The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Are we allowed to say that Starmer is terrible at politics?
You’re still here an hour and a half later, so yes.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
But that day isn't today.
If this really is the case - that the OSB has made it effectively illegal to discuss certain topics online - this seems remarkable. This needs rather more attention than it has been given
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil. “After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.” “You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
Are they gender-neutral toilets?
The beauty of the PB toilets are they can be whatever you want them to be, without anyone taking offence back there. I lived in them for six months.
https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570 On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.
“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.
All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas and rightly so
There has been something of a longstanding taboo against taking out national leaders.
For better, or for worse, it looks as though that is being extinguished.
That will have global implications.
What taboo?
The IRA targeted Thatcher.
Many leaders have over time been killed, and many executed following wars or revolutions too. Its been difficult to get at leaders typically.
It's one thing if a terrorist group does it, another if a state does it.
If a state is doing it as a part of war, then its a just target.
Don't go to war if you don't want to fight. Leadership are legitimate, just targets.
A thousand years of western ethics says otherwise.
But you’ve already said that you don’t accept the logical basis for their analysis.
For the LOLs, they should send out Darren Jones to defend this latest U-Turn.
“Previously we couldn’t afford it because Liz Truss left a black hole but now that we’ve fixed the foundations, it’s right that these questions should be answered.”
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
But that day isn't today.
If this really is the case - that the OSB has made it effectively illegal to discuss certain topics online - this seems remarkable. This needs rather more attention than it has been given
It's not so much that, the issue in the past somebody posted something problematic a quick deletion would nip the problem in the bud.
Now if it happens on a regular basis then it presents a serious harm and a quick deletion might not fix it.
The good news is I will be publishing a piece on the grooming story on Monday by Cyclefree and I will allowing most PBers to talk about but until no further comments on this story.
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil. “After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.” “You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
Are they gender-neutral toilets?
The beauty of the PB toilets are they can be whatever you want them to be, without anyone taking offence back there. I lived in them for six months.
https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570 On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.
“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.
All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas and rightly so
There has been something of a longstanding taboo against taking out national leaders.
For better, or for worse, it looks as though that is being extinguished.
That will have global implications.
What taboo?
The IRA targeted Thatcher.
Many leaders have over time been killed, and many executed following wars or revolutions too. Its been difficult to get at leaders typically.
It's one thing if a terrorist group does it, another if a state does it.
If a state is doing it as a part of war, then its a just target.
Don't go to war if you don't want to fight. Leadership are legitimate, just targets.
A thousand years of western ethics says otherwise.
But you’ve already said that you don’t accept the logical basis for their analysis.
For the LOLs, they should send out Darren Jones to defend this latest U-Turn.
“Previously we couldn’t afford it because Liz Truss left a black hole but now that we’ve fixed the foundations, it’s right that these questions should be answered.”
And of course it was only women responsible....its inaccurate to say it was 90% men.
Iran has enough enriched uranium to make 50 nuclear bombs, and there is intelligence to show it was planning to weaponise it, Israel said.
Don't Panic Mr Mainwaring, Don't Panic.....
The IAEA say enough for 9.
Its difficult who to believe, because the IAEA don't have access to Mossad intel (and its clear they have access into Iran), but the Israelis can be less than truthful. But 9 seems more than enough to be worried.
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil. “After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.” “You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
Are they gender-neutral toilets?
The beauty of the PB toilets are they can be whatever you want them to be, without anyone taking offence back there. I lived in them for six months.
Isam’s snoring kept us all awake at night.
Test
It was a fantastic Ultimate Test, my dad and me was glued to it. Bowled out for 130 in first innings but still won.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Are we able to know those words so we don’t use them .
Appreciate posting it here may be an issue, someone can take one for the team.
Department Q. Saw a pretty negative review by @Leon a day or so ago. Just watched the first episode.
Several things a bit irritating. Why are counsel in court not wearing wigs? One at least has a white bow tie on so is definitely counsel but no wig. Defence in a murder case would be senior counsel and thus be wearing a fall as well as a wig. Weird lack of attention to detail.
The missing woman is an Advocate Depute (as am I). Court 6 is not a criminal court. We really don't have time to watch each others cases, not even the murders. To be doing a murder case, let alone a high profile one, she would have been an AD for at least 2 years.
Anyone threatening an AD because of the work they are doing would find all hell breaking loose with cybercrime all over their phone, their supplier and CCTV looking everywhere they have been. No one has really bothered for 4 years?? That's ridiculous. The whole thing smacks of poor homework.
There are also an exceptional number of cliches in the characters. But...it has something. Certainly enough to watch episode 2.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Are we able to know those words so we don’t use them .
Appreciate posting it here may be an issue, someone can take one for the team.
It's generally a variation on grooming/rape gangs.
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil. “After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.” “You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
Are they gender-neutral toilets?
The beauty of the PB toilets are they can be whatever you want them to be, without anyone taking offence back there. I lived in them for six months.
Isam’s snoring kept us all awake at night.
Test
What happened, Sunil? Did you visit R*c*d*l* station recently?
"Israel did not inform the UK Government before striking Iran, as they consider the Labour Government 'unreliable'"- The Times
Translation: "We don't like people criticizing our genocide!"
