CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
If the couple themselves hadn't acted the way they did, it's likely that no-one would have noticed. If they'd simply smiled and waved, the camera would have moved on, Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything, and they could well have got away with it. By acting furtively and trying to hide their faces, they were guaranteed to draw attention to themselves.
And equally, they could have appeared on a website or newspaper in a crowd photo, or on a clip on TV, or been recognised by someone who knew them. All the singer did was reference a possible affair, which is hardly a crime
And more than that, if Byron wants to allege defamation they must prove they weren't having an affair.
I imagine he'd allege breach of privacy rights.
Is what is being suggested.
They will be queuing up at court for a ringside seat.
As pointed out, previously, all tickets to concerts come with a "you are accepting that you may be recorded/broadcast" thing in the small print.
Lots of Nigerians have moved to Ireland. Some of them are passionately anti-Muslim and as a result very pro Christendom and pro-western, in particular pro UK and USA
So now they have festivals in Southern Ireland where they parade the Union Jack
This has got rightwing Irish nationalists in a frenzy
“What the hell is going on in Ireland?
The country is becoming more and more unrecognisable.
The planters are literally rubbing in our faces that they are the new planters.”
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
If the couple themselves hadn't acted the way they did, it's likely that no-one would have noticed. If they'd simply smiled and waved, the camera would have moved on, Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything, and they could well have got away with it. By acting furtively and trying to hide their faces, they were guaranteed to draw attention to themselves.
And equally, they could have appeared on a website or newspaper in a crowd photo, or on a clip on TV, or been recognised by someone who knew them. All the singer did was reference a possible affair, which is hardly a crime
And more than that, if Byron wants to allege defamation they must prove they weren't having an affair.
And demonstrate malice, which is a pretty high bar in the US.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
The concert is one thing, as there are disclaimers, as there are at basically all big events.
Where it gets really tricky is these kind of street shots. There are those weird people who film drunk ladies out on a night out and monetarise it on the internet. Should that be allowed, just because they are in public? But then if we stop anybody being filmed in public without their consent / being put out there, any criminality / wrongdoing will never be exposed.
“The European Commission has achieved the unthinkable yesterday. It finally united the entirety of the European Union. Today every single European is blasting the EU-US trade deal as the worst one (for Europe) in history.”
You do realise that a good deal is one that benefits both parties. Negotiators (good ones anyway) aim to give away stuff that has a lower value to them than to whom they are negotiating with and negotiate for stuff that has higher value to them than it does for the other party. That is what any good deal is all about. If one party screws the other party the deal just collapses. That is ok for a one off deal (and you don't care for your reputation when trying for subsequent deals) but for an ongoing deal it just means it flops. The last thing anyone needs is a deal where one party is constantly complaining (unless you are a conman and do a runner).
So if (and I doubt it) Trump has got one over on the EU it will just fail. he should be looking for a deal that id beneficial to both the USA and EU.
I'm guessing this stuff isn't in the art of the deal.
Trump sees deals as having a winner and a loser, rather than being to the advantage of both parties.
If a long term deal doesn't work to the advantage of both, it will collapse.
That's true even with a power imbalance. The relationship of overlord and vassal, patron and client, has to work to the advantage of both, to endure.
Trump is (we hope) only in office for another three years, so the long term doesn't really come into it.
In the meantime, business and trade planning is subject to huge uncertainty, and massively disrupted. My best guess is that everyone loses out to some extent.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
One thing I notice now is being in a restaurant or bar and then seeing myself and whoever I was with on a social media post in a video or photos afterwards. I don’t want to have people knowing where I was or who I was with or intruding on my social life. I think there should be an expectation of privacy in bars or restaurants and owners should respect that. At worst the social media monkey who is filming/photographing should have to get a waiver from anybody in the shots used for them to go online.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
One thing I notice now is being in a restaurant or bar and then seeing myself and whoever I was with on a social media post in a video or photos afterwards. I don’t want to have people knowing where I was or who I was with or intruding on my social life. I think there should be an expectation of privacy in bars or restaurants and owners should respect that. At worst the social media monkey who is filming/photographing should have to get a waiver from anybody in the shots used for them to go online.
This is something I really hate. As is the American trend of always doing these "kiss cams" etc at events. I just want to be left alone.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
That does you credit, but we're hardly debating the morality of it. The question is what US law might apply.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
That does you credit, but we're hardly debating the morality of it. The question is what US law might apply.
Lots of Nigerians have moved to Ireland. Some of them are passionately anti-Muslim and as a result very pro Christendom and pro-western, in particular pro UK and USA
So now they have festivals in Southern Ireland where they parade the Union Jack
This has got rightwing Irish nationalists in a frenzy
“What the hell is going on in Ireland?
