, of course, preposterous as we will not know until then (and possibly after) what the law actually is. According to s240 (I kid you not) the commencement dates are: 240 Commencement and transitional provision (1) Except as provided by subsection (4), this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. (2) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) includes power to appoint different days for different purposes. (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may not bring section 210 into force before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date specified in regulations under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 3. (4) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed— (a) Parts 1 and 2; (b) Chapter 1 of Part 3; (c) section 41, except subsection (4) of that section; (d) section 42 and Schedule 4; (e) sections 43 to 48; (f) section 52(3), (4) and (5); (g) section 53, except subsection (2) of that section; (h) Chapter 7 of Part 3 and Schedules 5, 6 and 7; (i) section 70; (j) section 74; (k) section 79; (l) section 80(4); (m) section 82; (n) sections 90 and 91; (o) section 93; (p) section 94 and Schedule 11; (q) Chapter 3 of Part 7; (r) sections 115 to 117; (s) section 129; (t) section 151; (u) section 154 so far as relating to a duty imposed on OFCOM under Schedule 11; (v) sections 169 and 170; (w) section 193, except subsection (2)(b) of that section; (x) section 194; (y) section 204(1); (z) section 207; (z1) section 212; (z2) section 214; (z3) section 219; (z4) sections 221 to 225; (z5) this Part.
Life is simply way too short to work out what that means.
Europe may become our only chance of regaining some autonomy, if things continue, on the current trajectory.
What do you mean by "autonomy"? No amount of political integration with the rest of Europe could insulate us from Anglosphere cultural influences.
I'm not talking about cultural influences, but direct political control and loss of sovereignty. Musk seems to have his eye on greater control.
What if they have their eye on greater control of Western Europe in general? France is the only major country without US military bases.
Always makes me smile how people such as yourself (well your post 2016 persona anyway) bang on about "sovereignty" when you are (I guess) in favour of US bases on our territory?
Whether I'm in favour of them or not is fairly irrelevant given that they're here and no plausible government will ever tell them to leave.
As this article makes very clear, if we pulled out of the ECHR, as many on here wish, there would be no way of limiting the effects of this law - and we could easily have governments elected by around 30% of voters deciding what are human rights are. I suspect many on here would not like Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper setting the rules, just as I would recoil from Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick doing it.
However, it's only fair to say that we do not have free speech in this country and never have.
Nor do most other developed countries. Almost everyone says they believe in free speech but what they usually mean is apart from x, y and z. The law seeks to reflect this. To strike a balance between several things all of which are important and only one of which is the right to say whatever the hell you want to whoever the hell you want.
In itself i think that is fair, people do tend to be a bit absolutist in rhetoric at least, though personally i do think our current balance is poor and getting poorer.
Speech is too restricted in this country iyo? What makes you think that?
Super injunctions and NDAs all over the place. All kinds of punishments for whistleblowers. Law of libel used to protect the rich and powerful.
Or do you think those noted alt-Right extremists at Private Eye are ignorant of what they are talking about?
Yes there's too much of that imo.
And this law is a charter for more.
Someone commented that they can’t believe the CPS would spend time going after X. Well, look at Libel Tourism and Lawfare.
There are, right now, consultants in this. You hire them and they run targeted campaigns of legal harassment against your designated victims.
All they need to do, now, is to claim that your blog has hurt their feelings - cease and desist letters to your host and service providers follow.
Frequently, the providers don’t wait for a legal judgement - they close accounts on the basis of “legally complicated”. As in they got a letter from high priced lawyers.
Comments
Michael Shurkin, YouTuber Pax Americana, "British Way of War" 28mins
All political careers end in failure, etc...
I have never been fully awake so quickly as that day when I opened the curtains and my body clock went - it looks like 11am you are fully awake
There isn’t an actual black and white answer to where the wall, within which we are restricted in our words and deeds in order to invent freedom from the anarchy of nature, is built - except that knowing if we push back on the boundaries set on individual freedom, we draw into the realm of nature, where there is no freedom.
For example, I view Musk’s recent Twitter posts as not free speech at all, but anarchy vandalising freedom of speech.
I can drive out the naughty sprite, and save your soul.
Taxis to the city centre are fairly cheap but the tram runs through the west end and along Princes Street, I wouldn't generally bother with a cab unless there's a big gig or match on at Murrayfield when the tram is mobbed.
After all his successor is now going to carry the can for a likely landslide Liberal defeat even if maybe not quite as much of a trouncing as if he had stayed PM.
Trudeau however will step down after nearly a decade as PM and with 3 Federal election wins under his belt. The third longest serving Liberal PM since WW2, the longest serving Canadian PM since WW2 of course being his late father Pierre.
