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 think we should just let him carry on and smile. He is a deranged twat, and should be treated as such. He makes very good cars and rockets though, but what a fruitcake!
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
Yup, if communism ever actually comes to the UK then those blue haired weirdos who supported it are the first ones in the gulags. This is no different. A future Tory government will use this legislation to shut down opinions it doesn't like, there is absolutely no doubt about it.
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.
Note also that truth is not a defence.
I will freely admit to being instinctively against the bill but not to have given it more than a cursory look and certainly not to have done anything to have prevented it. That's my bad.
I believe that in the relatively near future there will be a large scale revision of bad laws that have been crippling our country. I hope this will be amongst them, but I am conscious that when they achieve power, people seem to find reasons to like laws that give them more power. I will be very much on the side of getting rid of it.
As for people who are in favour of the law, perhaps they can explain why it should be any more permissible for those who don't believe in free speech to limit others' speech than it is for those who don't believe in abortion or same sex marriage to limit the access of others to those things. If you don't believe in free speech, don't speak freely.
On the OSA, what's the position for the hobbyist reviewing a bit of kit? Or for that matter a PBer commenting on a book? E.g. will it be still OK for some cyclist to say "Those Lycra budgiesmugglers are the most useless things since the Nimrod AEW" or is that too distressing?
Nobody knows because the law is vague and there's no case law.
Common sense would suggest that of course it would be fine, and that the law is only intended to cover content that manifestly causes harm - such as encouraging suicide and similar.
But common sense would be a comfort blanket in this case, because the law does not say that, and we don't know how it will be implemented.
The track record of the police approach to their powers over online speech - which are already quite broad - does not inspire confidence for a nuanced and balanced approach.
The appeal of this sort of crime to the police is that the evidence is all there on the internet, and so detection and prosecution are relatively a doddle, compared to more difficult crimes like burglary, fraud or sexual assault.
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.
Indeed, and most eminences of our state evolved from origins as personal to the monarch. The standing army was originally the king’s bodyguard; the Royal Mail was originally the king’s courier service for his personal correspondence. And the Royal Mail had a police force to protect the king’s mail well before Mr Peel came up with the idea of introducing one to protect the general public.
Heard Starmer on the radio. Glad he’s found his voice. Good stuff.
His "voice" has all the appeal and authority of someone who thinks a fine evening out is at a regional meeting of the Association of Chartered Accountants.
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.
The correct times for sunrise and sunset are 6am and 9pm.
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.
It beggars belief, the naivety on here - the firm conviction that rich individuals, activist lawyers and the saintly British government will never abuse this law
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
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.
We can't know because the regulations and codes are unknown. That to me makes for a bad law.
We are going to have the law and guidance - see the Covid Rules for the disasters arising from that. Then there are other laws which regulate publication and free expression with which this will have to be in compliance or face challenge. Plus all the systems and processes that companies and others will need to have.
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!!!
Trump might want to rethink that, the biggest winner would be the Democrats
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.
I am sure that prior to 2016 you thought same of our membership of the EU, which you (or the person that previously controlled your account) used to be a vociferous supporter of.
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.
Well you're one of the people I trust more so that does change my view a little. But essentially the argument is Labour and Tories have accidentally destroyed free speech.
It seems possible but unlikely. Lawyers always say bills are ill drafted, unless they drafted them themselves. And if it is really bad, we can fix it right? It's not like anyone actually wants these bad effects we are being warned about?
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
“his own website” is trivialising and ignoring the significant responsibilities that the major social media providers have, or ought to have, given the centrality of their sites and apps to the modern world. You can’t just treat Facebook or Twitter or TikTok like it’s some random individual’s personal Wordpress blog.
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
“his own website” is trivialising and ignoring the significant responsibilities that the major social media providers have, or ought to have, given the centrality of their sites and apps to the modern world. You can’t just treat Facebook or Twitter or TikTok like it’s some random individual’s personal Wordpress blog.
Maybe this is what others felt like when Jack Dorsey used to censor opinions he didn't like on Twitter.
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.
Oh I see it's like that, is it. Ok, let's do a callout and see if we can find somebody more worthy to disagree with 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 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.
What sort of content to be found on this site do you feel, Cyclefree, would be flying dangerously in the light of the provisons of the OSA?
Heard Starmer on the radio. Glad he’s found his voice. Good stuff.
Streeting was also quite accomplished on WATO. (It's petty of me, but I find Starmer!s voice so irritating, I can't listen to him for more than a couple of minutes.)
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
What I will say is that the Online Safety Act will provide a whole new source of work for lawyers specialising in this area - as the many memos from legal firms I have been receiving asking me to instruct them at vast expense can attest to.
So from that perspective, it's clearly not all bad. 😁
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.
It's not that surprising that a forum where people say stuff is sensitive to restrictions on the freedom to say stuff. Maybe rightly, I'm not sure.
Bottom line is that it's only possible to have one absolute immutable principle. Something so important that it must happen, whatever the cost. See Churchill and victory in World War 2- many of his other cherished beliefs went by the wayside because destroying Nazism was the thing that mattered most.
Is the freedom to say whatever we like (even "fire!" in the proverbial crowded theatre?) that absolute? It's important, but I'm not sure it's the absolute. If it is, we need to work out, as individuals and as a society what to do about people who buy an electronic megaphone to stir up trouble because they enjoy using their freedom of speech to make the the world burn.
I hope that endorsement is also not ringing, barely tinkling. But sympathetic to the idea that sometimes real life is choosing between poor and bad.
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
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!!!
Trump might want to rethink that, the biggest winner would be the Democrats
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.
Should be sunny but very cold. Enjoy! STV weather forecast tends to be more accurate than the BBC.
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
Woke I can accept, Dad I have no choice over, but CENTRIST?! Be off with 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 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.
Oh I see it's like that, is it. Ok, let's do a callout and see if we can find somebody more worthy to disagree with you.
I am teasing you. Have a look at the link I sent you.
My view is that this sort of legislation with regulations and codes and guidance is a very bad way to make law because it leads to confusion rather than clarity. I held this view over the Covid rules and said so at the time and I think it's also the case with laws like the Equality Act - see for instance the latest guidance out for consultation from the EHRC. It was also one of the problems with the regulations and guidance on fire resistance in the Building Regulations. See the Moore-Bick Report on the Grenfell Tower fire for how that was one of the causes. Or look at the Assisted Dying Bill .