The country is becoming more and more unrecognisable.
The planters are literally rubbing in our faces that they are the new planters.”
But are they Protestant Nigerians or Catholic Nigerians?
Protestants. So it’s even more delicious
Are you sure? Lots of Catholics in Nigeria - think it is 50/50 or some such.
Fairly sure (but I could be wrong). Seems to be some Evangelical church that has this very pro British, pro American ethos
Is video actually real tho? Because someone said the flags were added.
We can't call it.
It is a Right wing group who are into strange things - the Great Replacement Theory, the EU colonial empire, immigrants the cause of sex crime, "globalists", and the rest.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
One thing I notice now is being in a restaurant or bar and then seeing myself and whoever I was with on a social media post in a video or photos afterwards. I don’t want to have people knowing where I was or who I was with or intruding on my social life. I think there should be an expectation of privacy in bars or restaurants and owners should respect that. At worst the social media monkey who is filming/photographing should have to get a waiver from anybody in the shots used for them to go online.
Personally I couldn't give a stuff who films me, has photo's of me etc, but I know others will disagree. How then to navigate the world of using 'people' in photos and films? Surely AI is the answer?
Then the BBC can use pictures of fake fatties waddling when they report on obesity and not have to only show the body...
Lots of Nigerians have moved to Ireland. Some of them are passionately anti-Muslim and as a result very pro Christendom and pro-western, in particular pro UK and USA
So now they have festivals in Southern Ireland where they parade the Union Jack
This has got rightwing Irish nationalists in a frenzy
“What the hell is going on in Ireland?
The country is becoming more and more unrecognisable.
The planters are literally rubbing in our faces that they are the new planters.”
Chairman Zia Yusuf says Reform will repeal the Online Safety Act if elected
Didn't they support it ?
I'd be interested to hear on that. The Manifesto last year promised to "review" it, and the only MP before then when it passed in 2023 would have been Agent Anderson I think.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
One thing I notice now is being in a restaurant or bar and then seeing myself and whoever I was with on a social media post in a video or photos afterwards. I don’t want to have people knowing where I was or who I was with or intruding on my social life. I think there should be an expectation of privacy in bars or restaurants and owners should respect that. At worst the social media monkey who is filming/photographing should have to get a waiver from anybody in the shots used for them to go online.
Sometimes it comes in useful. Had an argument with an airline about when I reached the check-in desk. I suspected they had bounced me off the flight due to overbooking and had closed the flight early. You can ask for details of you image from organisations. A time-stamped CCTV by the airport was enough to convince them they were incorrect and they paid for compensation.
If you really want to p**s a company off, ask them to delete the images under the right to be forgotten.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
One thing I notice now is being in a restaurant or bar and then seeing myself and whoever I was with on a social media post in a video or photos afterwards. I don’t want to have people knowing where I was or who I was with or intruding on my social life. I think there should be an expectation of privacy in bars or restaurants and owners should respect that. At worst the social media monkey who is filming/photographing should have to get a waiver from anybody in the shots used for them to go online.
Personally I couldn't give a stuff who films me, has photo's of me etc, but I know others will disagree. How then to navigate the world of using 'people' in photos and films? Surely AI is the answer?
Then the BBC can use pictures of fake fatties waddling when they report on obesity and not have to only show the body...
Where it is tricky is people posting on social media where they have captured people on the street doing something embarrassing or just shaming them for doing something they don't agree with, all without their knowledge for clicks / views, where there no crime being committed etc.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
That does you credit, but we're hardly debating the morality of it. The question is what US law might apply.
US law is better here. Under UK law the "having an affair" comment would probably be found to be libellous.
The right to privacy is, thanks not least to Article 8 of the ECHR, considerably broader in the UK, too. Just how far it extends isn't entirely clear, as it's an enormously broad area, and is only broad brush outlined by existing case law.
It's funny how no-one ever talks about how strange a lot of YouTube channels are — in the sense that quite often you find a channel where someone posted a video of themselves at an airport in 2007, the next video is something totally different from 2015, and then a clip at a ferry terminal in 2025, and you're wondering: did they delete a lot of videos, or are those really the only 3 videos they've ever posted? Did they forget about the channel for many years and then remember it existed, etc.
Chairman Zia Yusuf says Reform will repeal the Online Safety Act if elected
Didn't they support it ?
Joys of opposition you can U-turn on a dime....I am waiting for my bank hoilday from Starmer for the Englander Ladies winning the Euros....
