German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
I thought they were skint too?
It would be better to invade somewhere with spare cash like Canada.
Ummm...actually, that might not be a smart suggestion right now.
I hear the Virgin Islands has a fair amount of cash, on paper at least. Rather inexplicably.
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
But nobody’s laughing.
That's just the German-French humour taking effect.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
I thought they were skint too?
It would be better to invade somewhere with spare cash like Canada.
Ummm...actually, that might not be a smart suggestion right now.
I hear the Virgin Islands has a fair amount of cash, on paper at least. Rather inexplicably.
Don't tell Trump that, it would give him two reasons to invade.
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
The King isn't only in one sense accountable to his government I'm Canada, rather than, London, though. If nothing is said when Trump lays out a plan to occupy the entire country, it seems to be an admission that the Commonwealth doesn't really exist, and possibly in the long-term our owm monarchical constitutional set-up, too.
Another increasing sense I have is that parts of the right in the U.K. will eventually have to more publicly come to terms with an underlying U.S. allegiance. That's fine, but it would require more public honesty.
I’d put Ryanair close to the top of a list companies I’d avoid like the plague, but can absolutely support them suing a disruptive passenger for the £12,500 cost of the diversion.
I wonder how many of the passengers on board might also join the civil suit, for cancelled meetings and events etc..?
Perhaps this should remind everyone not to drink too much in the terminal if you become an idiot after too many drinks?
I’ve heard it said that, in the U.K., the airlines were told off for discussing a joint no-fly list. Get banned on one, get banned on all. The government of the time was worried about backlash….
Data Protection Act 2018 would apply?
Mind you think of all those parking ticket cases blocking up the County Courts. Surprised Ryanair found a court slot to mount a claim.
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
The King isn't only in one sense accountable to his government I'm Canada, rather than, London, though. If nothing is said when Trump lays out a plan to occupy the entire country, it seems to be an admission that the Commonwealth doesn't really exist, and possibly in the long-term our owm monarchical constitutional set-up, too.
Another increasing sense I have is that parts of the right in the U.K. will eventually have to more publicly come to terms with an underlying U.S. allegiance. That's fine, but it would require more public honesty.
I genuinely don’t understand where you are coming from. The Canadian Government isn’t going big on it (for obvious reasons) so why would they want their King or their ally to? And why would we do it without them asking us to?
Less than a year since succeeding his mother, Queen Margrethe, after she stood down on New Year’s Eve 2023, King Frederik has made a clear statement of intent to keep the autonomous Danish territory and former colony within the kingdom of Denmark.
Queen Margrethe stood down on 14th January 2024, the 50th anniversary of her accession.
Thanks for the clarification.
The G has confused the announcement with the abdication by the look.
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
There are many reasons why people commit suicide. There is rarely just one cause and those charities dealing with it always advocate caution about blaming it on one factor alone. Sad as that case was, we only heard the father's story. It is understandable why he might blame what his daughter was seeing online for her death. But that avoids asking some other tough questions about what else was going on and why she was spending so long online. And - brutal as this might sound - is one sad case a sufficient basis for a law which has 241 sections, 12 parts and 17 schedules and still requires loads more regulations and guidance?
It's not. But is it really true to say it's based on "one sad case" ?
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
(Snip)
That's not the way it works. You either stand up for your values or not: and what Musk and Trump are doing is outrageous. Remining silent allows them to do what they want.
Fully agree, though for all our sanity I think where Trump is concerned there is a useful and important distinction between what he says and what he does.
We have to speak out against an annexation of Sovereign Territory of an ally.
Once he acts it is too late.
Presumably you're against the possible annexation of Northern Ireland? Should any moves from the Republic to promote a border poll be condemned?
Think Northern Ireland is quite, quite safe from annexation by the South. It's an economic basket case and quite within it's rights to get the odd £bn or two from the mugs across the Irish Sea. So, so generous.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
(Snip)
That's not the way it works. You either stand up for your values or not: and what Musk and Trump are doing is outrageous. Remining silent allows them to do what they want.
Fully agree, though for all our sanity I think where Trump is concerned there is a useful and important distinction between what he says and what he does.
We have to speak out against an annexation of Sovereign Territory of an ally.
Once he acts it is too late.
Presumably you're against the possible annexation of Northern Ireland? Should any moves from the Republic to promote a border poll be condemned?
Think Northern Ireland is quite, quite safe from annexation by the South. It's an economic basket case and quite within its rights to get the odd £bn or two from the mugs across the Irish Sea. So, so generous.
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
The King isn't only in one sense accountable to his government I'm Canada, rather than, London, though. If nothing is said when Trump lays out a plan to occupy the entire country, it seems to be an admission that the Commonwealth doesn't really exist, and possibly in the long-term our owm monarchical constitutional set-up, too.
Another increasing sense I have is that parts of the right in the U.K. will eventually have to more publicly come to terms with an underlying U.S. allegiance. That's fine, but it would require more public honesty.
I genuinely don’t understand where you are coming from. The Canadian Government isn’t going big on it (for obvious reasons) so why would they want their King or their ally to? And why would we do it without them asking us to?
As I remember it, the Commonwealth Charter is full of provisions on self-determination, peace and equality of nations. If a neighbour.is committed to taking over a member, obviously its head would be expected to take a position.