Striking the Iranian government is epically stupid but not a genocide.
The resumption of hostilities in Gaza, however..
The Israelis must be confident that they have neutered Hamas and Hezbollah, because attacks on Iran would in previous times results in masses of rockets being fired from Gaza and Lebanon.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Are we able to know those words so we don’t use them .
Appreciate posting it here may be an issue, someone can take one for the team.
It's generally a variation on grooming/rape gangs.
I should be okay then as it’s a subject I give a most wide berth to.
UK moving planes to middle east to help with the recent outbreak of peace
'Moving planes' sounds like the military equivalent of an ambitious politician installing telephone lines.
One of my favourite Dick Barton radio drama's hinges on the Post Office only having been informed about a new phone line being needed some 36 weeks ago. Thankfully! That wasn't enough time so the dastardly baddies were foiled.
Love a bit of self-aware British satire in my melodrama...
Starmer is truly shit at politics. Like the worst.
I honestly thought that we could not get a worse PM than Liz Truss and then Keir Starmer said hold my beer.. And just like Liz Truss, Keir Starmer is now acting like a rabbit caught in headlights and totally disconnected from his own No10 Comms team and Cabinet.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
I realised he was nothing but trouble from the start. A complete wrong un 😇
Too Big, Too Welsh, Too G!
All we need is Sunil banned too, and we will know Dura Ace is holding the ban hammer tonight, for the long needed weeding out of those not made of the right stuff.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
Just doing things I enjoy really.
Bloody Hell.....I remember them taking a turn for the worse a few weeks ago.
Iran has enough enriched uranium to make 50 nuclear bombs, and there is intelligence to show it was planning to weaponise it, Israel said.
Don't Panic Mr Mainwaring, Don't Panic.....
The IAEA say enough for 9.
9 or 50 doesn't matter, one is one too many. We cannot allow a Iran to have nukes. It's a one way ticket to Israel's total destruction.
If the enriched uranium is in the nuclear facility under the mountain then I'm not sure what Israel are going to do about it and how hitting Iranian fossil fuel infrastructure on the gulf is going to help destroy it.
The risk is that the Israelis have left it too late, aren't able to finish the job, and motivate Iran to move to a usable bomb as quickly as possible, wrecking any chance of negotiations staying their hand.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
Just doing things I enjoy really.
I hadn't seen that Ms Free was that ill. Best wishes and thoughts to her.
Iran has enough enriched uranium to make 50 nuclear bombs, and there is intelligence to show it was planning to weaponise it, Israel said.
Don't Panic Mr Mainwaring, Don't Panic.....
The IAEA say enough for 9.
9 or 50 doesn't matter, one is one too many. We cannot allow a Iran to have nukes. It's a one way ticket to Israel's total destruction.
If the enriched uranium is in the nuclear facility under the mountain then I'm not sure what Israel are going to do about it and how hitting Iranian fossil fuel infrastructure on the gulf is going to help destroy it.
The risk is that the Israelis have left it too late, aren't able to finish the job, and motivate Iran to move to a usable bomb as quickly as possible, wrecking any chance of negotiations staying their hand.
Israel have shown they have been able to operate on the ground within Iran. I would think its nobody will ever know the full extent of their activities.
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil. “After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.” “You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
Are they gender-neutral toilets?
The beauty of the PB toilets are they can be whatever you want them to be, without anyone taking offence back there. I lived in them for six months.
Isam’s snoring kept us all awake at night.
Test
What happened, Sunil? Did you visit R*c*d*l* station recently?
Been to the Tram stop terminal, but not the rail station. Back in 2016.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
Just doing things I enjoy really.
I hadn't seen that Ms Free was that ill. Best wishes and thoughts to her.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
Just doing things I enjoy really.
Best wishes to her. Bearing her extreme ill fortune with considerable grace, by the sounds of it.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
Just doing things I enjoy really.
I had missed cyclefree's ills and wish her and her family all the best.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
Just doing things I enjoy really.
I am so sorry to hear this news, my thoughts and best wishes go out to Cyclefree.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
Just doing things I enjoy really.
I hadn't seen that Ms Free was that ill. Best wishes and thoughts to her.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
But that day isn't today.
If this really is the case - that the OSB has made it effectively illegal to discuss certain topics online - this seems remarkable. This needs rather more attention than it has been given
What was the name of the previous bill which had a similar outcome, early-ish internet days? I remember a fair few forums closing down as they couldn't take the risk back in the early/mid 2000s.
ChatGPT tells me it was the existing plaintiff-friendly laws and the Defamation Act 1996.
---
UK Libel Law (Pre-2013)
UK defamation law was notoriously plaintiff-friendly before 2013. Forum owners and ISPs could be held liable for defamatory content posted by users, even if they didn’t create it. There was no strong "safe harbour" like in the US’s Section 230 — so if someone posted something defamatory on your forum, you could be sued for it as a publisher, unless you acted quickly to remove it.
Key Pressures on Forums:
Many small UK-based forums and online communities began shutting down in the early-to-mid 2000s out of fear of being sued for user comments. Moderation wasn't always practical or effective at scale, especially without resources or legal know-how. Legal threats (and actual lawsuits) were sometimes made by individuals or companies against forums for posts by users.