I actually don't mind U-turns in response to circumstances. Whether by those in opposition or government. Making a fetish of consistency, purely for its own sake, leads to a great deal of bad policy becoming entrenched
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
That does you credit, but we're hardly debating the morality of it. The question is what US law might apply.
Lots of Nigerians have moved to Ireland. Some of them are passionately anti-Muslim and as a result very pro Christendom and pro-western, in particular pro UK and USA
So now they have festivals in Southern Ireland where they parade the Union Jack
This has got rightwing Irish nationalists in a frenzy
“What the hell is going on in Ireland?
The country is becoming more and more unrecognisable.
The planters are literally rubbing in our faces that they are the new planters.”
This is an interesting technology, which has taken about a decade longer than it ought to make it into production.
Mass production of Ceres Power fuel cell technology begins in Korea Doosan deal means the UK group will start selling energy generation products to AI data centres and other customers by the end of this year https://www.thetimes.com/article/6399293b-37eb-48b1-aa43-ad8a2288d711
..Fuel cells convert natural gas or hydrogen into electricity through a chemical reaction that is more efficient than conventional combustion-based power generation. Ceres says its technology has about 30 per cent lower emissions than gas generators. The fuel cells can also be used in reverse as electrolysers, using power to make clean hydrogen...
..The Doosan factory will be able to produce fuel cell power systems with a total generating capacity of 50 megawatts each year.
South Korea is the leading market for fuel cells. Ceres said Doosan Fuel Cell would sell the power systems to users such as data centres “where the advent of AI processing has caused a spike in power demand that can be met by the deployment of fuel cells”. They could also be used for “the stabilisation of renewables-based power grids and microgrids through peak power production, power systems for buildings, and auxiliary power solutions for marine shipping markets”...
Shame we no longer have the manufacturing base to make this stuff ourselves.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
“This appears to be from a Zion Prayer Movement Outreach conference in Dublin—a Nigerian Christian revival event on July 26-27, 2025. Attendees, mostly African immigrants, wave Union Jacks likely as symbols of Christian faith (the flag's crosses represent saints) or Commonwealth ties, though it's politically charged in Ireland.”
However others on X claim this happened in Gormanstown in Meath
Erm, you know Grok is not necessarily accurate in things like this?
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
If you are married and are carrying on in public with someone who’s not your spouse, you deserve any embarrassment that is coming to you.
Lots of Nigerians have moved to Ireland. Some of them are passionately anti-Muslim and as a result very pro Christendom and pro-western, in particular pro UK and USA
So now they have festivals in Southern Ireland where they parade the Union Jack
This has got rightwing Irish nationalists in a frenzy
“What the hell is going on in Ireland?
The country is becoming more and more unrecognisable.
The planters are literally rubbing in our faces that they are the new planters.”
But are they Protestant Nigerians or Catholic Nigerians?
Where do they keep their toasters? Jimmy Carr on tour in Ireland discovers another point of difference (1m45s video; language nsfw):- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rJxC6QppdP4
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
That does you credit, but we're hardly debating the morality of it. The question is what US law might apply.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
No such thing under the circumstances in question.
Arkell v Pressdram applies.
Years ago I took a photo of a crowd emerging from a tube station. Off to one side, certainly not front and centre, was a middle-aged couple holding hands, looking very happy to be together. So far, so good. So far, so heart-warming. Some time later I used the picture in a publication without giving it a second thought and it's been on my conscience ever since. It could have destroyed someone's marriage or even their life. You just don't know.
There's plenty of online discussion about privacy in the public realm and there's no simple answer. I heard a debate at the Port Eliot Festival a few years ago when leading snapper Martin Parr, who's done a lot of street photography in his time, defended the right to record anything that was visible in public. Many in the audience demurred. My sympathy tends to be with the latter, but the stifling effect of a right to privacy in public could be even worse than the current free for all.
If you are married and are carrying on in public with someone who’s not your spouse, you deserve any embarrassment that is coming to you.
I have a colleague who for many years has spent a lot of time with another colleague (not his wife). They do this openly on campus and I have been out in the city with them and its open there too. Bath is a small place - you cannot expect to be anonymous here. The conclusion we have come to is that said colleague has an arrangement with his wife. Otherwise the risks are just too high.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
On the subject of falling off yachts and out of windows:-
Killing Kelly, crowd-funded by the public, produced by former British Member of Parliament George Galloway and multiple award-winning Director Dr Seán Murray, is an explosive documentary about the strange death of Dr David Kelly, the renowned British chemical weapons expert found dead in the woods - as he predicted he would be - amidst the swirl of Tony Blair and George W. Bush's ill-fated invasion of Iraq. It was said to be suicide, though of a most peculiar kind...