It is really poor law-making and risks ending up, precisely because of the confusion, being oppressive - even if this was not the intention.
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
There’s as much danger in writing him off as a bit of an irritating child as there is in sanewashing, in my opinion. He has the potential to present a real national security threat to British interests. I hope that our intelligence services are already rethinking aspects of 5 eyes.
He is a wannabe tyrant. He talks like a tyrant, he behaves like a tyrant. Even his occasional moments of charm are consistent with tyrants through the ages. Thankfully for now there are constitutional obstacles to him actually becoming a tyrant. But he will try.
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.
The LibDems are fricking useless on being properly liberal on stuff like this.
Why?
Because they've been corrupted by identity politics and intersectionality, and forgotten what being liberal means.
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.
Should be sunny but very cold. Enjoy! STV weather forecast tends to be more accurate than the BBC.
That would be a very long forecast, we’re going in early February.
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
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 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.
It's not that surprising that a forum where people say stuff is sensitive to restrictions on the freedom to say stuff. Maybe rightly, I'm not sure.
Bottom line is that it's only possible to have one absolute immutable principle. Something so important that it must happen, whatever the cost. See Churchill and victory in World War 2- many of his other cherished beliefs went by the wayside because destroying Nazism was the thing that mattered most.
Is the freedom to say whatever we like (even "fire!" in the proverbial crowded theatre?) that absolute? It's important, but I'm not sure it's the absolute. If it is, we need to work out, as individuals and as a society what to do about people who buy an electronic megaphone to stir up trouble because they enjoy using their freedom of speech to make the the world burn.
I hope that endorsement is also not ringing, barely tinkling. But sympathetic to the idea that sometimes real life is choosing between poor and bad.
I agree and would add that I have never ever met someone from any side of politics who is equally in favour of their opponents' free speech as they are of their own.
I thought Musk might be that, but he happily uses the power of Twitter to hide the tweets of his political opponents (such as the MAGA crazies).
This is not surprising, but it does make me lose respect for those who shout loudest about free speech; anyone with half a brain will realise that, unless you can support your opponent's rights as much as your own, you qualify your support for an undoubtedly vital part of our politics.
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.
The LibDems are fricking useless on being properly liberal on stuff like this.
Why?
Because they've been corrupted by identity politics and intersectionality, and forgotten what being liberal means.
What you’re describing is libertarianism, not liberalism. The right of the strong to do whatever the hell they want, rather than the right of the weak to be protected from the predations of authority. The freedom to, as opposed to the freedom from.
There’s a long string of civil liberties positions the party has taken in the last decade that are at odds with the authoritarian positions of both Tories and Labour.
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 get criticised by my Big4 employer for not talking to the slides but also asked why I'm such a good presenter! 🤣
The best talks are the ones without any slides at all. If you have to have them, have as few as possible and as few words on them if you do have them. People read much faster than you speak and if all you're doing is repeating what's on the slides then you've already lost your audience.
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.
The LibDems are fricking useless on being properly liberal on stuff like this.
Why?
Because they've been corrupted by identity politics and intersectionality, and forgotten what being liberal means.
What you’re describing is libertarianism, not liberalism. The right of the strong to do whatever the hell they want, rather than the right of the weak to be protected from the predations of authority. The freedom to, as opposed to the freedom from.
There’s a long string of civil liberties positions the party has taken in the last decade that are at odds with the authoritarian positions of both Tories and Labour.
And that's where you've gone badly wrong.
You don't recognise the chilling effect of this on free speech, because you're so caught up in your Wokery.
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!!!
Trump might want to rethink that, the biggest winner would be the Democrats
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
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.
Should be sunny but very cold. Enjoy! STV weather forecast tends to be more accurate than the BBC.
Assynt is magnificent country. One of my favourite corners of Europe
If @TimS gets cold bright weather he should have a wonderful time
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Err, only if both are under British rule.
Who's team are you batting for here?
I'm beginning to think of William as someone who wants us to be under direct Trumpist control. The thrill of joining direct Americana.
The RSS Conference 2025 is in Edinburgh, specifically the Edinburgh International Conference Centre. Does anybody have a comment, pro or con, about Edinburgh Airport?
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.
It's not that surprising that a forum where people say stuff is sensitive to restrictions on the freedom to say stuff. Maybe rightly, I'm not sure.
Bottom line is that it's only possible to have one absolute immutable principle. Something so important that it must happen, whatever the cost. See Churchill and victory in World War 2- many of his other cherished beliefs went by the wayside because destroying Nazism was the thing that mattered most.
Is the freedom to say whatever we like (even "fire!" in the proverbial crowded theatre?) that absolute? It's important, but I'm not sure it's the absolute. If it is, we need to work out, as individuals and as a society what to do about people who buy an electronic megaphone to stir up trouble because they enjoy using their freedom of speech to make the the world burn.
I hope that endorsement is also not ringing, barely tinkling. But sympathetic to the idea that sometimes real life is choosing between poor and bad.
I agree and would add that I have never ever met someone from any side of politics who is equally in favour of their opponents' free speech as they are of their own.
I thought Musk might be that, but he happily uses the power of Twitter to hide the tweets of his political opponents (such as the MAGA crazies).
This is not surprising, but it does make me lose respect for those who shout loudest about free speech; anyone with half a brain will realise that, unless you can support your opponent's rights as much as your own, you qualify your support for an undoubtedly vital part of our politics.
At university I helped organise demos that were diametrically opposed to my politics.
Because I believed that, in my role in the Student Union, planning safe and violence free demos was my duty. And that I supported the right to protest.
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.
The LibDems are fricking useless on being properly liberal on stuff like this.
Why?
Because they've been corrupted by identity politics and intersectionality, and forgotten what being liberal means.
What you’re describing is libertarianism, not liberalism. The right of the strong to do whatever the hell they want, rather than the right of the weak to be protected from the predations of authority. The freedom to, as opposed to the freedom from.
There’s a long string of civil liberties positions the party has taken in the last decade that are at odds with the authoritarian positions of both Tories and Labour.
I haven't forgotten Shirley Williams' objection to Salman Rushdie's knighthood on Question Time. A key moment in my political education. Are the Lib Dems in favour of fair speech? Equal speech?
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Err, only if both are under British rule.
Who's team are you batting for here?
I'm beginning to think of William as someone who wants us to be under direct Trumpist control. The thrill of joining direct Americana.