Timeline Context:
This was during the rise of early user-generated content: forums, blogs, early social media, etc. The Godfrey v Demon Internet (2001) case reinforced that ISPs could be liable if they didn’t remove defamatory content after being notified — and this logic applied to forum operators too. Things didn't start to shift until the Defamation Act 2013, which introduced some protections for website operators.
In CASH news I had someone in our shop try to pay for an 80p purchase on a card.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
"Israel did not inform the UK Government before striking Iran, as they consider the Labour Government 'unreliable'"- The Times
Translation: "We don't like people criticizing our genocide!"
Striking the Iranian government is epically stupid but not a genocide.
The resumption of hostilities in Gaza, however..
The Israelis must be confident that they have neutered Hamas and Hezbollah, because attacks on Iran would in previous times results in masses of rockets being fired from Gaza and Lebanon.
In CASH news I had someone in our shop try to pay for an 80p purchase on a card.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
EDIT - sorry, banhammer fears
C*SH
I was under the impression that debit cards the fees were tiny so that was ok, it was credit cards where the fee was a problem?
In CASH news I had someone in our shop try to pay for an 80p purchase on a card.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
When I was young, and not quite as much of a good boy as I am now, I had taken some... 100% not 'acid' (no).
And 100% didn't wander to a local corner shop with a craving for wine gums.
Then try and buy a single wine gum as I only had 2p with me. The shop owner - whether horrified or sympathetic - sold it to me and gave me 1p change.
"Israel did not inform the UK Government before striking Iran, as they consider the Labour Government 'unreliable'"- The Times
Translation: "We don't like people criticizing our genocide!"
Striking the Iranian government is epically stupid but not a genocide.
The resumption of hostilities in Gaza, however..
The Israelis must be confident that they have neutered Hamas and Hezbollah, because attacks on Iran would in previous times results in masses of rockets being fired from Gaza and Lebanon.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
But that day isn't today.
If this really is the case - that the OSB has made it effectively illegal to discuss certain topics online - this seems remarkable. This needs rather more attention than it has been given
What was the name of the previous bill which had a similar outcome, early-ish internet days? I remember a fair few forums closing down as they couldn't take the risk back in the early/mid 2000s.
ChatGPT tells me it was the existing plaintiff-friendly laws and the Defamation Act 1996.
---
UK Libel Law (Pre-2013)
UK defamation law was notoriously plaintiff-friendly before 2013. Forum owners and ISPs could be held liable for defamatory content posted by users, even if they didn’t create it. There was no strong "safe harbour" like in the US’s Section 230 — so if someone posted something defamatory on your forum, you could be sued for it as a publisher, unless you acted quickly to remove it.
Key Pressures on Forums:
Many small UK-based forums and online communities began shutting down in the early-to-mid 2000s out of fear of being sued for user comments. Moderation wasn't always practical or effective at scale, especially without resources or legal know-how. Legal threats (and actual lawsuits) were sometimes made by individuals or companies against forums for posts by users.
Timeline Context:
This was during the rise of early user-generated content: forums, blogs, early social media, etc. The Godfrey v Demon Internet (2001) case reinforced that ISPs could be liable if they didn’t remove defamatory content after being notified — and this logic applied to forum operators too. Things didn't start to shift until the Defamation Act 2013, which introduced some protections for website operators.
Just an FYI,
Because the Vanilla spam trap is a bit of a blunt tool, posting lots of AI generated chat can also lead to issues.
The most significant pieces of news so far today on the Israel vs Iran front.
1. The reported airstrikes on Iranian gas and oil facilities. Israel communicated to Iran to not target civilian population centres or see their energy infrastructure be attacked in return. The assumption is after the hits on Israeli residential locations, Israel was sending the signal.
2. Israeli boasts that their aircraft will be seen over Tehran soon. That will look ugly if they do it. Everything from the air so far has been reportedly stand off using Syrian and iraqi airspace with minimal activity in Iranian airspace.
3. Very little info on material damage from Iran. The IAEA info is probably the most useful on damage to nuclear related facilities but that is not all Israelis are hitting. The Internet has been shut off for damage control, limiting target location info tracking and to try to hide signs of reply.
In fact, Israel hasn't exactly released tons of images either.
4. Few signs of Iranian ground or air based defence. It does exist but hasn't merely missed, it hasn't fired a lot of shots.
Iranian has promised a sizeable response tonight, let's see if they do.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
Just doing things I enjoy really.
I hadn't seen that Ms Free was that ill. Best wishes and thoughts to her.
In CASH news I had someone in our shop try to pay for an 80p purchase on a card.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
When I was young, and not quite as much of a good boy as I am now, I had taken some... 100% not 'acid' (no).
And 100% didn't wander to a local corner shop with a craving for wine gums.
Then try and buy a single wine gum as I only had 2p with me. The shop owner - whether horrified or sympathetic - sold it to me and gave me 1p change.
Which was remade recently as a chocolate advert. I preferred your version.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
But that day isn't today.