The documentary film features contributions from former BBC Director Greg Dyke, author of 'The Strange Death of David Kelly' and former MP RT Hon Norman Baker, Middle East Eye columnist Peter Oborne, former MI5 Officer Annie Machon, vascular surgeon Dr John Scurr MBBS BSc FRCS and more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzBZNtrnG5k
On the public/private debate I think we have all seen enough from the auditors to clarify that anything that happens in public or on public space/land/ground is free to record or whatnot. A private enterprise (eg restaurant) is different.
And I think, irritating as some of those auditors can be - especially before the plod advice on how to deal with them - they are also hugely entertaining.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Especially those with cystic fibrosis, whose well-fed brother is standing nearby.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
Against the backdrop of the government's decision to increase humanitarian aid supplies to the Gaza Strip, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir attacked, saying: "It is a moral bankruptcy that while our hostages are in Gaza, our prime minister is sending humanitarian aid there. I think at this stage what should be sent to Gaza is one thing: bombs, to bomb, to conquer, to encourage migration and to win the war."
Lots of Nigerians have moved to Ireland. Some of them are passionately anti-Muslim and as a result very pro Christendom and pro-western, in particular pro UK and USA
So now they have festivals in Southern Ireland where they parade the Union Jack
This has got rightwing Irish nationalists in a frenzy
“What the hell is going on in Ireland?
The country is becoming more and more unrecognisable.
The planters are literally rubbing in our faces that they are the new planters.”
But are they Protestant Nigerians or Catholic Nigerians?
Where do they keep their toasters? Jimmy Carr on tour in Ireland discovers another point of difference (1m45s video; language nsfw):- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rJxC6QppdP4
I looked at the short and again PB is educational. Apparently and apocryphally, Protestants keep their toasters in the cupboard and Catholics keep their toasters on the counter. It's another cheese-and-onion vs cheese-and-pickle thing.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
Against the backdrop of the government's decision to increase humanitarian aid supplies to the Gaza Strip, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir attacked, saying: "It is a moral bankruptcy that while our hostages are in Gaza, our prime minister is sending humanitarian aid there. I think at this stage what should be sent to Gaza is one thing: bombs, to bomb, to conquer, to encourage migration and to win the war."
"Speaking on the The Master Investor Podcast with Wilfred Frost, he reserved some of his fiercest criticism for Britain. “The UK is in a debt doom loop,” he said, and warning signals were “beginning to flash and flicker”."
Oh look, it's not just me saying it. One adverse fiscal event and we'll have a full blown debt crisis.
This Labour government is Truss in slow motion. The Tories need to start talking fiscal restraint and spending cuts now and very loudly. Every single Tory engagement with Labour should be asking questions about the deficit, debt and debt interest.
"Britain is broke due to one year of Labour. It has nothing to do with the previous 14 years of us."
This is quite a difficult sell.
Not judging by the polls. The voters blame Labour as much or more than the Tories
You can thank Keir and Tiny Tears for their grossly inept First Hundred Days. That's when opinions formed, and now they've hardened
Against the backdrop of the government's decision to increase humanitarian aid supplies to the Gaza Strip, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir attacked, saying: "It is a moral bankruptcy that while our hostages are in Gaza, our prime minister is sending humanitarian aid there. I think at this stage what should be sent to Gaza is one thing: bombs, to bomb, to conquer, to encourage migration and to win the war."
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Yes, sympathies for ANYONE trying to run a discussion forum with these rules. It is fricking insane (am I allowed to say that? maybe I am being controlling?)
The Act is an abomination, it has to be repealed in toto
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Yes, sympathies for ANYONE trying to run a discussion forum with these rules. It is fricking insane (am I allowed to say that? maybe I am being controlling?)
The Act is an abomination, it has to be repealed in toto
For once I am entirely in agreement with you. It's a very ill thought out piece of legislation, entirely on the "something must be done, and this is something" principle.
But until it is repealed - or at the very least is substantially modified - let us try not to cause trouble for TSE.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
The only way this site would be the test case is if one of the readers of this site was someone important, take offense and wanted to make an example of say TSE.
Which I would have though was rather unlikely as this is hardly a site the Home Secretary would visit.
More seriously that requirement is asking for the utter impossible so I can’t see it lasting 10 minutes in court
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Isn't the "platform" Vanilla though?
2026 - The Grauniad - A senior lawyer has been detained under the Online Safety Act, for repeated offensive online posting.
The Association of American Style Pizza said that his repeated attacks on pineapple topped pizza represented a clear incitement to violence.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Yes, sympathies for ANYONE trying to run a discussion forum with these rules. It is fricking insane (am I allowed to say that? maybe I am being controlling?)