William just favours federalism, of which type he is open-minded.
That's fine, it's a view, and it's nice to have that represented on 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?
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.
Oh I see it's like that, is it. Ok, let's do a callout and see if we can find somebody more worthy to disagree with you.
I am teasing you. Have a look at the link I sent you.
My view is that this sort of legislation with regulations and codes and guidance is a very bad way to make law because it leads to confusion rather than clarity. I held this view over the Covid rules and said so at the time and I think it's also the case with laws like the Equality Act - see for instance the latest guidance out for consultation from the EHRC. It was also one of the problems with the regulations and guidance on fire resistance in the Building Regulations. See the Moore-Bick Report on the Grenfell Tower fire for how that was one of the causes. Or look at the Assisted Dying Bill .
It is really poor law-making and risks ending up, precisely because of the confusion, being oppressive - even if this was not the intention.
@cyclefree I actually agree with much of what you have written in your reply to me above, hence my tepidness about the Bill.
I agree most strongly that we must be free to offend others, indeed that is essential.
In an ideal world, I'd like a better bill than this one. But in the real world, my uncertainty is over whether this bill is worse than nothing, or on balance does more good than harm. Doing nothing is a pretty bad option in my view, as the internet is (as always) at risk from those who care more about power than democracy. I'm genuinely not sure where the least worst option lies.
Oh and very remiss of me - thank you for an excellent header as always -
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.
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!!!
My son's girlfriend is Canadian. From what she tells us this is not a particularly popular view there.
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Err, only if both are under British rule.
Who's team are you batting for here?
I'm beginning to think of William as someone who wants us to be under direct Trumpist control. The thrill of joining direct Americana.
What a country it would be! We could realise the dream of Churchill to reunite the English-speaking peoples.
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Err, only if both are under British rule.
Who's team are you batting for here?
I'm beginning to think of William as someone who wants us to be under direct Trumpist control. The thrill of joining direct Americana.
What a country it would be! We could realise the dream of Churchill to reunite the English-speaking peoples.
Except with the centre in Washington, lots of guns, and no King
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!!!
My son's girlfriend is Canadian. From what she tells us this is not a particularly popular view there.
Understatement of 2025 trophy done and dusted. May as well present it now.
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!!!
My son's girlfriend is Canadian. From what she tells us this is not a particularly popular view there.
My daughter in law is a Canadian living with my son in Vancouver and would concur
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Err, only if both are under British rule.
Who's team are you batting for here?
I'm beginning to think of William as someone who wants us to be under direct Trumpist control. The thrill of joining direct Americana.
What a country it would be! We could realise the dream of Churchill to reunite the English-speaking peoples.
Except with the centre in Washington, lots of guns, and no King
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.
Which do you prefer?
I don't think either the US or the EU are Empires. They are, or aspire to be, Federal States, which is something quite different.
Being British, and being familiar with a hodgepodge country that amalgamated previous independent polities through a process of conquest and dynastic marriage, that was comfortable with allowing these nations to retain points of difference (such as the Scottish legal or education systems), I really do not feel any fear about Britain being part of a larger Federal State.
Went would you equate the EU or the US with being an Empire? Since when did any parts of the British Empire send representatives to the Westminster Parliament in the way that US states send representatives to Congress, or EU member states to Brussels/Strasbourg?
The RSS Conference 2025 is in Edinburgh, specifically the Edinburgh International Conference Centre. Does anybody have a comment, pro or con, about Edinburgh Airport?
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Err, only if both are under British rule.
Who's team are you batting for here?
I'm beginning to think of William as someone who wants us to be under direct Trumpist control. The thrill of joining direct Americana.
What a country it would be! We could realise the dream of Churchill to reunite the English-speaking peoples.
Except with the centre in Washington, lots of guns, and no King
Imagine the fun we could have with the primary season with contenders having to come over here to ritualistically eat Cornish pasties to win the hearts and minds of the locals.
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.
Should be sunny but very cold. Enjoy! STV weather forecast tends to be more accurate than the BBC.
That would be a very long forecast, we’re going in early February.
Oh! As the forecasters say, confidence in the forecast is reduced!
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.
You'll find yourself in the strange company of 7 Sinn Féin MPs at Westminster. Funny old world.
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.
Aren't we a nation of nations, or would you rather we were homogenous but historically inaccurate Britons?
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.
It beggars belief, the naivety on here - the firm conviction that rich individuals, activist lawyers and the saintly British government will never abuse this law
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
Or, just imagine, someone decides to buy one the most powerful sources of spreading viral information on the planet and then decides to use it to campaign for an absolute wanker to be President of the USA, including promising a million dollars to anyone who signs up to a PAC supporting the wanker.
The world you fear is already here, it just hasn't affected you yet.
This bill is crap, I believe cyclefree on that. Just not sure it's worse than giving the viral muck spreaders free rein.
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.
Which do you prefer?
I don't think either the US or the EU are Empires. They are, or aspire to be, Federal States, which is something quite different.
Being British, and being familiar with a hodgepodge country that amalgamated previous independent polities through a process of conquest and dynastic marriage, that was comfortable with allowing these nations to retain points of difference (such as the Scottish legal or education systems), I really do not feel any fear about Britain being part of a larger Federal State.
Went would you equate the EU or the US with being an Empire? Since when did any parts of the British Empire send representatives to the Westminster Parliament in the way that US states send representatives to Congress, or EU member states to Brussels/Strasbourg?
The EU, though, looks very unlikely ever to become a fully integrated federal state on the U.S. model. So it offers better autonomy.
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.
It beggars belief, the naivety on here - the firm conviction that rich individuals, activist lawyers and the saintly British government will never abuse this law
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
Or, just imagine, someone decides to buy one the most powerful sources of spreading viral information on the planet and then decides to use it to campaign for an absolute wanker to be President of the USA, including promising a million dollars to anyone who signs up to a PAC supporting the wanker.
The world you fear is already here, it just hasn't affected you yet.
This bill is crap, I believe cyclefree on that. Just not sure it's worse than giving the viral muck spreaders free rein.
Elon musk is not about to destroy free speech in the UK. This bill could
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
There’s as much danger in writing him off as a bit of an irritating child as there is in sanewashing, in my opinion. He has the potential to present a real national security threat to British interests. I hope that our intelligence services are already rethinking aspects of 5 eyes.