If this really is the case - that the OSB has made it effectively illegal to discuss certain topics online - this seems remarkable. This needs rather more attention than it has been given
What was the name of the previous bill which had a similar outcome, early-ish internet days? I remember a fair few forums closing down as they couldn't take the risk back in the early/mid 2000s.
ChatGPT tells me it was the existing plaintiff-friendly laws and the Defamation Act 1996.
---
UK Libel Law (Pre-2013)
UK defamation law was notoriously plaintiff-friendly before 2013. Forum owners and ISPs could be held liable for defamatory content posted by users, even if they didn’t create it. There was no strong "safe harbour" like in the US’s Section 230 — so if someone posted something defamatory on your forum, you could be sued for it as a publisher, unless you acted quickly to remove it.
Key Pressures on Forums:
Many small UK-based forums and online communities began shutting down in the early-to-mid 2000s out of fear of being sued for user comments. Moderation wasn't always practical or effective at scale, especially without resources or legal know-how. Legal threats (and actual lawsuits) were sometimes made by individuals or companies against forums for posts by users.
Timeline Context:
This was during the rise of early user-generated content: forums, blogs, early social media, etc. The Godfrey v Demon Internet (2001) case reinforced that ISPs could be liable if they didn’t remove defamatory content after being notified — and this logic applied to forum operators too. Things didn't start to shift until the Defamation Act 2013, which introduced some protections for website operators.
Just an FYI,
Because the Vanilla spam trap is a bit of a blunt tool, posting lots of AI generated chat can also lead to issues.
Speccy writers are going to be in right old trouble. Good job one of them post on here.
In CASH news I had someone in our shop try to pay for an 80p purchase on a card.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
In CASH news I had someone in our shop try to pay for an 80p purchase on a card.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
EDIT - sorry, banhammer fears
C*SH
Thing is, Rochdale, most people nowadays don't carry cash with them. But you have a float perhaps? ... Well you must have if you're dealing in cash. So charge them a fiver on their card and give them £4.20 change.
In CASH news I had someone in our shop try to pay for an 80p purchase on a card.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil. “After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.” “You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
Are they gender-neutral toilets?
The beauty of the PB toilets are they can be whatever you want them to be, without anyone taking offence back there. I lived in them for six months.
Isam’s snoring kept us all awake at night.
Wuss. Over two years. OVER TWO YEARS. I should have a badge. Or possibly a hat.
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil. “After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.” “You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
Are they gender-neutral toilets?
The beauty of the PB toilets are they can be whatever you want them to be, without anyone taking offence back there. I lived in them for six months.
Isam’s snoring kept us all awake at night.
Wuss. Over two years. OVER TWO YEARS. I should have a badge. Or possibly a hat.
My original username still lives in a Ubend to this day
In CASH news I had someone in our shop try to pay for an 80p purchase on a card.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
EDIT - sorry, banhammer fears
C*SH
I went to a bank to close a mortgage-registered savings account last week and asked for a cheque for the closing balance. The member of bank staff said something along the lines of, "if the balance is only €1,000 and a bit it's not worth the trouble of making a cheque for it. Sure we'll just give it to you in cash." And so I walked around with €1,500 in cash for the rest of the day.
Iran has enough enriched uranium to make 50 nuclear bombs, and there is intelligence to show it was planning to weaponise it, Israel said.
Don't Panic Mr Mainwaring, Don't Panic.....
The IAEA say enough for 9.
9 or 50 doesn't matter, one is one too many. We cannot allow a Iran to have nukes. It's a one way ticket to Israel's total destruction.
While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think that's realistically possible. We can slow them down, sure. But short of either (a) a full scale invasion, or (b) regime change, then they will continue to walk down the path.
A nuclear bomb is ultimately nothing more than a suitably large amount of enriched uranium, and a shaped charge. The charge used to be precision engineering. Now it is childs play.
It is the enrichment that is the difficult bit - hence Stuxnet hitting the Iranian centrifuges. But while the pace of Iran obtaining fissionable material has been slow, every year they've managed to get a little more. And I don't see how (short of a or b above) we are going to be able to remove existing enriched uranium from them. It will be somewhere extremely secure, under a mountain or equivalent.
I suspect it will be easier to limit Iran's ability to produce a delivery device. Because a bomb on its own is not that useful without a way of getting it to one's target.
Someone using 'AI' video generators to create Star Wars Stormtrooper vlogs. Really quite well done. (Some clips on YT for the non-insta people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YHxr21VFz0 )
In CASH news I had someone in our shop try to pay for an 80p purchase on a card.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
EDIT - sorry, banhammer fears
C*SH
What's a fiat token?
"Fiat" is a monetary unit whose value is nominal (eg £1=£1), instead of one which is secured against something else (eg £1=two units of gold)
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
But that day isn't today.
If this really is the case - that the OSB has made it effectively illegal to discuss certain topics online - this seems remarkable. This needs rather more attention than it has been given
What was the name of the previous bill which had a similar outcome, early-ish internet days? I remember a fair few forums closing down as they couldn't take the risk back in the early/mid 2000s.
ChatGPT tells me it was the existing plaintiff-friendly laws and the Defamation Act 1996.