The Act is an abomination, it has to be repealed in toto
For once I am entirely in agreement with you. It's a very ill thought out piece of legislation, entirely on the "something must be done, and this is something" principle.
But until it is repealed - or at the very least is substantially modified, let us try not to cause trouble for TSE.
Well, yes
But it's not just me and my exuberant posting style being menaced here, I can think of dozens of comments from recent weeks - from multiple commenters - which could potentially "cross the line"
Indeed I do not see how discussion forums can work at all, unless they have pre-moderation in place, which is extremely expensive and time-consuming, and barely workable, anyway. And that means a small site like PB simply cannot function
And all this has come about because some female MPs were tired of being threatened by nutters on FB and X. Which is a worthy cause, but which has led to Free Speech basically being ended in the UK, because MPs are fecking stupid, or actively malign and authoritarian
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
The only way this site would be the test case is if one of the readers of this site was someone important, take offense and wanted to make an example of say TSE.
Which I would have though was rather unlikely as this is hardly a site the Home Secretary would visit.
More seriously that requirement is asking for the utter impossible so I can’t see it lasting 10 minutes in court
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
PB is lucky in the sense I have two firms advising me on this (pro bono) so I can navigate this better but it is still challenging.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Isn't the "platform" Vanilla though?
I don't think that would absolve TSE and Robert from a similar responsibility, even if Vanilla had legal responsibility.. And anyway might actually make it worse. If Vanilla or similar companies fear jeopardy from decisions they don't make, they might just shut sites down without explanation.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Maybe some kind of AI solution to automatically filter out criticism of Radiohead and praise for pineapple on pizza? That'll be a proactive step from stopping incitement to violence from appearing.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Isn't the "platform" Vanilla though?
I don't think that would absolve TSE and Robert from a similar responsibility, even if Vanilla had legal responsibility.. And anyway might actually make it worse. If Vanilla or similar companies fear jeopardy from decisions they don't make, they might just shut sites down without explanation.
The text quoted above says, "Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place." (emphasis added) It doesn't say they need to achieve perfection in stopping these things from ever being posted.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
The only way this site would be the test case is if one of the readers of this site was someone important, take offense and wanted to make an example of say TSE.
Which I would have though was rather unlikely as this is hardly a site the Home Secretary would visit.
More seriously that requirement is asking for the utter impossible so I can’t see it lasting 10 minutes in court
The thing is senior politicians visit PB including at the time an incumbent Prime Minister and First Minister of Scotland.
Senior cabinet ministers past and present follow me on social media.
PB isn’t an obscure website, at one point 40% of our traffic came from Westminster IP addresses.
Chairman Zia Yusuf says Reform will repeal the Online Safety Act if elected
Yet another reason to vote Reform
You do realise Reform were in favour of the bill and also they want to end anonymity on the internet.
Reform are a joke, but I will still vote for them.
That's how bad the rest are.
Remember when Rupert Lowe criticised Nigel Farage then Farage’s minions got the police involved.
Now just imagine what Farage will be like in power with the powers of the state.
Only low IQ people would vote for Reform.
But that's provable nonsense, because I am going to vote for Reform, and it is widely known, and accepted, that I am the most intelligent poster on the site. We had a long thread all about this, and that was the consensus we reached. This isn't me "blowing my own trumpet", it's a basic fact - begrudgingly acknowledged even by morons like @IanB2 and @kjh
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
The only way this site would be the test case is if one of the readers of this site was someone important, take offense and wanted to make an example of say TSE.
Which I would have though was rather unlikely as this is hardly a site the Home Secretary would visit.
More seriously that requirement is asking for the utter impossible so I can’t see it lasting 10 minutes in court
The thing is senior politicians visit PB including an incumbent Prime Minister and First Minister of Scotland.
Senior cabinet ministers past and present follow me on social media.
PB isn’t an obscure website, at one point 40% of our traffic came from Westminster IP addresses.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
The only way this site would be the test case is if one of the readers of this site was someone important, take offense and wanted to make an example of say TSE.
Which I would have though was rather unlikely as this is hardly a site the Home Secretary would visit.
More seriously that requirement is asking for the utter impossible so I can’t see it lasting 10 minutes in court
The thing is senior politicians visit PB including at the time an incumbent Prime Minister and First Minister of Scotland.
Senior cabinet ministers past and present follow me on social media.
PB isn’t an obscure website, at one point 40% of our traffic came from Westminster IP addresses.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
The only way this site would be the test case is if one of the readers of this site was someone important, take offense and wanted to make an example of say TSE.
Which I would have though was rather unlikely as this is hardly a site the Home Secretary would visit.