He is a wannabe tyrant. He talks like a tyrant, he behaves like a tyrant. Even his occasional moments of charm are consistent with tyrants through the ages. Thankfully for now there are constitutional obstacles to him actually becoming a tyrant. But he will try.
When people tell upon who they are, believe them.
Defo. Here, as it happens, is where I'm right towards the "massive massive threat" end of the spectrum. I can't understand how anybody bar Trump supporters can be at all sanguine about it.
The RSS Conference 2025 is in Edinburgh, specifically the Edinburgh International Conference Centre. Does anybody have a comment, pro or con, about Edinburgh Airport?
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.
Which do you prefer?
I don't think either the US or the EU are Empires. They are, or aspire to be, Federal States, which is something quite different.
Being British, and being familiar with a hodgepodge country that amalgamated previous independent polities through a process of conquest and dynastic marriage, that was comfortable with allowing these nations to retain points of difference (such as the Scottish legal or education systems), I really do not feel any fear about Britain being part of a larger Federal State.
Went would you equate the EU or the US with being an Empire? Since when did any parts of the British Empire send representatives to the Westminster Parliament in the way that US states send representatives to Congress, or EU member states to Brussels/Strasbourg?
Er, the USA is very definitely an empire. They have this building called “the Empire State Building”. They acquire possessions overseas. Alaska. Hawaii. Puerto Rico. Guam. Greenland? They have multiple bases around the world. They displaced people to gain their territory. They exercise imperial influence on vassal states
The only reason you don’t think it’s an empire is because it generally expanded by land (but not always) and it often managed to acquire territory without warfare (tho sometimes it did do that - snatching chunks of Mexico)
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.
It beggars belief, the naivety on here - the firm conviction that rich individuals, activist lawyers and the saintly British government will never abuse this law
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
Or, just imagine, someone decides to buy one the most powerful sources of spreading viral information on the planet and then decides to use it to campaign for an absolute wanker to be President of the USA, including promising a million dollars to anyone who signs up to a PAC supporting the wanker.
The world you fear is already here, it just hasn't affected you yet.
This bill is crap, I believe cyclefree on that. Just not sure it's worse than giving the viral muck spreaders free rein.
Elon musk is not about to destroy free speech in the UK. This bill could
Also, it gives an advantage to Real Journalism aka Big Media. Whatever the regulator decides is Proper Mass Media.
That’s right, kids. Rupert Murdoch and chums will be a protected class. Labourlist.com - not so much.
In addition, we must remember how the existing libel laws in the U.K. defend the poor and harass the rich. No, wait, there’s something wrong there.
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.
It beggars belief, the naivety on here - the firm conviction that rich individuals, activist lawyers and the saintly British government will never abuse this law
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
Or, just imagine, someone decides to buy one the most powerful sources of spreading viral information on the planet and then decides to use it to campaign for an absolute wanker to be President of the USA, including promising a million dollars to anyone who signs up to a PAC supporting the wanker.
The world you fear is already here, it just hasn't affected you yet.
This bill is crap, I believe cyclefree on that. Just not sure it's worse than giving the viral muck spreaders free rein.
Elon musk is not about to destroy free speech in the UK. This bill could
Also, it gives an advantage to Real Journalism aka Big Media. Whatever the regulator decides is Proper Mass Media.
That’s right, kids. Rupert Murdoch and chums will be a protected class. Labourlist.com - not so much.
In addition, we must remember how the existing libel laws in the U.K. defend the poor and harass the rich. No, wait, there’s something wrong there.
Yes. Precisely. The reaction to this law is telling. It’s an iq test. If you think this law is fine you’re a fucking retard
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.
It beggars belief, the naivety on here - the firm conviction that rich individuals, activist lawyers and the saintly British government will never abuse this law
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
Or, just imagine, someone decides to buy one the most powerful sources of spreading viral information on the planet and then decides to use it to campaign for an absolute wanker to be President of the USA, including promising a million dollars to anyone who signs up to a PAC supporting the wanker.
The world you fear is already here, it just hasn't affected you yet.
This bill is crap, I believe cyclefree on that. Just not sure it's worse than giving the viral muck spreaders free rein.
Elon musk is not about to destroy free speech in the UK. This bill could
You sure? He has sufficient power over what gets talked about at the moment that I'm pretty confident he could, and will, have a big impact on the political narrative in the UK in the next four years. Just look at the thing we're not talking about.
'Destroying free speech' doesn't just happen if people are prevented from speaking. It also happens if a small number of powerful people are able to control the public narrative.
I don't think it's an either/or btw, but I think the *intention* of this bill is good: to reduce the degree to which companies can wash their hands of the bile that gets spread around on their platforms.
The implementation is crap, but I will go elsewhere than PB to judge how crap.
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Why don't we unify the UK and EU then?
I think that would be a better way to approach things than the UK applying to join the EU. A negotiation on an Act of Union between the UK and the EU would be a better way to go about things.
I'd be willing to give every EU member state a new hereditary peer in the House of Lords, if it weren't the case that Labour were booting them all out.
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.
It beggars belief, the naivety on here - the firm conviction that rich individuals, activist lawyers and the saintly British government will never abuse this law
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
Or, just imagine, someone decides to buy one the most powerful sources of spreading viral information on the planet and then decides to use it to campaign for an absolute wanker to be President of the USA, including promising a million dollars to anyone who signs up to a PAC supporting the wanker.
The world you fear is already here, it just hasn't affected you yet.
This bill is crap, I believe cyclefree on that. Just not sure it's worse than giving the viral muck spreaders free rein.
Until you can define clearly how you can tell whether or not someone is muck spreading, what can a law like this achieve?
It is just granting arbitrary power to the state (and lawyers).
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.
Oh I see it's like that, is it. Ok, let's do a callout and see if we can find somebody more worthy to disagree with you.
I am teasing you. Have a look at the link I sent you.
My view is that this sort of legislation with regulations and codes and guidance is a very bad way to make law because it leads to confusion rather than clarity. I held this view over the Covid rules and said so at the time and I think it's also the case with laws like the Equality Act - see for instance the latest guidance out for consultation from the EHRC. It was also one of the problems with the regulations and guidance on fire resistance in the Building Regulations. See the Moore-Bick Report on the Grenfell Tower fire for how that was one of the causes. Or look at the Assisted Dying Bill .