Indeed like Biden and Boris he can put his feet up and watch the party that removed him get smashed at the next election, then shrug his shoulders and move on to a lucrative lecture circuit and book deal
Try it now as an experiment. Say some bad things to yourself at random and see how many would put you in jail if I heard them and reported you. Bet it's none.
I don't remember the outrage then. And they did this for partly political reasons - to hinder Trump
My problem is not with people sending their kids to these schools (I do, afterall!). My problem is the relative lack of choice of non-religious schools in the state sector in some areas.
We used to be tribes and other things. Then the notion of a state with fixed boundaries evolved, and it was the area in which the King held sway. Then there was the American and French revolutions happened, and we had to work out what a state without a King looked like, and we invented the nation-state. Then the other Empires broke up and the remnants coalesced around nation-states. Then the British Empire collapsed down to the British Isles and entities such as the UK, the Channel Isles, Isle of Man resulted, each ruled by the Westminster System. Under this system the Crown appoints a Governor or Prime Minister to appoint a Government that can get legislation thru the local Assembly/Parliament. The Crown is the Sovereign from which all power flows.
And I was very used to not being that awake when catching morning flights home - aim was get to airport, get on plane and return to sleep
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but wasn't a significant part of the impetus behind the OSB the tragic suicide of Molly Russell, and the subsequent campaign by her family to limit access to content advocating self-harm and, basically, encouraging suicide? The Coroner's Report, including recommendations to government, is here if anybody's interested:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Molly-Russell-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2022-0315_Published.pdf
(I'm not, by the way, excluding the possibility that the OSB has been drawn too widely, but judicial interpretation will, I suspect, narrow its scope).
Sweetie - have DM'd you. If we're both in London at the same time I'll even treat you to lunch while I shamelessly pick your brains.
Actually, I am a bloody wonderful speaker because (a) I never read out written down speeches - absolutely deadly; (b) have a few key points in my head I want to make and decide what I will say and how at about the time I stand up to make them and (c) above all - a talk is a performance and to get it right you have to read and respond to your audience. I love doing that and the consequence is that you are editing as you go in response to how what you are saying is landing. Any good speaker is listening at the same time. It's a conversation even if the audience is silent.
So tell me I have 3 mins or 30mins or 15 mins I can stick to that time, no problem. Writing OTOH is solitary and there isn't that immediate connection with a live audience which makes that editing process so much harder.
Their failure to do so is making voting for them rather pointless as a liberal. There's a limit to the extent the 'don't scare the horses' tactic can go without undermining the party.
I think it's probably time Davey is replaced by someone more dynamic on policy. Have a proper contest while the number of MPs is high and give the new leader 2-3 years to make their mark.
The democrats paid BUT this contradicted starmer claiming that they would all pay their own way
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/10/24/labour-election-democrat-harris-trump-starmer/
Labour activists, and I think LibDem or at least Liberal ones, have crossed the pond to 'help Dem candidates for ages. And Young Conservatives have done their best for Rep ones (in the intervals between seeking Yank crumpet).
It's just that it was picked up and made a 'thing' this time.
Whereas I take great pride in our King and the Prince of Wales, even if actual legislative power resides in Parliament now rather than the monarch and has done since the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution with the executive in effect now being the King's chief minister and Cabinet not the King himself
Anyway looks like I'm not in complete isolation. Others have now bravely come forward. Although not many tbf.
They were happy, cheery, flag wavers for this awful law.
Indeed given 65% of state primary schools and over 80% of state secondary schools in the UK are secular and non religious if anything faith schools are underrepresented in the UK relative to parents still with faith here
But anyway the wider point is that we constantly interfere in their politics - and Tories and Labour do it - and we do it in the most overt way by actually sending activists and advisors to help one side or another
How is this perfectly OK but what Musk does is outrageous? This is a genuine question, I am not trying to provoke. I am somewhat mystified
And I raised the issue of how things work in other European monarchies.
So I think I am right to be alarmist about a law which is wide-ranging and whose interpretation will depend on regulations set out by a regulator, without debate in Parliament.
Also, sad as the case of the girl committing suicide was, I really don't think that is a justification for a law such as this.
I don't like the negative effects on free speech, but nor do I like the ability of algorithms to rapidly spread misinformation that is poisoning political debate in this country.
At the moment, I'm not sure which is the worst of the two worlds.
Hardly a ringing endorsement, I grant you.