Starmer would then be responsible for giving Charles and the Conmonwealth its voice. So far it doesn't seem to have one.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
I thought they were skint too?
It would be better to invade somewhere with spare cash like Canada.
Ummm...actually, that might not be a smart suggestion right now.
I hear the Virgin Islands has a fair amount of cash, on paper at least. Rather inexplicably.
The Yanks bought their Virgin isles off Denmark in 1917, for US 25 million, by agreement of both countries, and there had been a plebiscite on the Islands previously.
Incidentally, as part of the treaty of transfer, the United States accepted a Danish demand for a declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland"
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
The King isn't only in one sense accountable to his government I'm Canada, rather than, London, though. If nothing is said when Trump lays out a plan to occupy the entire country, it seems to be an admission that the Commonwealth doesn't really exist, and possibly in the long-term our owm monarchical constitutional set-up, too.
Another increasing sense I have is that parts of the right in the U.K. will eventually have to more publicly come to terms with an underlying U.S. allegiance. That's fine, but it would require more public honesty.
I genuinely don’t understand where you are coming from. The Canadian Government isn’t going big on it (for obvious reasons) so why would they want their King or their ally to? And why would we do it without them asking us to?
We were talking a scenario where Trump sent US troops over the Canadian border to invade and capture Ottowa. Even if still very unlikely the Canadian government wouldn't have much choice but to respond then and so would the King and his UK government too on behalf of the King's realm of Canada
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
LOL have they nothing better to do?
Ignore him and he’ll go away, feed his flames and he’ll keep coming back to the fire.
(Snip)
That's not the way it works. You either stand up for your values or not: and what Musk and Trump are doing is outrageous. Remining silent allows them to do what they want.
Fully agree, though for all our sanity I think where Trump is concerned there is a useful and important distinction between what he says and what he does.
We have to speak out against an annexation of Sovereign Territory of an ally.
Once he acts it is too late.
Presumably you're against the possible annexation of Northern Ireland? Should any moves from the Republic to promote a border poll be condemned?
Think Northern Ireland is quite, quite safe from annexation by the South. It's an economic basket case and quite within its rights to get the odd £bn or two from the mugs across the Irish Sea. So, so generous.
We send a billion or two to the South? Why?
Ten container ships of Guinness a week, plus Graham Norton and some cricketers?
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
No. For two reasons. Firstly, the Commonwealth is not a military alliance. We did nothing when the US invaded Grenada in the 1980s for instance. NATO is a military alliance, but I think NATO treaties are silent on one member attacking another - this was raised when Greece and Turkey almost went to war in 1996. So if we intervened it would be by choice.
And secondly, and much more obviously, there's precisely nothing we can do against America's vastly more powerful armed forces three thousand miles away. The obvious counterstrike would be to try and cause that landslide in the Canaries that is meant to inundate the US east coast by a tsunami at some point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja_tsunami_hazard), but that wouldn't do much to check an American invasion of Canada, and would pose a risk to other Atlantic countries.
None of it is ever remotely going to happen, but if it did, we'd do what we usually do these days - a sharp word or two of protest and then nothing. Our weakened military and America's overwhelming power give us no choice.
The US intervened in Grenada in the 1980s only to stop a Marxist coup and even then Reagan got some strong words from Thatcher. A US invasion of Canada would be a different scenario. I would suspect France would also intervene given Quebec and as I also said in the highly unlikely event Trump followed through with all his threats he could also be facing a war with Mexico on his southern flank
It was actually a coup within a Marxist dictatorship. The head chap wasn’t as batshit* Marxist as some of the others, so they murdered him for his moderation.
*he had loopy ideas, such as making sure the economy didn’t collapse rather than ideological purity.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
No. For two reasons. Firstly, the Commonwealth is not a military alliance. We did nothing when the US invaded Grenada in the 1980s for instance. NATO is a military alliance, but I think NATO treaties are silent on one member attacking another - this was raised when Greece and Turkey almost went to war in 1996. So if we intervened it would be by choice.
And secondly, and much more obviously, there's precisely nothing we can do against America's vastly more powerful armed forces three thousand miles away. The obvious counterstrike would be to try and cause that landslide in the Canaries that is meant to inundate the US east coast by a tsunami at some point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja_tsunami_hazard), but that wouldn't do much to check an American invasion of Canada, and would pose a risk to other Atlantic countries.
None of it is ever remotely going to happen, but if it did, we'd do what we usually do these days - a sharp word or two of protest and then nothing. Our weakened military and America's overwhelming power give us no choice.
The US intervened in Grenada in the 1980s only to stop a Marxist coup and even then Reagan got some strong words from Thatcher. A US invasion of Canada would be a different scenario. I would suspect France would also intervene given Quebec and as I also said in the highly unlikely event Trump followed through with all his threats he could also be facing a war with Mexico on his southern flank
It was actually a coup within a Marxist dictatorship. The head chap wasn’t as batshit* Marxist as some of the others, so they murdered him for his moderation.
*he had loopy ideas, such as making sure the economy didn’t collapse rather than ideological purity.
So Trump wouldn't have lifted a finger to save him?