It is really poor law-making and risks ending up, precisely because of the confusion, being oppressive - even if this was not the intention.
This is/will be UK law, so what knock-on effects are likely internationally? Hosts who are nothing to do with the UK and whose websites are nowhere near UK territory? Or will a UK based commenter BTL be pursued even If the host can't be?
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.
Which do you prefer?
I don't think either the US or the EU are Empires. They are, or aspire to be, Federal States, which is something quite different.
Being British, and being familiar with a hodgepodge country that amalgamated previous independent polities through a process of conquest and dynastic marriage, that was comfortable with allowing these nations to retain points of difference (such as the Scottish legal or education systems), I really do not feel any fear about Britain being part of a larger Federal State.
Went would you equate the EU or the US with being an Empire? Since when did any parts of the British Empire send representatives to the Westminster Parliament in the way that US states send representatives to Congress, or EU member states to Brussels/Strasbourg?
We tried.
That's what the Imperial Conferences from the 1890s to 1920s were about.
Is it really too much to ask that this be 'to resign as PM' rather than 'resigns as PM'? I mean, the subtitle makes clear he has not resigned yet after all.
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.
It beggars belief, the naivety on here - the firm conviction that rich individuals, activist lawyers and the saintly British government will never abuse this law
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
Or, just imagine, someone decides to buy one the most powerful sources of spreading viral information on the planet and then decides to use it to campaign for an absolute wanker to be President of the USA, including promising a million dollars to anyone who signs up to a PAC supporting the wanker.
The world you fear is already here, it just hasn't affected you yet.
This bill is crap, I believe cyclefree on that. Just not sure it's worse than giving the viral muck spreaders free rein.
Elon musk is not about to destroy free speech in the UK. This bill could
Also, it gives an advantage to Real Journalism aka Big Media. Whatever the regulator decides is Proper Mass Media.
That’s right, kids. Rupert Murdoch and chums will be a protected class. Labourlist.com - not so much.
In addition, we must remember how the existing libel laws in the U.K. defend the poor and harass the rich. No, wait, there’s something wrong there.
Yes. Precisely. The reaction to this law is telling. It’s an iq test. If you think this law is fine you’re a fucking retard
So, all Liberal Democrats fall into that category then?
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.
Which do you prefer?
I don't think either the US or the EU are Empires. They are, or aspire to be, Federal States, which is something quite different.
Being British, and being familiar with a hodgepodge country that amalgamated previous independent polities through a process of conquest and dynastic marriage, that was comfortable with allowing these nations to retain points of difference (such as the Scottish legal or education systems), I really do not feel any fear about Britain being part of a larger Federal State.
Went would you equate the EU or the US with being an Empire? Since when did any parts of the British Empire send representatives to the Westminster Parliament in the way that US states send representatives to Congress, or EU member states to Brussels/Strasbourg?
The EU, though, looks very unlikely ever to become a fully integrated federal state on the U.S. model. So it offers better autonomy.
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.
It beggars belief, the naivety on here - the firm conviction that rich individuals, activist lawyers and the saintly British government will never abuse this law
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
Or, just imagine, someone decides to buy one the most powerful sources of spreading viral information on the planet and then decides to use it to campaign for an absolute wanker to be President of the USA, including promising a million dollars to anyone who signs up to a PAC supporting the wanker.
The world you fear is already here, it just hasn't affected you yet.
This bill is crap, I believe cyclefree on that. Just not sure it's worse than giving the viral muck spreaders free rein.
Muck spreading is a healthier activity than being unable to muck at all.
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!!!
My son's girlfriend is Canadian. From what she tells us this is not a particularly popular view there.
I have actually met Canadians who want to fuse with the USA - but not many
On my recent trip to Vancouver and BC the sense I got was a new and right wing Canadian nationalism, very anti Trudeau and anti Woke, but also proudly Canuck. I saw more maple leaf flags in gardens than you see Stars and Stripes in the USA
Quite surprising. Obvs reflected in the political polling and the demise of Trudeau
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!!!
My son's girlfriend is Canadian. From what she tells us this is not a particularly popular view there.
I have actually met Canadians who want to fuse with the USA - but not many
On my recent trip to Vancouver and BC the sense I got was a new and right wing Canadian nationalism, very anti Trudeau and anti Woke, but also proudly Canuck. I saw more maple leaf flags in gardens than you see Stars and Stripes in the USA
Quite surprising. Obvs reflected in the political polling and the demise of Trudeau
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.
Which do you prefer?
I don't think either the US or the EU are Empires. They are, or aspire to be, Federal States, which is something quite different.
Being British, and being familiar with a hodgepodge country that amalgamated previous independent polities through a process of conquest and dynastic marriage, that was comfortable with allowing these nations to retain points of difference (such as the Scottish legal or education systems), I really do not feel any fear about Britain being part of a larger Federal State.
Went would you equate the EU or the US with being an Empire? Since when did any parts of the British Empire send representatives to the Westminster Parliament in the way that US states send representatives to Congress, or EU member states to Brussels/Strasbourg?
Er, the USA is very definitely an empire. They have this building called “the Empire State Building”. They acquire possessions overseas. Alaska. Hawaii. Puerto Rico. Guam. Greenland? They have multiple bases around the world. They displaced people to gain their territory. They exercise imperial influence on vassal states
The only reason you don’t think it’s an empire is because it generally expanded by land (but not always) and it often managed to acquire territory without warfare (tho sometimes it did do that - snatching chunks of Mexico)
If the UK became a territory of the US - like Puerto Rico - then you could say that we became part of the US Empire. But if the UK, or it's constituent nations, joins the US as States, then they will have joined the US Federal State, not the Empire.
The distinction I am drawing is between being an Empire and having an Empire. Britain was not an Empire, but Britain had an Empire. The US is the same.
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Err, only if both are under British rule.
Who's team are you batting for here?
A United States of English Speaking Peoples does have some appeal. The moderation of Canada, Australia, UK and New Zealand would mitigate the lunacy of MAGA, while the US influence would ensure we are an enterprise economy rather than being stricken with halfwits like Rachel Reeves being in charge of our economy. King Charles would have to carry out some sort of menial task, but not much change there!
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.
Oh I see it's like that, is it. Ok, let's do a callout and see if we can find somebody more worthy to disagree with you.
I am teasing you. Have a look at the link I sent you.