More seriously that requirement is asking for the utter impossible so I can’t see it lasting 10 minutes in court
The thing is senior politicians visit PB including at the time an incumbent Prime Minister and First Minister of Scotland.
Senior cabinet ministers past and present follow me on social media.
PB isn’t an obscure website, at one point 40% of our traffic came from Westminster IP addresses.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Isn't the "platform" Vanilla though?
I don't think that would absolve TSE and Robert from a similar responsibility, even if Vanilla had legal responsibility.. And anyway might actually make it worse. If Vanilla or similar companies fear jeopardy from decisions they don't make, they might just shut sites down without explanation.
The text quoted above says, "Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place." (emphasis added) It doesn't say they need to achieve perfection in stopping these things from ever being posted.
Do you want to be part of the test case which decides what that means ?
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Yes, sympathies for ANYONE trying to run a discussion forum with these rules. It is fricking insane (am I allowed to say that? maybe I am being controlling?)
The Act is an abomination, it has to be repealed in toto
For once I am entirely in agreement with you. It's a very ill thought out piece of legislation, entirely on the "something must be done, and this is something" principle.
But until it is repealed - or at the very least is substantially modified, let us try not to cause trouble for TSE.
Well, yes
But it's not just me and my exuberant posting style being menaced here, I can think of dozens of comments from recent weeks - from multiple commenters - which could potentially "cross the line"
Indeed I do not see how discussion forums can work at all, unless they have pre-moderation in place, which is extremely expensive and time-consuming, and barely workable, anyway. And that means a small site like PB simply cannot function
And all this has come about because some female MPs were tired of being threatened by nutters on FB and X. Which is a worthy cause, but which has led to Free Speech basically being ended in the UK, because MPs are fecking stupid, or actively malign and authoritarian
Does this mean we can't talk about washing machines?
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Isn't the "platform" Vanilla though?
I don't think that would absolve TSE and Robert from a similar responsibility, even if Vanilla had legal responsibility.. And anyway might actually make it worse. If Vanilla or similar companies fear jeopardy from decisions they don't make, they might just shut sites down without explanation.
The text quoted above says, "Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place." (emphasis added) It doesn't say they need to achieve perfection in stopping these things from ever being posted.
Do you want to be part of the test case which decides what that means ?
No, of course not. TSE has all my sympathies when it comes to dealing with the OSA.
My point was just that the Act calls for both proactive and reactive measures: discouraging illegal material being posted in the first place, and removing it swiftly if it appears. It doesn't expect proactive measures alone to be perfect.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Yes, sympathies for ANYONE trying to run a discussion forum with these rules. It is fricking insane (am I allowed to say that? maybe I am being controlling?)
The Act is an abomination, it has to be repealed in toto
For once I am entirely in agreement with you. It's a very ill thought out piece of legislation, entirely on the "something must be done, and this is something" principle.
But until it is repealed - or at the very least is substantially modified, let us try not to cause trouble for TSE.
Well, yes
But it's not just me and my exuberant posting style being menaced here, I can think of dozens of comments from recent weeks - from multiple commenters - which could potentially "cross the line"
Indeed I do not see how discussion forums can work at all, unless they have pre-moderation in place, which is extremely expensive and time-consuming, and barely workable, anyway. And that means a small site like PB simply cannot function
And all this has come about because some female MPs were tired of being threatened by nutters on FB and X. Which is a worthy cause, but which has led to Free Speech basically being ended in the UK, because MPs are fecking stupid, or actively malign and authoritarian
Does this mean we can't talk about washing machines?
I'm afraid that's pretty much all we will be able to talk about
Speaking of which, yesterday I spray painted a table! I have become a DIY doyen. I used to do hard drugs and tweet from brothels, now I spray paint tables. Oh well
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
Everyone has a mobile these days and Hamas are masters of PR on the socials. Where is the footage of the IDF shooting up aid sites.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
Everyone has a mobile these days and Hamas are masters of PR on the socials. Where is the footage of the IDF shooting up aid sites.
Gaza has been under an electricity blackout by Israel since 11 October 2023. It's not straightforward to charge one's mobile. And smartphone ownership in Gaza is far from being 100%.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
Everyone has a mobile these days and Hamas are masters of PR on the socials. Where is the footage of the IDF shooting up aid sites.
Gaza has been under an electricity blackout by Israel since 11 October 2023. It's not straightforward to charge one's mobile. And smartphone ownership in Gaza is far from being 100%.
Your kidding, right?
Are you on the socials. Every other pro-Hamas post is showing a (often the same) apparently starving child. There are mobiles everywhere.