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
There are many reasons why people commit suicide. There is rarely just one cause and those charities dealing with it always advocate caution about blaming it on one factor alone. Sad as that case was, we only heard the father's story. It is understandable why he might blame what his daughter was seeing online for her death. But that avoids asking some other tough questions about what else was going on and why she was spending so long online. And - brutal as this might sound - is one sad case a sufficient basis for a law which has 241 sections, 12 parts and 17 schedules and still requires loads more regulations and guidance?
It's not. But is it really true to say it's based on "one sad case" ?
It's not unique. One of my neices developed anorexia severe enough for her to be hospitalised, encouraged by "pro-rexia" Social Media sites.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
The King isn't only in one sense accountable to his government I'm Canada, rather than, London, though. If nothing is said when Trump lays out a plan to occupy the entire country, it seems to be an admission that the Commonwealth doesn't really exist, and possibly in the long-term our owm monarchical constitutional set-up, too.
Another increasing sense I have is that parts of the right in the U.K. will eventually have to more publicly come to terms with an underlying U.S. allegiance. That's fine, but it would require more public honesty.
I genuinely don’t understand where you are coming from. The Canadian Government isn’t going big on it (for obvious reasons) so why would they want their King or their ally to? And why would we do it without them asking us to?
As I remember it, the Commonwealth Charter is full of provisions on self-determination, peace and equality of nations. If a neighbour.is committed to taking over a member, obviously its head would be expected to take a position.
Starmer would then be responsible for giving Charles and the Conmonwealth its voice. So far it doesn't seem to have one.
But not without the Canadian Government asking us to…
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
The King isn't only in one sense accountable to his government I'm Canada, rather than, London, though. If nothing is said when Trump lays out a plan to occupy the entire country, it seems to be an admission that the Commonwealth doesn't really exist, and possibly in the long-term our owm monarchical constitutional set-up, too.
Another increasing sense I have is that parts of the right in the U.K. will eventually have to more publicly come to terms with an underlying U.S. allegiance. That's fine, but it would require more public honesty.
I genuinely don’t understand where you are coming from. The Canadian Government isn’t going big on it (for obvious reasons) so why would they want their King or their ally to? And why would we do it without them asking us to?
We were talking a scenario where Trump sent US troops over the Canadian border to invade and capture Ottowa. Even if still very unlikely the Canadian government wouldn't have much choice but to respond then
Just had a text from my son and Canadian daughter in law in Vancouver in stitches about Trump and his ramblings
It is not going to happen, and no need to waste time on here with absurd scenarios of invading Ottawa or anywhere else in Canada
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
The King isn't only in one sense accountable to his government I'm Canada, rather than, London, though. If nothing is said when Trump lays out a plan to occupy the entire country, it seems to be an admission that the Commonwealth doesn't really exist, and possibly in the long-term our owm monarchical constitutional set-up, too.
Another increasing sense I have is that parts of the right in the U.K. will eventually have to more publicly come to terms with an underlying U.S. allegiance. That's fine, but it would require more public honesty.
I genuinely don’t understand where you are coming from. The Canadian Government isn’t going big on it (for obvious reasons) so why would they want their King or their ally to? And why would we do it without them asking us to?
We were talking a scenario where Trump sent US troops over the Canadian border to invade and capture Ottowa. Even if still very unlikely the Canadian government wouldn't have much choice but to respond then and so would the King and his UK government too on behalf of the King's realm of Canada
Oh in that scenario? Well, yes, but as you say that obviously won’t happen. I thought we were talking about Trump’s rhetoric, which the Canadian Government obviously wants to mostly downplay and ignore.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
If a plane crashes on the U.K./Ukrainian border….
Nah. I don’t fancy Belarus and we’d never beat the Poles.
Joint German-French statement against Trump threatening Greenland.
Could we have the first ever war between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other? Unlikely but at Trump's current trajectory he could be at war with most of the EU, Canada and Mexico and end up forming an alliance with Putin to attack the EU from the East. Meanwhile he also ends up in a trade war with China too.
The UK would probably have to go to war with the US to defend Canada for the first time since 1812 if Trump invaded Canada, a fellow Commonwealth realm, while Trump would also have to re enact the Alamo to hold off the Mexicans
No. For two reasons. Firstly, the Commonwealth is not a military alliance. We did nothing when the US invaded Grenada in the 1980s for instance. NATO is a military alliance, but I think NATO treaties are silent on one member attacking another - this was raised when Greece and Turkey almost went to war in 1996. So if we intervened it would be by choice.
And secondly, and much more obviously, there's precisely nothing we can do against America's vastly more powerful armed forces three thousand miles away. The obvious counterstrike would be to try and cause that landslide in the Canaries that is meant to inundate the US east coast by a tsunami at some point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja_tsunami_hazard), but that wouldn't do much to check an American invasion of Canada, and would pose a risk to other Atlantic countries.
None of it is ever remotely going to happen, but if it did, we'd do what we usually do these days - a sharp word or two of protest and then nothing. Our weakened military and America's overwhelming power give us no choice.