---
UK Libel Law (Pre-2013)
UK defamation law was notoriously plaintiff-friendly before 2013. Forum owners and ISPs could be held liable for defamatory content posted by users, even if they didn’t create it. There was no strong "safe harbour" like in the US’s Section 230 — so if someone posted something defamatory on your forum, you could be sued for it as a publisher, unless you acted quickly to remove it.
Key Pressures on Forums:
Many small UK-based forums and online communities began shutting down in the early-to-mid 2000s out of fear of being sued for user comments. Moderation wasn't always practical or effective at scale, especially without resources or legal know-how. Legal threats (and actual lawsuits) were sometimes made by individuals or companies against forums for posts by users.
Timeline Context:
This was during the rise of early user-generated content: forums, blogs, early social media, etc. The Godfrey v Demon Internet (2001) case reinforced that ISPs could be liable if they didn’t remove defamatory content after being notified — and this logic applied to forum operators too. Things didn't start to shift until the Defamation Act 2013, which introduced some protections for website operators.
Just an FYI,
Because the Vanilla spam trap is a bit of a blunt tool, posting lots of AI generated chat can also lead to issues.
Speccy writers are going to be in right old trouble. Good job one of them post on here.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
But that day isn't today.
If this really is the case - that the OSB has made it effectively illegal to discuss certain topics online - this seems remarkable. This needs rather more attention than it has been given
What was the name of the previous bill which had a similar outcome, early-ish internet days? I remember a fair few forums closing down as they couldn't take the risk back in the early/mid 2000s.
ChatGPT tells me it was the existing plaintiff-friendly laws and the Defamation Act 1996.
---
UK Libel Law (Pre-2013)
UK defamation law was notoriously plaintiff-friendly before 2013. Forum owners and ISPs could be held liable for defamatory content posted by users, even if they didn’t create it. There was no strong "safe harbour" like in the US’s Section 230 — so if someone posted something defamatory on your forum, you could be sued for it as a publisher, unless you acted quickly to remove it.
Key Pressures on Forums:
Many small UK-based forums and online communities began shutting down in the early-to-mid 2000s out of fear of being sued for user comments. Moderation wasn't always practical or effective at scale, especially without resources or legal know-how. Legal threats (and actual lawsuits) were sometimes made by individuals or companies against forums for posts by users.
Timeline Context:
This was during the rise of early user-generated content: forums, blogs, early social media, etc. The Godfrey v Demon Internet (2001) case reinforced that ISPs could be liable if they didn’t remove defamatory content after being notified — and this logic applied to forum operators too. Things didn't start to shift until the Defamation Act 2013, which introduced some protections for website operators.
Just an FYI,
Because the Vanilla spam trap is a bit of a blunt tool, posting lots of AI generated chat can also lead to issues.
Speccy writers are going to be in right old trouble. Good job one of them post on here.
The most significant pieces of news so far today on the Israel vs Iran front.
1. The reported airstrikes on Iranian gas and oil facilities. Israel communicated to Iran to not target civilian population centres or see their energy infrastructure be attacked in return. The assumption is after the hits on Israeli residential locations, Israel was sending the signal.
2. Israeli boasts that their aircraft will be seen over Tehran soon. That will look ugly if they do it. Everything from the air so far has been reportedly stand off using Syrian and iraqi airspace with minimal activity in Iranian airspace.
3. Very little info on material damage from Iran. The IAEA info is probably the most useful on damage to nuclear related facilities but that is not all Israelis are hitting. The Internet has been shut off for damage control, limiting target location info tracking and to try to hide signs of reply.
In fact, Israel hasn't exactly released tons of images either.
4. Few signs of Iranian ground or air based defence. It does exist but hasn't merely missed, it hasn't fired a lot of shots.
Iranian has promised a sizeable response tonight, let's see if they do.
I don't think Iran has the ability to precision target anything smaller than "in the general viscinity of Israel".
Department Q. Saw a pretty negative review by @Leon a day or so ago. Just watched the first episode.
Several things a bit irritating. Why are counsel in court not wearing wigs? One at least has a white bow tie on so is definitely counsel but no wig. Defence in a murder case would be senior counsel and thus be wearing a fall as well as a wig. Weird lack of attention to detail.
The missing woman is an Advocate Depute (as am I). Court 6 is not a criminal court. We really don't have time to watch each others cases, not even the murders. To be doing a murder case, let alone a high profile one, she would have been an AD for at least 2 years.
Anyone threatening an AD because of the work they are doing would find all hell breaking loose with cybercrime all over their phone, their supplier and CCTV looking everywhere they have been. No one has really bothered for 4 years?? That's ridiculous. The whole thing smacks of poor homework.
There are also an exceptional number of cliches in the characters. But...it has something. Certainly enough to watch episode 2.
There's no chance the PFO/Police Scotland have offices that swanky, right? A mistake Slow Horses made too with the main MI5 base.
If @Cyclefree reads here, just to say I don't really believe in any cancer being incurable. I have no doubt that people in your position have been fully and completely cured and their health restored, and I suspect their stories and protocols are online if one goes searching.
Doctors aren't there to restore your health, they are there to recommend whatever the conventional drugs or surgeries are for your condition, and allocate it according to a formula. Your health is in your hands.
I applaud your approach to life though - that's what we should all be doing.