Chairman Zia Yusuf says Reform will repeal the Online Safety Act if elected
Yet another reason to vote Reform
You do realise Reform were in favour of the bill and also they want to end anonymity on the internet.
Reform are a joke, but I will still vote for them.
That's how bad the rest are.
Wikipedia's navigation box for the main British political parties list 32 parties. Do you really feel the other 31 are worse than Reform UK?
The only hope to have a semblance of change in the UK is to vote reform. They are the only ones even talking about the things that matters to the median voter
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
Everyone has a mobile these days and Hamas are masters of PR on the socials. Where is the footage of the IDF shooting up aid sites.
Gaza has been under an electricity blackout by Israel since 11 October 2023. It's not straightforward to charge one's mobile. And smartphone ownership in Gaza is far from being 100%.
In fact where is the footage of bombs and missiles falling from IDF aircraft? Seems a bit iffy to me.
What is the normal course of action for the courts where there is conflicting primary legislation, as seems the case between the OSA and ADB.
It depends on the nature of the conflict, but generally later legislation overwrites earlier legislation. (Not that the Assisted Dying Bill has yet passed into law.)
Once again the civil service show they haven’t a clue how the real world and technology works
It is what happens when it is dominated by arts and humanity graduates.
Oi! Some of us arts and humanity (sic) graduates are very tech savvy, thank you! As in build, programme and repair our own computers (sometimes with a little help from our friends).
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Yes, sympathies for ANYONE trying to run a discussion forum with these rules. It is fricking insane (am I allowed to say that? maybe I am being controlling?)
The Act is an abomination, it has to be repealed in toto
For once I am entirely in agreement with you. It's a very ill thought out piece of legislation, entirely on the "something must be done, and this is something" principle.
But until it is repealed - or at the very least is substantially modified, let us try not to cause trouble for TSE.
Well, yes
But it's not just me and my exuberant posting style being menaced here, I can think of dozens of comments from recent weeks - from multiple commenters - which could potentially "cross the line"
Indeed I do not see how discussion forums can work at all, unless they have pre-moderation in place, which is extremely expensive and time-consuming, and barely workable, anyway. And that means a small site like PB simply cannot function
And all this has come about because some female MPs were tired of being threatened by nutters on FB and X. Which is a worthy cause, but which has led to Free Speech basically being ended in the UK, because MPs are fecking stupid, or actively malign and authoritarian
Does this mean we can't talk about washing machines?
I'm afraid that's pretty much all we will be able to talk about
Speaking of which, yesterday I spray painted a table! I have become a DIY doyen. I used to do hard drugs and tweet from brothels, now I spray paint tables. Oh well
Yesterday, I painted two rooms in my house. Just another five plus the hall, stairwell and landing to go.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
If you read even the Israeli press rather than just following Twitter, you'd get a better picture of events.
You didn't seem to read the article.
Here is a (non-exhaustive, I bet) list of reasons the poor old UN can't deliver the aid. Wah wah wah. One of the below, admittedly might not be true.
When aid transport roads become too badly damaged by Israeli military operations, when there are insufficient deconfliction mechanisms in place to ensure that aid workers don’t accidentally get hit by IDF fire, when authorizations aren’t given by the army for aid to be picked up and delivered, when our chakras are out of sync, and when looting becomes increasingly widespread due to food insecurity, an environment is created where the UN is physically prevented from doing its job, the former US envoy elaborated.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
Everyone has a mobile these days and Hamas are masters of PR on the socials. Where is the footage of the IDF shooting up aid sites.
Gaza has been under an electricity blackout by Israel since 11 October 2023. It's not straightforward to charge one's mobile. And smartphone ownership in Gaza is far from being 100%.
Your kidding, right?
Are you on the socials. Every other pro-Hamas post is showing a (often the same) apparently starving child. There are mobiles everywhere.
How does social media accounts (from outside Gaza) showing the same photo prove that everyone in Gaza has a smartphone? That makes no sense.
More broadly, the socials, particularly Twitter, are a deeply unreliable source of information. Stop looking at them! Read some newspapers. I look at those, including the English-language Israeli media (or I rely on a good friend, an Israeli citizen, who speaks Hebrew).
Comments
Where it gets really tricky is these kind of street shots. There are those weird people who film drunk ladies out on a night out and monetarise it on the internet. Should that be allowed, just because they are in public? But then if we stop anybody being filmed in public without their consent / being put out there, any criminality / wrongdoing will never be exposed.
In the meantime, business and trade planning is subject to huge uncertainty, and massively disrupted.
My best guess is that everyone loses out to some extent.
The question is what US law might apply.
Looking at the Wiki on US privacy law, I'm finding it hard to make a case for the guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States
UK law is considerably different.