The US intervened in Grenada in the 1980s only to stop a Marxist coup and even then Reagan got some strong words from Thatcher. A US invasion of Canada would be a different scenario. I would suspect France would also intervene given Quebec and as I also said in the highly unlikely event Trump followed through with all his threats he could also be facing a war with Mexico on his southern flank
It was actually a coup within a Marxist dictatorship. The head chap wasn’t as batshit* Marxist as some of the others, so they murdered him for his moderation.
*he had loopy ideas, such as making sure the economy didn’t collapse rather than ideological purity.
So Trump wouldn't have lifted a finger to save him?
And/or made him Vice President of the United States. It’s Trump, after all.
Apparently Bishop was a one of those people who could talk his way *into* anything.
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
The King isn't only in one sense accountable to his government I'm Canada, rather than, London, though. If nothing is said when Trump lays out a plan to occupy the entire country, it seems to be an admission that the Commonwealth doesn't really exist, and possibly in the long-term our owm monarchical constitutional set-up, too.
Another increasing sense I have is that parts of the right in the U.K. will eventually have to more publicly come to terms with an underlying U.S. allegiance. That's fine, but it would require more public honesty.
I genuinely don’t understand where you are coming from. The Canadian Government isn’t going big on it (for obvious reasons) so why would they want their King or their ally to? And why would we do it without them asking us to?
As I remember it, the Commonwealth Charter is full of provisions on self-determination, peace and equality of nations. If a neighbour.is committed to taking over a member, obviously its head would be expected to take a position.
Starmer would then be responsible for giving Charles and the Conmonwealth its voice. So far it doesn't seem to have one.
But not without the Canadian Government asking us to…
I think the set-up of the Commonwealth is that the Head takes a position for the whole organisation. This is whyna group members were so keen to change who the head was, a few years back, now, I think.
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
Worked in France up to about 1422 then things went downhill. And I’m not sure Ireland was ever that profitable.
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
There are many reasons why people commit suicide. There is rarely just one cause and those charities dealing with it always advocate caution about blaming it on one factor alone. Sad as that case was, we only heard the father's story. It is understandable why he might blame what his daughter was seeing online for her death. But that avoids asking some other tough questions about what else was going on and why she was spending so long online. And - brutal as this might sound - is one sad case a sufficient basis for a law which has 241 sections, 12 parts and 17 schedules and still requires loads more regulations and guidance?
It's not. But is it really true to say it's based on "one sad case" ?
It's not unique. One of my neices developed anorexia severe enough for her to be hospitalised, encouraged by "pro-rexia" Social Media sites.
There's a real issue out there.
And it's hardly the only issue which was the genesis for the Act.
It's a truly badly thought out piece of legislation, but let's not pretend that simply doing nothing was a realistic option.
As Trudeau has prorogued parliament for 3 months, perhaps the King should step in to provide leadership during this tense time?
Surely the governor general will be in charge there?
Doesn't have the international profile of Charles III.
The Governor General formally exercises the King's duties in Canada day to day and of course Trudeau remains PM until the next Liberal leader and therefore PM of Canada is chosen
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
There are many reasons why people commit suicide. There is rarely just one cause and those charities dealing with it always advocate caution about blaming it on one factor alone. Sad as that case was, we only heard the father's story. It is understandable why he might blame what his daughter was seeing online for her death. But that avoids asking some other tough questions about what else was going on and why she was spending so long online. And - brutal as this might sound - is one sad case a sufficient basis for a law which has 241 sections, 12 parts and 17 schedules and still requires loads more regulations and guidance?
It's not. But is it really true to say it's based on "one sad case" ?
It's not unique. One of my neices developed anorexia severe enough for her to be hospitalised, encouraged by "pro-rexia" Social Media sites.
There's a real issue out there.
And it's hardly the only issue which was the genesis for the Act.
It's a truly badly thought out piece of legislation, but let's not pretend that simply doing nothing was a realistic option.
It’s such a complex one though. If you’re looking for those forums then you’re probably really looking for them. Will this Act, or any form of restriction, stop you or will it see you start using VPNs and gravitating to the dark web if you need to? If you do the latter, you’ll find even worse.
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
The King isn't only in one sense accountable to his government I'm Canada, rather than, London, though. If nothing is said when Trump lays out a plan to occupy the entire country, it seems to be an admission that the Commonwealth doesn't really exist, and possibly in the long-term our owm monarchical constitutional set-up, too.
Another increasing sense I have is that parts of the right in the U.K. will eventually have to more publicly come to terms with an underlying U.S. allegiance. That's fine, but it would require more public honesty.
I genuinely don’t understand where you are coming from. The Canadian Government isn’t going big on it (for obvious reasons) so why would they want their King or their ally to? And why would we do it without them asking us to?
We were talking a scenario where Trump sent US troops over the Canadian border to invade and capture Ottowa. Even if still very unlikely the Canadian government wouldn't have much choice but to respond then
Just had a text from my son and Canadian daughter in law in Vancouver in stitches about Trump and his ramblings
It is not going to happen, and no need to waste time on here with absurd scenarios of invading Ottawa or anywhere else in Canada
Very unlikely I agree but a rehash of the War of 1812 is no longer an impossibility, nor for that matter is a repeat of the Mexican and American Wars of the 1830s and 1840s
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
I don't think we're supposed to be discussing PMQ's (well not the PM/LOTO part of it anyway)
But I agree. Starmar was absolutely woeful today. I wonder if he has a smell formaldehyde about him? 😂
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
I thought they were skint too?