Someone using 'AI' video generators to create Star Wars Stormtrooper vlogs. Really quite well done. (Some clips on YT for the non-insta people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YHxr21VFz0 )
In CASH news I had someone in our shop try to pay for an 80p purchase on a card.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
EDIT - sorry, banhammer fears
C*SH
I went to a bank to close a mortgage-registered savings account last week and asked for a cheque for the closing balance. The member of bank staff said something along the lines of, "if the balance is only €1,000 and a bit it's not worth the trouble of making a cheque for it. Sure we'll just give it to you in cash." And so I walked around with €1,500 in cash for the rest of the day.
"Mr O'Neill asked Mr Ahern if it was not an "unusual approach to one's finances".
"I didn't consider it unusual, quite frankly, then or now," Mr Ahern said. "Ordinary people, Mr O'Neill, go into pubs and cash their wages cheques . . . it's not extraordinary."
"But . . . you were the minister for finance at the time," Mr O'Neill said."
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
But that day isn't today.
If this really is the case - that the OSB has made it effectively illegal to discuss certain topics online - this seems remarkable. This needs rather more attention than it has been given
What was the name of the previous bill which had a similar outcome, early-ish internet days? I remember a fair few forums closing down as they couldn't take the risk back in the early/mid 2000s.
ChatGPT tells me it was the existing plaintiff-friendly laws and the Defamation Act 1996.
---
UK Libel Law (Pre-2013)
UK defamation law was notoriously plaintiff-friendly before 2013. Forum owners and ISPs could be held liable for defamatory content posted by users, even if they didn’t create it. There was no strong "safe harbour" like in the US’s Section 230 — so if someone posted something defamatory on your forum, you could be sued for it as a publisher, unless you acted quickly to remove it.
Key Pressures on Forums:
Many small UK-based forums and online communities began shutting down in the early-to-mid 2000s out of fear of being sued for user comments. Moderation wasn't always practical or effective at scale, especially without resources or legal know-how. Legal threats (and actual lawsuits) were sometimes made by individuals or companies against forums for posts by users.
Timeline Context:
This was during the rise of early user-generated content: forums, blogs, early social media, etc. The Godfrey v Demon Internet (2001) case reinforced that ISPs could be liable if they didn’t remove defamatory content after being notified — and this logic applied to forum operators too. Things didn't start to shift until the Defamation Act 2013, which introduced some protections for website operators.
Just an FYI,
Because the Vanilla spam trap is a bit of a blunt tool, posting lots of AI generated chat can also lead to issues.
Off topic, but may interest some of you: I was sitting here, having an early lunch, when my cellphone gave me a loud "Amber alert": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_alert
And then, later, a second, giving me a vague description of a vehicle.
TV stations were giving announcements, too.
(It is unlikely I can help, since I have given up driving, and am many miles away from the abduction.)
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
But that day isn't today.
If this really is the case - that the OSB has made it effectively illegal to discuss certain topics online - this seems remarkable. This needs rather more attention than it has been given
What was the name of the previous bill which had a similar outcome, early-ish internet days? I remember a fair few forums closing down as they couldn't take the risk back in the early/mid 2000s.
ChatGPT tells me it was the existing plaintiff-friendly laws and the Defamation Act 1996.
---
UK Libel Law (Pre-2013)
UK defamation law was notoriously plaintiff-friendly before 2013. Forum owners and ISPs could be held liable for defamatory content posted by users, even if they didn’t create it. There was no strong "safe harbour" like in the US’s Section 230 — so if someone posted something defamatory on your forum, you could be sued for it as a publisher, unless you acted quickly to remove it.
Key Pressures on Forums:
Many small UK-based forums and online communities began shutting down in the early-to-mid 2000s out of fear of being sued for user comments. Moderation wasn't always practical or effective at scale, especially without resources or legal know-how. Legal threats (and actual lawsuits) were sometimes made by individuals or companies against forums for posts by users.
Timeline Context:
This was during the rise of early user-generated content: forums, blogs, early social media, etc. The Godfrey v Demon Internet (2001) case reinforced that ISPs could be liable if they didn’t remove defamatory content after being notified — and this logic applied to forum operators too. Things didn't start to shift until the Defamation Act 2013, which introduced some protections for website operators.
Just an FYI,
Because the Vanilla spam trap is a bit of a blunt tool, posting lots of AI generated chat can also lead to issues.
Lordy.
It shouldn't be a problem with a one off.
Amusingly the Vanilla AI tries to work out if a poster is an AI spambot.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
Just doing things I enjoy really.
Hopefully she will be well enough to post on here from time to time, including articles.
PB won't be the same without her, that's for sure!
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
But that day isn't today.
If this really is the case - that the OSB has made it effectively illegal to discuss certain topics online - this seems remarkable. This needs rather more attention than it has been given
What was the name of the previous bill which had a similar outcome, early-ish internet days? I remember a fair few forums closing down as they couldn't take the risk back in the early/mid 2000s.
ChatGPT tells me it was the existing plaintiff-friendly laws and the Defamation Act 1996.