My view is that this sort of legislation with regulations and codes and guidance is a very bad way to make law because it leads to confusion rather than clarity. I held this view over the Covid rules and said so at the time and I think it's also the case with laws like the Equality Act - see for instance the latest guidance out for consultation from the EHRC. It was also one of the problems with the regulations and guidance on fire resistance in the Building Regulations. See the Moore-Bick Report on the Grenfell Tower fire for how that was one of the causes. Or look at the Assisted Dying Bill .
It is really poor law-making and risks ending up, precisely because of the confusion, being oppressive - even if this was not the intention.
Ok, but I can't be having to amass as much legal knowledge as you before forming the view you're going OTT on something. That's censorship. I'd be muzzled. Prevented from saying I don't think there's a big threat to free speech.
So what's a better way in law to address the problem then iyo?
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.
It beggars belief, the naivety on here - the firm conviction that rich individuals, activist lawyers and the saintly British government will never abuse this law
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
Or, just imagine, someone decides to buy one the most powerful sources of spreading viral information on the planet and then decides to use it to campaign for an absolute wanker to be President of the USA, including promising a million dollars to anyone who signs up to a PAC supporting the wanker.
The world you fear is already here, it just hasn't affected you yet.
This bill is crap, I believe cyclefree on that. Just not sure it's worse than giving the viral muck spreaders free rein.
Muck spreading is a healthier activity than being unable to muck at all.
But can the average Joe muck at all as things stand? Sure, I can scream into the void and I would be utterly outraged by being prevented from doing so but our information flows are already controlled by those with agendas.
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Err, only if both are under British rule.
Who's team are you batting for here?
A United States of English Speaking Peoples does have some appeal. The moderation of Canada, Australia, UK and New Zealand would mitigate the lunacy of MAGA, while the US influence would ensure we are an enterprise economy rather than being stricken with halfwits like Rachel Reeves being in charge of our economy. King Charles would have to carry out some sort of menial task, but not much change there!
There’s as much danger in writing him off as a bit of an irritating child as there is in sanewashing, in my opinion. He has the potential to present a real national security threat to British interests. I hope that our intelligence services are already rethinking aspects of 5 eyes.
He is a wannabe tyrant. He talks like a tyrant, he behaves like a tyrant. Even his occasional moments of charm are consistent with tyrants through the ages. Thankfully for now there are constitutional obstacles to him actually becoming a tyrant. But he will try.
When people tell upon who they are, believe them.
If this keeps up the US will soon be an adversary not an ally.
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Why don't we unify the UK and EU then?
I think that would be a better way to approach things than the UK applying to join the EU. A negotiation on an Act of Union between the UK and the EU would be a better way to go about things.
I'd be willing to give every EU member state a new hereditary peer in the House of Lords, if it weren't the case that Labour were booting them all out.
Baroness von der Leyen has a ring to it. We could get the Hapsburgs in too...
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Err, only if both are under British rule.
Who's team are you batting for here?
A United States of English Speaking Peoples does have some appeal. The moderation of Canada, Australia, UK and New Zealand would mitigate the lunacy of MAGA, while the US influence would ensure we are an enterprise economy rather than being stricken with halfwits like Rachel Reeves being in charge of our economy. King Charles would have to carry out some sort of menial task, but not much change there!
I completely agree.
And the obvious place to put a capital for such a union would be somewhere close to the Greenwich Meridian I would suggest.
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Err, only if both are under British rule.
Who's team are you batting for here?
A United States of English Speaking Peoples does have some appeal. The moderation of Canada, Australia, UK and New Zealand would mitigate the lunacy of MAGA, while the US influence would ensure we are an enterprise economy rather than being stricken with halfwits like Rachel Reeves being in charge of our economy. King Charles would have to carry out some sort of menial task, but not much change there!
Free movement with California, Hawaii and Australia would be very popular.
Off to Mexico om Wednesday for 2 weeks - Mexico City, Tecotihuacan, butterfly sanctuary, a couple of smaller towns and three days on the beach to finish up. Any tips? I'm particularly keen to choose some interesting options in Mexico City (we'll be there for 4 nights, though only one day completely free of other things), which seems to have an embarassment of riches (and some risky areas). More interested in lively scenes than museums and galleries.
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.
It beggars belief, the naivety on here - the firm conviction that rich individuals, activist lawyers and the saintly British government will never abuse this law
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
Or, just imagine, someone decides to buy one the most powerful sources of spreading viral information on the planet and then decides to use it to campaign for an absolute wanker to be President of the USA, including promising a million dollars to anyone who signs up to a PAC supporting the wanker.
The world you fear is already here, it just hasn't affected you yet.
This bill is crap, I believe cyclefree on that. Just not sure it's worse than giving the viral muck spreaders free rein.
Elon musk is not about to destroy free speech in the UK. This bill could
Also, it gives an advantage to Real Journalism aka Big Media. Whatever the regulator decides is Proper Mass Media.
That’s right, kids. Rupert Murdoch and chums will be a protected class. Labourlist.com - not so much.
In addition, we must remember how the existing libel laws in the U.K. defend the poor and harass the rich. No, wait, there’s something wrong there.
Yes. Precisely. The reaction to this law is telling. It’s an iq test. If you think this law is fine you’re a fucking retard
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!!!
My son's girlfriend is Canadian. From what she tells us this is not a particularly popular view there.
I have actually met Canadians who want to fuse with the USA - but not many
On my recent trip to Vancouver and BC the sense I got was a new and right wing Canadian nationalism, very anti Trudeau and anti Woke, but also proudly Canuck. I saw more maple leaf flags in gardens than you see Stars and Stripes in the USA
Quite surprising. Obvs reflected in the political polling and the demise of Trudeau
That gives me the horn.
Canada has just endured an incredible wave of immigration. You see it everywhere. I believe it might be even bigger than ours, per capita
Partly as a result the country is swinging sharply to the right. It’s like lefties can’t work out this natural equation, all over the world
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Why don't we unify the UK and EU then?
I think that would be a better way to approach things than the UK applying to join the EU. A negotiation on an Act of Union between the UK and the EU would be a better way to go about things.
I'd be willing to give every EU member state a new hereditary peer in the House of Lords, if it weren't the case that Labour were booting them all out.
Baroness von der Leyen has a ring to it. We could get the Hapsburgs in too...
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!!!