It would be better to invade somewhere with spare cash like Canada.
Ummm...actually, that might not be a smart suggestion right now.
I hear the Virgin Islands has a fair amount of cash, on paper at least. Rather inexplicably.
The Yanks bought their Virgin isles off Denmark in 1917, for US 25 million, by agreement of both countries, and there had been a plebiscite on the Islands previously.
Incidentally, as part of the treaty of transfer, the United States accepted a Danish demand for a declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland"
They still drive on the left in the USVI thanks to their Danish heritage - in US-built left-hand-drive vehicles massively too wide for the roads. The islands are a bit rough but 'interesting' and definitely not a suitable destination for a self-drive holiday.
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
I don't think we're supposed to be discussing PMQ's (not not the PM/LOTO part of it)
But I agree. Starmar was absolutely woeful today. I wonder is he has a smell formaldehyde about him? 😂
German-French statements, general apoplexy..and nothing from the British government on Canada. Charles is head of state of a country that the incoming President is now publicly committed to annexing.
We are becoming a slightly comical presence on the world stage.
I think we can safely ignore anything France or Germany say. Neither has a functioning government. Or an army.
Starmer has just said he wants to pay Mauritius to take Canada too.
So Britain should say nothing ? It seems not to have a voice anymore.
I thinki quietly rolling our eyes is the best response to Trump.
While tut-tutting ?
That should stop the silly chap. It'll all be over by Christmas.
But not poo pooing. Obviously.
Well, when you start with the poo-pooing, where does it all end? You poo-poo the poo-poo, which then gets poo-poo'd, and it all goes wrong. And why? Because poo-poo!
And pretty soon you are into Buffalo buffalo Buffallo buffallo buffallo Buffallo buffallo territory
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
I don't think we're supposed to be discussing PMQ's (well not the PM/LOTO part of it anyway)
But I agree. Starmar was absolutely woeful today. I wonder is he has a smell formaldehyde about him? 😂
How much would we have to pay Mauritius to take him?
I'd be willing to pay quite a bit more tax for it.
I’d put Ryanair close to the top of a list companies I’d avoid like the plague, but can absolutely support them suing a disruptive passenger for the £12,500 cost of the diversion.
I wonder how many of the passengers on board might also join the civil suit, for cancelled meetings and events etc..?
Perhaps this should remind everyone not to drink too much in the terminal if you become an idiot after too many drinks?
I’ve heard it said that, in the U.K., the airlines were told off for discussing a joint no-fly list. Get banned on one, get banned on all. The government of the time was worried about backlash….
Data Protection Act 2018 would apply?
Mind you think of all those parking ticket cases blocking up the County Courts. Surprised Ryanair found a court slot to mount a claim.
Good point but the action is being brought in the Irish courts!
Regarding Canada, I am sure the King will act as advised by his Government over there.
As will the British Government. Suggestions we make any statement about Canadian sovereignty they haven’t requested belong in the 19th century.
More generally, I have felt a bit crap this week. Full on man flu. Felt really miserable. But I have consoled myself with this thought:
At least I’m not Marco Rubio.
The King isn't only in one sense accountable to his government I'm Canada, rather than, London, though. If nothing is said when Trump lays out a plan to occupy the entire country, it seems to be an admission that the Commonwealth doesn't really exist, and possibly in the long-term our owm monarchical constitutional set-up, too.
Another increasing sense I have is that parts of the right in the U.K. will eventually have to more publicly come to terms with an underlying U.S. allegiance. That's fine, but it would require more public honesty.
I genuinely don’t understand where you are coming from. The Canadian Government isn’t going big on it (for obvious reasons) so why would they want their King or their ally to? And why would we do it without them asking us to?
We were talking a scenario where Trump sent US troops over the Canadian border to invade and capture Ottowa. Even if still very unlikely the Canadian government wouldn't have much choice but to respond then
Just had a text from my son and Canadian daughter in law in Vancouver in stitches about Trump and his ramblings
It is not going to happen, and no need to waste time on here with absurd scenarios of invading Ottawa or anywhere else in Canada
Very unlikely I agree but a rehash of the War of 1812 is no longer an impossibility, nor for that matter is a repeat of the Mexican and American Wars of the 1830s and 1840s
So how far would a column of tanks get before the Canucks wiped them out?
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
I don't think we're supposed to be discussing PMQ's (well not the PM/LOTO part of it anyway)
But I agree. Starmar was absolutely woeful today. I wonder is he has a smell formaldehyde about him? 😂
How much would we have to pay Mauritius to take him?
I'd be willing to pay quite a bit more tax for it.
Good idea. The whole country has been under a cloud of depression since he and Rachel ascended...
"British Commonwealth" is trending internationaly on twitter, which must be.a first.
No statements so far from its Head.
Seriously, the King of Canada will say nothing unless his ministers tell him to. Nor will the King of the U.K., and his ministers would need to be asked by Canada. And the Head of the Commonwealth won’t discuss Canada without consulting with… Canada.
The statements from some Canadians on the "British Commonwealth" tag on X News are rather interesting.
"Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, so stick it."