---
UK Libel Law (Pre-2013)
UK defamation law was notoriously plaintiff-friendly before 2013. Forum owners and ISPs could be held liable for defamatory content posted by users, even if they didn’t create it. There was no strong "safe harbour" like in the US’s Section 230 — so if someone posted something defamatory on your forum, you could be sued for it as a publisher, unless you acted quickly to remove it.
Key Pressures on Forums:
Many small UK-based forums and online communities began shutting down in the early-to-mid 2000s out of fear of being sued for user comments. Moderation wasn't always practical or effective at scale, especially without resources or legal know-how. Legal threats (and actual lawsuits) were sometimes made by individuals or companies against forums for posts by users.
Timeline Context:
This was during the rise of early user-generated content: forums, blogs, early social media, etc. The Godfrey v Demon Internet (2001) case reinforced that ISPs could be liable if they didn’t remove defamatory content after being notified — and this logic applied to forum operators too. Things didn't start to shift until the Defamation Act 2013, which introduced some protections for website operators.
Just an FYI,
Because the Vanilla spam trap is a bit of a blunt tool, posting lots of AI generated chat can also lead to issues.
Speccy writers are going to be in right old trouble. Good job one of them post on here.
In CASH news I had someone in our shop try to pay for an 80p purchase on a card.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
EDIT - sorry, banhammer fears
C*SH
I went to a bank to close a mortgage-registered savings account last week and asked for a cheque for the closing balance. The member of bank staff said something along the lines of, "if the balance is only €1,000 and a bit it's not worth the trouble of making a cheque for it. Sure we'll just give it to you in cash." And so I walked around with €1,500 in cash for the rest of the day.
"Mr O'Neill asked Mr Ahern if it was not an "unusual approach to one's finances".
"I didn't consider it unusual, quite frankly, then or now," Mr Ahern said. "Ordinary people, Mr O'Neill, go into pubs and cash their wages cheques . . . it's not extraordinary."
"But . . . you were the minister for finance at the time," Mr O'Neill said."
Not enough data to market to and control and observe.... does not compute
If @Cyclefree reads here, just to say I don't really believe in any cancer being incurable. I have no doubt that people in your position have been fully and completely cured and their health restored, and I suspect their stories and protocols are online if one goes searching.
Doctors aren't there to restore your health, they are there to recommend whatever the conventional drugs or surgeries are for your condition, and allocate it according to a formula. Your health is in your hands.
I applaud your approach to life though - that's what we should all be doing.
I 100% disagree with this post. It’s unscientific nonsense and a slur on the medical profession. Sadly some cancers are incurable with what we have now. Anyone promoting non medical approaches is generally a charlatan, and there will be zero evidence to back up the claims.
The most significant pieces of news so far today on the Israel vs Iran front.
1. The reported airstrikes on Iranian gas and oil facilities. Israel communicated to Iran to not target civilian population centres or see their energy infrastructure be attacked in return. The assumption is after the hits on Israeli residential locations, Israel was sending the signal.
2. Israeli boasts that their aircraft will be seen over Tehran soon. That will look ugly if they do it. Everything from the air so far has been reportedly stand off using Syrian and iraqi airspace with minimal activity in Iranian airspace.
3. Very little info on material damage from Iran. The IAEA info is probably the most useful on damage to nuclear related facilities but that is not all Israelis are hitting. The Internet has been shut off for damage control, limiting target location info tracking and to try to hide signs of reply.
In fact, Israel hasn't exactly released tons of images either.
4. Few signs of Iranian ground or air based defence. It does exist but hasn't merely missed, it hasn't fired a lot of shots.
Iranian has promised a sizeable response tonight, let's see if they do.
I don't think Iran has the ability to precision target anything smaller than "in the general viscinity of Israel".
Some of their kit is able to work within a couple hundred metres CEP at least. Thats poor by any standard but hitting an airfield or a port should be doable, if they can actually get it through the defensive screen.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
Just doing things I enjoy really.
Jeez. All the best @Cyclefree . I hope you get to carry on doing things you enjoy for a remarkably - and medically curious - length of time :-)
Comments
A potential major problem for Israel.
"The far left is murderously violent"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1933950533813068181
Isam’s snoring kept us all awake at night.
Woe betide anyone who poo-poo’s the poo-poo
Now if it happens on a regular basis then it presents a serious harm and a quick deletion might not fix it.
The good news is I will be publishing a piece on the grooming story on Monday by Cyclefree and I will allowing most PBers to talk about but until no further comments on this story.
I’ve been up late watching the golf too.
Appreciate posting it here may be an issue, someone can take one for the team.
Several things a bit irritating. Why are counsel in court not wearing wigs? One at least has a white bow tie on so is definitely counsel but no wig. Defence in a murder case would be senior counsel and thus be wearing a fall as well as a wig. Weird lack of attention to detail.
The missing woman is an Advocate Depute (as am I). Court 6 is not a criminal court. We really don't have time to watch each others cases, not even the murders. To be doing a murder case, let alone a high profile one, she would have been an AD for at least 2 years.
Anyone threatening an AD because of the work they are doing would find all hell breaking loose with cybercrime all over their phone, their supplier and CCTV looking everywhere they have been. No one has really bothered for 4 years?? That's ridiculous. The whole thing smacks of poor homework.
There are also an exceptional number of cliches in the characters. But...it has something. Certainly enough to watch episode 2.