Beyond that, is there anything much which really unites 21st century Brits? Terry Eagleton has a good article on the growing cultural disunity not just in the UK but across the western world
https://unherd.com/2025/01/the-myth-of-cultural-unity/
The sovereign: the fount of all legal power. In the UK it's the Crown. In other countries it's different things
The nation: a group of people: it's what we speak about when we speak about "us".
The state: a legal concept with the authority to negotiate or wage war with other states. It usually, but not always, has physical borders (eg the WWII Polish Government in Exile didn't)
While it's the case that the ill drafted bil allows a huge latitude for interpretation, and it might turn out to be relatively anodyne in operation regarding free speech, that won't be because it's a good law.
That latitude would equally allow for a significant contraction of free speech, which British courts wouldn't be able to challenge.
- pro-Palestinian websites
- pro-Israeli websites
- Websites that publish stuff that upsets the kind of billionaires that indulge in Libel Tourism. See Private Eye.
Note that the law carves out exceptions for Real Journalism - aka big media.
Note also that truth is not a defence.
I'm afraid that, nice as @kinabalu is, in my experience he tends not to bother actually informing himself in detail of what laws or Bills actually say before declaring himself "relaxed" about them. My starting point is that I do not think it is the job of the state to prevent "offence". People have a choice about whether they take offence or not and in a democracy debate should not be left at a level suitable only for babies. Good manners and respectful disagreement are great and desirable but there is a difference between unlawful conduct and very bad manners and these days the distinction between the two is being elided, to our detriment. The law should not seek to impose good manners.
Many people in Canada LOVE being the 51st State. The United States can no longer suffer the massive Trade Deficits and Subsidies that Canada needs to stay afloat. Justin Trudeau knew this, and resigned. If Canada merged with the U.S., there would be no Tariffs, taxes would go way down, and they would be TOTALLY SECURE from the threat of the Russian and Chinese Ships that are constantly surrounding them. Together, what a great Nation it would be!!!
Which do you prefer?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14255037/Married-prison-officer-sex-inmate-HMP-Wandsworth-jailed.html
And it would be an unpleasant and bad and wrong thing to say. But there is a big gap between that and 'should be illegal'.
It is a...... bill which will result in censorship of any views someone somewhere does not like
I take leave to doubt this assertion. And as I doubt this, I doubt the underlying wider argument and keep an open mind.
Its 241 sections and 17 schedules means that I don't intend to master its contents, and I am not convinced that most others have either. But those who defend and attack it, for whom I have every sympathy - and most of all for those involved in its implementation - need to be able to do so in detail, citing chapter and verse in that very boring way which helps elicit truth.
What is obvious is that the internet drives a coach and horses through our laws of defamation and our customs of civilised discourse, and at its extremes this is not tolerable. I feel genuine sympathy with our legislators. One betting tip certainty: A lot of lawyers, including very expensive ones, are going to be on the case.
All about the balance, like most things.
According to s240 (I kid you not) the commencement dates are:
240 Commencement and transitional provision
(1) Except as provided by subsection (4), this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.
(2) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) includes power to appoint different days for different purposes.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may not bring section 210 into force before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date specified in regulations under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 3.
(4) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) Parts 1 and 2;
(b) Chapter 1 of Part 3;
(c) section 41, except subsection (4) of that section;
(d) section 42 and Schedule 4;
(e) sections 43 to 48;
(f) section 52(3), (4) and (5);
(g) section 53, except subsection (2) of that section;
(h) Chapter 7 of Part 3 and Schedules 5, 6 and 7;
(i) section 70;
(j) section 74;
(k) section 79;
(l) section 80(4);
(m) section 82;
(n) sections 90 and 91;
(o) section 93;
(p) section 94 and Schedule 11;
(q) Chapter 3 of Part 7;
(r) sections 115 to 117;
(s) section 129;
(t) section 151;
(u) section 154 so far as relating to a duty imposed on OFCOM under Schedule 11;
(v) sections 169 and 170;
(w) section 193, except subsection (2)(b) of that section;
(x) section 194;
(y) section 204(1);
(z) section 207;
(z1) section 212;
(z2) section 214;
(z3) section 219;
(z4) sections 221 to 225;
(z5) this Part.
Life is simply way too short to work out what that means.
Someone commented that they can’t believe the CPS would spend time going after X. Well, look at Libel Tourism and Lawfare.
There are, right now, consultants in this. You hire them and they run targeted campaigns of legal harassment against your designated victims.
All they need to do, now, is to claim that your blog has hurt their feelings - cease and desist letters to your host and service providers follow.
Frequently, the providers don’t wait for a legal judgement - they close accounts on the basis of “legally complicated”. As in they got a letter from high priced lawyers.