"We are British Commonwealth, so Britain won't give us up.:
Now's our chance to make CANZUK happen. Perhaps it's a shame we don't have Boris as leader at this moment as he'd be more nimble in charting a course for Britain in this new era.
"British Commonwealth" is trending internationaly on twitter, which must be.a first.
No statements so far from its Head.
Seriously, the King of Canada will say nothing unless his ministers tell him to. Nor will the King of the U.K., and his ministers would need to be asked by Canada. And the Head of the Commonwealth won’t discuss Canada without consulting with… Canada.
As I mentioned, though, that's not the leadership structure of the organisation. Otherwise, all those African countries wouldn't have been so keen to change the Head.
The statements from some Canadians on the "British Commonwealth" tag on X News are rather interesting.
"Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, so stick it."
"We are British Commonwealth, so Britain won't give us up.:
Now's our chance to make CANZUK happen. Perhaps it's a shame we don't have Boris as leader at this moment as he'd be more nimble in charting a course for Britain in this new era.
If Greenland joins and we invade the Canarys, we can describe an “I” shape across the planet.
"British Commonwealth" is trending internationaly on twitter, which must be.a first.
No statements so far from its Head.
Seriously, the King of Canada will say nothing unless his ministers tell him to. Nor will the King of the U.K., and his ministers would need to be asked by Canada. And the Head of the Commonwealth won’t discuss Canada without consulting with… Canada.
As I mentioned, though, that's not the leadership structure of the organisation. Otherwise, all those African countries wouldn't have been so keen to change the Head.
Where on earth are you getting this from? With the exception of countries on the naughty step like SA back in the day, give one example of the Head of the Commonwealth commenting on events within a Commonwealth nation without its permission, after about 1965.
The statements from some Canadians on the "British Commonwealth" tag on X News are rather interesting.
"Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, so stick it."
"We are British Commonwealth, so Britain won't give us up.:
Now's our chance to make CANZUK happen. Perhaps it's a shame we don't have Boris as leader at this moment as he'd be more nimble in charting a course for Britain in this new era.
If Greenland joins and we invade the Canarys, we can describe an “I” shape across the planet.
Or maybe Greenland instead of Canada. Then we'd be symmetrical with a big island and an archipelago at both ends.
The statements from some Canadians on the "British Commonwealth" tag on X News are rather interesting.
"Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, so stick it."
"We are British Commonwealth, so Britain won't give us up.:
Now's our chance to make CANZUK happen. Perhaps it's a shame we don't have Boris as leader at this moment as he'd be more nimble in charting a course for Britain in this new era.
I don't think so. A friend of many Trumpites, who campaigned with him.
The statements from some Canadians on the "British Commonwealth" tag on X News are rather interesting.
"Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, so stick it."
"We are British Commonwealth, so Britain won't give us up.:
Now's our chance to make CANZUK happen. Perhaps it's a shame we don't have Boris as leader at this moment as he'd be more nimble in charting a course for Britain in this new era.
I don't think so. A friend of many Trumpites, who campaigned with him.
That's why he'd be the best person to make it happen without too much pushback from Trump.
"British Commonwealth" is trending internationaly on twitter, which must be.a first.
No statements so far from its Head.
Seriously, the King of Canada will say nothing unless his ministers tell him to. Nor will the King of the U.K., and his ministers would need to be asked by Canada. And the Head of the Commonwealth won’t discuss Canada without consulting with… Canada.
As I mentioned, though, that's not the leadership structure of the organisation. Otherwise, all those African countries wouldn't have been so keen to change the Head.
Where on earth are you getting this from? With the exception of countries on the naughty step like SA back in the day, give one example of the Head of the Commonwealth commenting on events within a Commonwealth nation without its permission, after about 1965.
That sort of thing just isn’t done.
All I can go on is what seems to be the precedent. After the first Commonwealth governmemyal meeting, which turns out in Canada, the protocol seems to be that in any crisis, Charles would consult with all members, and then make his own choice of vhairman-type statement.
If Trump and Musk continue on this road, he'll have to speed up that process.
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
Yes. I was right. We can call it peak Liverpool for this season. They only got on a run due to easy run of fixtures, now they are leggy, off ball like watching players running through treacle. The press fell apart against Manchester Utd, the press was nonexistent this evening against Spurs reserves.
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
Guys, there is a ban on this subject here on PB thanks to new Online Safety issues.
I like the theory that Trump is obsessed with Greenland because he thinks it's so big, not realising that that is a misleading result of the Mercator projection.
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Sarcastic?
No - haven't you seen @TSE repeated warnings this subject is banned due to the OSA ?
Yes. I was right. We can call it peak Liverpool for this season. They only got on a run due to easy run of fixtures, now they are leggy, off ball like watching players running through treacle. The press fell apart against Manchester Utd, the press was nonexistent this evening against Spurs reserves.
Let's see how they crumble at the City Ground againt the Mighty Reds....
So how much extra income tax is everyone prepared to pay in order for the country to afford vast increases in military spending?
None. We borrow up front to increase the size and capability of the armed forces, and then pay it back by ransacking France and Ireland like the old days.
I thought they were skint too?
It would be better to invade somewhere with spare cash like Canada.
Ummm...actually, that might not be a smart suggestion right now.