I just had a flashback to when I was thirteen and had a particularly obnoxious acne-ridden classmate who would say the most outrageous things just to get attention. Last time I saw him was at Speaker's Corner when we were nineteen and he was ranting about atheism. The thing was, if you ignored him and pretended he hadn't spoken, he shut up eventually.
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
The idea of unifying the US and Canada makes a lot of sense. Do we want a world where we're so beholden to the status quo that nobody dare change anything of any consequence?
Err, only if both are under British rule.
Who's team are you batting for here?
A United States of English Speaking Peoples does have some appeal. The moderation of Canada, Australia, UK and New Zealand would mitigate the lunacy of MAGA, while the US influence would ensure we are an enterprise economy rather than being stricken with halfwits like Rachel Reeves being in charge of our economy. King Charles would have to carry out some sort of menial task, but not much change there!
I completely agree.
And the obvious place to put a capital for such a union would be somewhere close to the Greenwich Meridian I would suggest.
Except that's where the post-imperial delusions would come in. We'd be nothing more than a province. Even the combined populatiions of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are about a third of the current U.S. population, and the current centres of power would certainly never accede to Europe or the Pacific.
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.
The LibDems are fricking useless on being properly liberal on stuff like this.
Why?
Because they've been corrupted by identity politics and intersectionality, and forgotten what being liberal means.
What you’re describing is libertarianism, not liberalism. The right of the strong to do whatever the hell they want, rather than the right of the weak to be protected from the predations of authority. The freedom to, as opposed to the freedom from.
There’s a long string of civil liberties positions the party has taken in the last decade that are at odds with the authoritarian positions of both Tories and Labour.
You think J S Mill would approve of the online safety bill?
Off to Mexico om Wednesday for 2 weeks - Mexico City, Tecotihuacan, butterfly sanctuary, a couple of smaller towns and three days on the beach to finish up. Any tips? I'm particularly keen to choose some interesting options in Mexico City (we'll be there for 4 nights, though only one day completely free of other things), which seems to have an embarassment of riches (and some risky areas). More interested in lively scenes than museums and galleries.
Go to visit the house of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo. I know you don’t want history/art stuff but it is genuinely fascinating, genuinely beautiful and also located in probably the nicest area of Mexico City (which is indeed not a very nice city, be careful, esp at night - be careful even when hailing taxis). It’s full of bars and students and leafy areas and nice places to eat and drink
Obviously go to the great anthropological museum, I know you don’t like museums either, but it’s astonishing, once in a lifetime, Even a history hater will be amazed
And go INSIDE the great pyramid of the Aztecs right next to the cathedral, in the heart of old Tenochtitlan
Allow a whole day for Teotihuacan, OMFG. There’s actually a couple of decent restaurants there where you can lunch, staring at the pyramids
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!!!
My son's girlfriend is Canadian. From what she tells us this is not a particularly popular view there.
I have actually met Canadians who want to fuse with the USA - but not many
On my recent trip to Vancouver and BC the sense I got was a new and right wing Canadian nationalism, very anti Trudeau and anti Woke, but also proudly Canuck. I saw more maple leaf flags in gardens than you see Stars and Stripes in the USA
Quite surprising. Obvs reflected in the political polling and the demise of Trudeau
Some family members have returned to the UK after working in healthcare in Canada for many years, they reported the same.
They cited rising crime, plus inflation as key drivers of public dissatisfaction with Trudeau. One of those leaders who is definitely viewed far more favourably overseas, without much reason.
(On a personal note, his tribute to the late HMTQ was intensely creepy, even Macron managed to pull something decent out of the bag).
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!!!
My son's girlfriend is Canadian. From what she tells us this is not a particularly popular view there.
I have actually met Canadians who want to fuse with the USA - but not many
On my recent trip to Vancouver and BC the sense I got was a new and right wing Canadian nationalism, very anti Trudeau and anti Woke, but also proudly Canuck. I saw more maple leaf flags in gardens than you see Stars and Stripes in the USA
Quite surprising. Obvs reflected in the political polling and the demise of Trudeau
Some family members have returned to the UK after working in healthcare in Canada for many years, they reported the same.
They cited rising crime, plus inflation as key drivers of public dissatisfaction with Trudeau. One of those leaders who is definitely viewed far more favourably overseas, without much reason.
Yet Trudeau has been Canadian PM for 9 years ie longer than every US President since FDR has been in office and longer than every UK PM since WW2 has been in office except for Blair and Thatcher. He also won 3 Canadian general elections so clearly they thought something of him even if like every political leader he has reached his shelf life
Comments
I believe that in the relatively near future there will be a large scale revision of bad laws that have been crippling our country. I hope this will be amongst them, but I am conscious that when they achieve power, people seem to find reasons to like laws that give them more power. I will be very much on the side of getting rid of it.
As for people who are in favour of the law, perhaps they can explain why it should be any more permissible for those who don't believe in free speech to limit others' speech than it is for those who don't believe in abortion or same sex marriage to limit the access of others to those things. If you don't believe in free speech, don't speak freely.
Imagine if Reform win in 2028. Far from impossible. Then Farage disappears and his replacement is much more sinister. And he decides that PRO-migration sentiment is dangerous for the country. Or publishing verses from the Koran. Or agreeing with the EU. All they have to do is prove someone is distressed by this and then that online speech is prohibited
We are going to have the law and guidance - see the Covid Rules for the disasters arising from that. Then there are other laws which regulate publication and free expression with which this will have to be in compliance or face challenge. Plus all the systems and processes that companies and others will need to have.
Look at all the stuff that needs to be drafted and reviewed and understood - here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer#:~:text=to such users.-,How the Online Safety Act is being implemented,plans on 17 October 2024.
https://theconversation.com/canada-as-a-51st-state-republicans-would-never-win-another-general-election-246616
But essentially the argument is Labour and Tories have accidentally destroyed free speech.
It seems possible but unlikely. Lawyers always say bills are ill drafted, unless they drafted them themselves. And if it is really bad, we can fix it right? It's not like anyone actually wants these bad effects we are being warned about?
(It's petty of me, but I find Starmer!s voice so irritating, I can't listen to him for more than a couple of minutes.)
Never dreamed the President of the United States would (unknowingly I assume) imitate one of my classmates so well. Too bad we can't really ignore him and shut him up.
Four years of him and four years of Starmer. Can things get any more irritating?