The resumption of hostilities in Gaza, however..
Love a bit of self-aware British satire in my melodrama...
We are such mugs.
I am fine. Treatment plan started. Bemused at how despite all the screenings saying nothing was wrong I have managed to get to Stage 4 cancer without anyone noticing. It is not curable so I am living with it largely ignoring it & hoping that the treatment stops it getting worse.
Just doing things I enjoy really.
The risk is that the Israelis have left it too late, aren't able to finish the job, and motivate Iran to move to a usable bomb as quickly as possible, wrecking any chance of negotiations staying their hand.
I have always tried to post responsibly and wherever I can with sources
I do not swear, nor at my age engage in more youthful activities
And I shall exercise due caution in future
And now I am immensly sad.
ChatGPT tells me it was the existing plaintiff-friendly laws and the Defamation Act 1996.
---
UK Libel Law (Pre-2013)
UK defamation law was notoriously plaintiff-friendly before 2013.
Forum owners and ISPs could be held liable for defamatory content posted by users, even if they didn’t create it.
There was no strong "safe harbour" like in the US’s Section 230 — so if someone posted something defamatory on your forum, you could be sued for it as a publisher, unless you acted quickly to remove it.
Key Pressures on Forums:
Many small UK-based forums and online communities began shutting down in the early-to-mid 2000s out of fear of being sued for user comments.
Moderation wasn't always practical or effective at scale, especially without resources or legal know-how.
Legal threats (and actual lawsuits) were sometimes made by individuals or companies against forums for posts by users.
Timeline Context:
This was during the rise of early user-generated content: forums, blogs, early social media, etc.
The Godfrey v Demon Internet (2001) case reinforced that ISPs could be liable if they didn’t remove defamatory content after being notified — and this logic applied to forum operators too.
Things didn't start to shift until the Defamation Act 2013, which introduced some protections for website operators.
Erm, no.
A few of us village businesses now asking punters to please use cash where they can, and I'm back carrying a wallet and actual fiat tokens after a few years of not bothering.
EDIT - sorry, banhammer fears
C*SH
And 100% didn't wander to a local corner shop with a craving for wine gums.
Then try and buy a single wine gum as I only had 2p with me. The shop owner - whether horrified or sympathetic - sold it to me and gave me 1p change.
Because the Vanilla spam trap is a bit of a blunt tool, posting lots of AI generated chat can also lead to issues.
1. The reported airstrikes on Iranian gas and oil facilities. Israel communicated to Iran to not target civilian population centres or see their energy infrastructure be attacked in return. The assumption is after the hits on Israeli residential locations, Israel was sending the signal.
2. Israeli boasts that their aircraft will be seen over Tehran soon. That will look ugly if they do it. Everything from the air so far has been reportedly stand off using Syrian and iraqi airspace with minimal activity in Iranian airspace.
3. Very little info on material damage from Iran. The IAEA info is probably the most useful on damage to nuclear related facilities but that is not all Israelis are hitting. The Internet has been shut off for damage control, limiting target location info tracking and to try to hide signs of reply.
In fact, Israel hasn't exactly released tons of images either.
4. Few signs of Iranian ground or air based defence. It does exist but hasn't merely missed, it hasn't fired a lot of shots.
Iranian has promised a sizeable response tonight, let's see if they do.
She's happy to know that she's got dozens and dozens of people on here rooting for her.
Pathetic doesn't quite cover it.
Ireland. It's a foreign country.
A nuclear bomb is ultimately nothing more than a suitably large amount of enriched uranium, and a shaped charge. The charge used to be precision engineering. Now it is childs play.
It is the enrichment that is the difficult bit - hence Stuxnet hitting the Iranian centrifuges. But while the pace of Iran obtaining fissionable material has been slow, every year they've managed to get a little more. And I don't see how (short of a or b above) we are going to be able to remove existing enriched uranium from them. It will be somewhere extremely secure, under a mountain or equivalent.
I suspect it will be easier to limit Iran's ability to produce a delivery device. Because a bomb on its own is not that useful without a way of getting it to one's target.
https://www.instagram.com/stormtroopervlogs&v=dmWYiX7RsW0
Someone using 'AI' video generators to create Star Wars Stormtrooper vlogs. Really quite well done. (Some clips on YT for the non-insta people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YHxr21VFz0 )
Doctors aren't there to restore your health, they are there to recommend whatever the conventional drugs or surgeries are for your condition, and allocate it according to a formula. Your health is in your hands.
I applaud your approach to life though - that's what we should all be doing.
"Mr O'Neill asked Mr Ahern if it was not an "unusual approach to one's finances".
"I didn't consider it unusual, quite frankly, then or now," Mr Ahern said. "Ordinary people, Mr O'Neill, go into pubs and cash their wages cheques . . . it's not extraordinary."
"But . . . you were the minister for finance at the time," Mr O'Neill said."
And then, later, a second, giving me a vague description of a vehicle.
TV stations were giving announcements, too.
(It is unlikely I can help, since I have given up driving, and am many miles away from the abduction.)
Amusingly the Vanilla AI tries to work out if a poster is an AI spambot.
PB won't be the same without her, that's for sure!