I hear the Virgin Islands has a fair amount of cash, on paper at least. Rather inexplicably.
The Yanks bought their Virgin isles off Denmark in 1917, for US 25 million, by agreement of both countries, and there had been a plebiscite on the Islands previously.
Incidentally, as part of the treaty of transfer, the United States accepted a Danish demand for a declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland"
They still drive on the left in the USVI thanks to their Danish heritage - in US-built left-hand-drive vehicles massively too wide for the roads. The islands are a bit rough but 'interesting' and definitely not a suitable destination for a self-drive holiday.
I went there in the 1970s, flying with the famous "Antillies Airboats" airline. They flew ex-war Grumman Goose's between the islands, landing in the harbour, then taxi-ing up the slipway. We flew from St Croix to St Thomas on them, over to St John, and the BVI, then vin a Short Sandringham flying boat to Puerto Rico. I think it likely that we flew on the one that the boss pranged and died in a few years later.
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Sarcastic?
No - haven't you seen @TSE repeated warnings this subject is banned due to the OSA ?
Chilling.
The UK desperately needs that Act repealing and a First Amendment replacement.
It doesn't matter that Musk etc are batshit crazy, that power could be abused by anyone.
I like the theory that Trump is obsessed with Greenland because he thinks it's so big, not realising that that is a misleading result of the Mercator projection.
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Sarcastic?
No - haven't you seen @TSE repeated warnings this subject is banned due to the OSA ?
Chilling.
The UK desperately needs that Act repealing and a First Amendment replacement.
It doesn't matter that Musk etc are batshit crazy, that power could be abused by anyone.
It is chilling if people on a forum about politics cannot discuss the exchange between the prime minister and the LOTO at PMQs. That CANNOT be the intention of the OSA.
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Sarcastic?
No - haven't you seen @TSE repeated warnings this subject is banned due to the OSA ?
Chilling.
The UK desperately needs that Act repealing and a First Amendment replacement.
It doesn't matter that Musk etc are batshit crazy, that power could be abused by anyone.
It is chilling if people on a forum about politics cannot discuss the exchange between the prime minister and the LOTO at PMQs. That CANNOT be the intention of the OSA.
As TSE has repeatedly advised us, it's not due to the OSA but because discussion of the topic stimulated a number of defamatory posts.
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Sarcastic?
No - haven't you seen @TSE repeated warnings this subject is banned due to the OSA ?
Chilling.
The UK desperately needs that Act repealing and a First Amendment replacement.
It doesn't matter that Musk etc are batshit crazy, that power could be abused by anyone.
@Cyclefree has done an excellent header on this subject and it seems the ECHR may be the only forum to appeal to but in the meantime PB must listen to @TSE or PB will not survive
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Sarcastic?
No - haven't you seen @TSE repeated warnings this subject is banned due to the OSA ?
Chilling.
The UK desperately needs that Act repealing and a First Amendment replacement.
It doesn't matter that Musk etc are batshit crazy, that power could be abused by anyone.
It is chilling if people on a forum about politics cannot discuss the exchange between the prime minister and the LOTO at PMQs. That CANNOT be the intention of the OSA.
As TSE has repeatedly advised us, it's not due to the OSA but because discussion of the topic stimulated a number of defamtory posts.
In which discussing PMQs is fine, and posters are incorrect to suggest discussing it are banned?
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Sarcastic?
No - haven't you seen @TSE repeated warnings this subject is banned due to the OSA ?
Chilling.
The UK desperately needs that Act repealing and a First Amendment replacement.
It doesn't matter that Musk etc are batshit crazy, that power could be abused by anyone.
It is chilling if people on a forum about politics cannot discuss the exchange between the prime minister and the LOTO at PMQs. That CANNOT be the intention of the OSA.
As TSE has repeatedly advised us, it's not due to the OSA but because discussion of the topic stimulated a number of defamtory posts.
@TSE has coupled it with the OSA and at least on the banned subject we should all know it is not to be discussed
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Sarcastic?
No - haven't you seen @TSE repeated warnings this subject is banned due to the OSA ?
Chilling.
The UK desperately needs that Act repealing and a First Amendment replacement.
It doesn't matter that Musk etc are batshit crazy, that power could be abused by anyone.
It is chilling if people on a forum about politics cannot discuss the exchange between the prime minister and the LOTO at PMQs. That CANNOT be the intention of the OSA.
As TSE has repeatedly advised us, it's not due to the OSA but because discussion of the topic stimulated a number of defamtory posts.
In which discussing PMQs is fine, and posters are incorrect to suggest discussing it are banned?
It is banned by @TSE and that ban must be respected if we want PB to continue
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?
Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.
The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.
The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
There are many reasons why people commit suicide. There is rarely just one cause and those charities dealing with it always advocate caution about blaming it on one factor alone. Sad as that case was, we only heard the father's story. It is understandable why he might blame what his daughter was seeing online for her death. But that avoids asking some other tough questions about what else was going on and why she was spending so long online. And - brutal as this might sound - is one sad case a sufficient basis for a law which has 241 sections, 12 parts and 17 schedules and still requires loads more regulations and guidance?
It's not. But is it really true to say it's based on "one sad case" ?