So from that perspective, it's clearly not all bad. 😁
Bottom line is that it's only possible to have one absolute immutable principle. Something so important that it must happen, whatever the cost. See Churchill and victory in World War 2- many of his other cherished beliefs went by the wayside because destroying Nazism was the thing that mattered most.
Is the freedom to say whatever we like (even "fire!" in the proverbial crowded theatre?) that absolute? It's important, but I'm not sure it's the absolute. If it is, we need to work out, as individuals and as a society what to do about people who buy an electronic megaphone to stir up trouble because they enjoy using their freedom of speech to make the the world burn.
I hope that endorsement is also not ringing, barely tinkling. But sympathetic to the idea that sometimes real life is choosing between poor and bad.
Be off with you.
My view is that this sort of legislation with regulations and codes and guidance is a very bad way to make law because it leads to confusion rather than clarity. I held this view over the Covid rules and said so at the time and I think it's also the case with laws like the Equality Act - see for instance the latest guidance out for consultation from the EHRC. It was also one of the problems with the regulations and guidance on fire resistance in the Building Regulations. See the Moore-Bick Report on the Grenfell Tower fire for how that was one of the causes. Or look at the Assisted Dying Bill .
It is really poor law-making and risks ending up, precisely because of the confusion, being oppressive - even if this was not the intention.
He is a wannabe tyrant. He talks like a tyrant, he behaves like a tyrant. Even his occasional moments of charm are consistent with tyrants through the ages. Thankfully for now there are constitutional obstacles to him actually becoming a tyrant. But he will try.
When people tell upon who they are, believe them.
Why?
Because they've been corrupted by identity politics and intersectionality, and forgotten what being liberal means.
I get criticised by my Big4 employer for not talking to the slides but also asked why I'm such a good presenter! 🤣
I thought Musk might be that, but he happily uses the power of Twitter to hide the tweets of his political opponents (such as the MAGA crazies).
This is not surprising, but it does make me lose respect for those who shout loudest about free speech; anyone with half a brain will realise that, unless you can support your opponent's rights as much as your own, you qualify your support for an undoubtedly vital part of our politics.
There’s a long string of civil liberties positions the party has taken in the last decade that are at odds with the authoritarian positions of both Tories and Labour.
All presentations are a performance.
You don't recognise the chilling effect of this on free speech, because you're so caught up in your Wokery.
Who's team are you batting for here?
If @TimS gets cold bright weather he should have a wonderful time
It’s less appealing in midgey mist
Because I believed that, in my role in the Student Union, planning safe and violence free demos was my duty. And that I supported the right to protest.
That's fine, it's a view, and it's nice to have that represented on here.
Makes you think.
I agree most strongly that we must be free to offend others, indeed that is essential.
In an ideal world, I'd like a better bill than this one. But in the real world, my uncertainty is over whether this bill is worse than nothing, or on balance does more good than harm. Doing nothing is a pretty bad option in my view, as the internet is (as always) at risk from those who care more about power than democracy. I'm genuinely not sure where the least worst option lies.
Oh and very remiss of me - thank you for an excellent header as always -
There are plenty of verses in it which are theoretically distressing - misogynistic, anti semitic, homophobic
And people can say their distress is absolutely justified given the acts of terror committed in its name
So you will be prohibited from quoting chunks of the Koran and anyone that enables you to do that will face enormous fines
See? That’s how easy it is to prove this law is foolish
I’m sure there are dodgy verses in the Old Testament (tho fewer terror attacks therefrom). Also the Talmud. And so on
Being British, and being familiar with a hodgepodge country that amalgamated previous independent polities through a process of conquest and dynastic marriage, that was comfortable with allowing these nations to retain points of difference (such as the Scottish legal or education systems), I really do not feel any fear about Britain being part of a larger Federal State.
Went would you equate the EU or the US with being an Empire? Since when did any parts of the British Empire send representatives to the Westminster Parliament in the way that US states send representatives to Congress, or EU member states to Brussels/Strasbourg?
Also only book second class, then use Seatfrog to update to first class. London to Edinburgh should get you 5 double G&Ts or similar..
The world you fear is already here, it just hasn't affected you yet.
This bill is crap, I believe cyclefree on that. Just not sure it's worse than giving the viral muck spreaders free rein.
The only reason you don’t think it’s an empire is because it generally expanded by land (but not always) and it often managed to acquire territory without warfare (tho sometimes it did do that - snatching chunks of Mexico)
That’s right, kids. Rupert Murdoch and chums will be a protected class. Labourlist.com - not so much.
In addition, we must remember how the existing libel laws in the U.K. defend the poor and harass the rich. No, wait, there’s something wrong there.
'Destroying free speech' doesn't just happen if people are prevented from speaking. It also happens if a small number of powerful people are able to control the public narrative.
I don't think it's an either/or btw, but I think the *intention* of this bill is good: to reduce the degree to which companies can wash their hands of the bile that gets spread around on their platforms.
The implementation is crap, but I will go elsewhere than PB to judge how crap.
I'd be willing to give every EU member state a new hereditary peer in the House of Lords, if it weren't the case that Labour were booting them all out.
It is just granting arbitrary power to the state (and lawyers).
That's what the Imperial Conferences from the 1890s to 1920s were about.
I'd say the US offers more.
On my recent trip to Vancouver and BC the sense I got was a new and right wing Canadian nationalism, very anti Trudeau and anti Woke, but also proudly Canuck. I saw more maple leaf flags in gardens than you see Stars and Stripes in the USA
Quite surprising. Obvs reflected in the political polling and the demise of Trudeau
The distinction I am drawing is between being an Empire and having an Empire. Britain was not an Empire, but Britain had an Empire. The US is the same.
So what's a better way in law to address the problem then iyo?
Partly as a result the country is swinging sharply to the right. It’s like lefties can’t work out this natural equation, all over the world
Obviously go to the great anthropological museum, I know you don’t like museums either, but it’s astonishing, once in a lifetime, Even a history hater will be amazed
And go INSIDE the great pyramid of the Aztecs right next to the cathedral, in the heart of old Tenochtitlan
Allow a whole day for Teotihuacan, OMFG. There’s actually a couple of decent restaurants there where you can lunch, staring at the pyramids
They cited rising crime, plus inflation as key drivers of public dissatisfaction with Trudeau. One of those leaders who is definitely viewed far more favourably overseas, without much reason.
(On a personal note, his tribute to the late HMTQ was intensely creepy, even Macron managed to pull something decent out of the bag).