It's not unique. One of my neices developed anorexia severe enough for her to be hospitalised, encouraged by "pro-rexia" Social Media sites.
There's a real issue out there.
And it's hardly the only issue which was the genesis for the Act.
It's a truly badly thought out piece of legislation, but let's not pretend that simply doing nothing was a realistic option.
It’s such a complex one though. If you’re looking for those forums then you’re probably really looking for them. Will this Act, or any form of restriction, stop you or will it see you start using VPNs and gravitating to the dark web if you need to? If you do the latter, you’ll find even worse.
We need to really think about this one.
Oh, I'm not defending the Act itself. But if you're going to attack it, suggesting that there's no problem to be addressed, including by legislation, is not a sensible strategy.
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Sarcastic?
No. @TheScreamingEagles has repeatedly and clearly said that, until further notice, it's a banned topic for discussion. Posters were getting carried away and posting potentially libellous comments - fur which gets site can be liable.
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
The Tories were in power a long time and made many mistakes. That is true. But they are now in Opposition and their role now is to probe, ask questions and subject the government to scrutiny for THEIR decisions.
Otherwise what is the point of the Opposition?
I thought Kemi did very well today and Starmer was woeful (easily his worse performance since July)
Catching up, but Kemi Badenoch did a very good job at PMQs I thought. Sir Funeral Director scraped through with his righteous chin wobbling indignation that anyone should dare to put his vital child welfare bill in jeopardy, but it was fairly thin stuff and I think Kemi had the best of it and it wasn't close.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
I think you should delete that post as it is a banned subject
Sarcastic?
No. @TheScreamingEagles has repeatedly and clearly said that, until further notice, it's a banned topic for discussion. Posters were getting carried away and posting potentially libellous comments - fur which gets site can be liable.
I can respect that, but surely discussing PMQs is not the same thing?
Comments
https://www.reddit.com/r/GermanHumour/
If nothing is said when Trump lays out a plan to occupy the entire country, it seems to be an admission that the Commonwealth doesn't really exist, and possibly in the long-term our owm monarchical constitutional set-up, too.
Another increasing sense I have is that parts of the right in the U.K. will eventually have to more publicly come to terms with an underlying U.S. allegiance. That's fine, but it would require more public honesty.
Mind you think of all those parking ticket cases blocking up the County Courts. Surprised Ryanair found a court slot to mount a claim.
https://www.cbc.ca/news
The G has confused the announcement with the abdication by the look.
But is it really true to say it's based on "one sad case" ?
Starmer would then be responsible for giving Charles and the Conmonwealth its voice. So far it doesn't seem to have one.
Incidentally, as part of the treaty of transfer, the United States accepted a Danish demand for a declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland"
*he had loopy ideas, such as making sure the economy didn’t collapse rather than ideological purity.
There's a real issue out there.
It is not going to happen, and no need to waste time on here with absurd scenarios of invading Ottawa or anywhere else in Canada
Apparently Bishop was a one of those people who could talk his way *into* anything.
It's a truly badly thought out piece of legislation, but let's not pretend that simply doing nothing was a realistic option.
This lengthy piece of work from 2019 is worth a read.
https://carnegieuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Online-harm-reduction-a-statutory-duty-of-care-and-regulator-2.pdf
She's Inuk, which is a same ethnicity found in Greenland.
We need to really think about this one.
https://x.com/thatginamiller/status/1876571217055871245
And who's Justine Trudeau? Is that his "non-binary" name?
But I agree. Starmar was absolutely woeful today. I wonder if he has a smell formaldehyde about him? 😂
I'd be willing to pay quite a bit more tax for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFKdg-WQnbE
No statements so far from its Head.
https://x.com/HowardCCox/status/1877048451428384782
"Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, so stick it."
"We are British Commonwealth, so Britain won't give us up.:
Otherwise, all those African countries wouldn't have been so keen to change the Head.
That sort of thing just isn’t done.
He's going to have to at some point.
All your bases are now belong to us”.
Take the Gr from Greenland and the “anada” from Canada.
Not woke enough for Trudeau though… need to be trans-inclusive
So: Granada TV.
https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/10/02/chaos-grips-italys-rail-network-as-trains-fail-to-depart-from-romes-two-biggest-stations
If Trump and Musk continue on this road, he'll have to speed up that process.
When Starmer asked Kemi “have you ever mentioned this before Musk did, as MP or Minister” and Kemi couldn’t answer, that was the zinger that won it for Starmer today.
That in a nutshell is the Tory weakness trying to match Reform on this, it’s so transparent they didn’t ask these questions till in opposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilles_Air_Boats
My Dad loved flying, though gave up his licence after leaving the RAF. He didn't trust civvy maintenance engineers.
The UK desperately needs that Act repealing and a First Amendment replacement.
It doesn't matter that Musk etc are batshit crazy, that power could be abused by anyone.
But if you're going to attack it, suggesting that there's no problem to be addressed, including by legislation, is not a sensible strategy.
@TheScreamingEagles has repeatedly and clearly said that, until further notice, it's a banned topic for discussion.
Posters were getting carried away and posting potentially libellous comments - fur which gets site can be liable.
Otherwise what is the point of the Opposition?
I thought Kemi did very well today and Starmer was woeful (easily his worse performance since July)