It is a Right wing group who are into strange things - the Great Replacement Theory, the EU colonial empire, immigrants the cause of sex crime, "globalists", and the rest.
It is called the Irish Freedom Party.
Then the BBC can use pictures of fake fatties waddling when they report on obesity and not have to only show the body...
If you really want to p**s a company off, ask them to delete the images under the right to be forgotten.
Just how far it extends isn't entirely clear, as it's an enormously broad area, and is only broad brush outlined by existing case law.
Making a fetish of consistency, purely for its own sake, leads to a great deal of bad policy becoming entrenched
Multiple videos of the event, some from the organisers:
https://www.tiktok.com/@zion_my_home/video/7531341931448700166
Mass production of Ceres Power fuel cell technology begins in Korea
Doosan deal means the UK group will start selling energy generation products to AI data centres and other customers by the end of this year
https://www.thetimes.com/article/6399293b-37eb-48b1-aa43-ad8a2288d711
..Fuel cells convert natural gas or hydrogen into electricity through a chemical reaction that is more efficient than conventional combustion-based power generation. Ceres says its technology has about 30 per cent lower emissions than gas generators. The fuel cells can also be used in reverse as electrolysers, using power to make clean hydrogen...
..The Doosan factory will be able to produce fuel cell power systems with a total generating capacity of 50 megawatts each year.
South Korea is the leading market for fuel cells. Ceres said Doosan Fuel Cell would sell the power systems to users such as data centres “where the advent of AI processing has caused a spike in power demand that can be met by the deployment of fuel cells”. They could also be used for “the stabilisation of renewables-based power grids and microgrids through peak power production, power systems for buildings, and auxiliary power solutions for marine shipping markets”...
Shame we no longer have the manufacturing base to make this stuff ourselves.
A phone snatcher yesterday outside britannia Hotel marshwall E14
https://x.com/CrimeLdn/status/1949786301013594394
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/28/israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza-say-israel-based-human-rights-groups
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rJxC6QppdP4
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse
controlling or coercive behaviour
extreme sexual violence
extreme pornography
fraud
racially or religiously aggravated public order offences
inciting violence
illegal immigration and people smuggling
promoting or facilitating suicide
intimate image abuse
selling illegal drugs or weapons
sexual exploitation
terrorism
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
They envision one happy clappy state from the River to the Sea where Jews and Palestinians live in peace and harmony.
Totally respected organisation.
Killing Kelly, crowd-funded by the public, produced by former British Member of Parliament George Galloway and multiple award-winning Director Dr Seán Murray, is an explosive documentary about the strange death of Dr David Kelly, the renowned British chemical weapons expert found dead in the woods - as he predicted he would be - amidst the swirl of Tony Blair and George W. Bush's ill-fated invasion of Iraq. It was said to be suicide, though of a most peculiar kind...
The documentary film features contributions from former BBC Director Greg Dyke, author of 'The Strange Death of David Kelly' and former MP RT Hon Norman Baker, Middle East Eye columnist Peter Oborne, former MI5 Officer Annie Machon, vascular surgeon Dr John Scurr MBBS BSc FRCS and more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzBZNtrnG5k
And I think, irritating as some of those auditors can be - especially before the plod advice on how to deal with them - they are also hugely entertaining.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzhHCxyiKJA
Against the backdrop of the government's decision to increase humanitarian aid supplies to the Gaza Strip, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir attacked, saying: "It is a moral bankruptcy that while our hostages are in Gaza, our prime minister is sending humanitarian aid there. I think at this stage what should be sent to Gaza is one thing: bombs, to bomb, to conquer, to encourage migration and to win the war."
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/ben-gvir-us-republicans-support-bombing-gaza-food-and-aid-depots
You can thank Keir and Tiny Tears for their grossly inept First Hundred Days. That's when opinions formed, and now they've hardened
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
The Act is an abomination, it has to be repealed in toto
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
That's how bad the rest are.
But until it is repealed - or at the very least is substantially modified - let us try not to cause trouble for TSE.
Which I would have though was rather unlikely as this is hardly a site the Home Secretary would visit.
More seriously that requirement is asking for the utter impossible so I can’t see it lasting 10 minutes in court
The Association of American Style Pizza said that his repeated attacks on pineapple topped pizza represented a clear incitement to violence.
But it's not just me and my exuberant posting style being menaced here, I can think of dozens of comments from recent weeks - from multiple commenters - which could potentially "cross the line"
Indeed I do not see how discussion forums can work at all, unless they have pre-moderation in place, which is extremely expensive and time-consuming, and barely workable, anyway. And that means a small site like PB simply cannot function
And all this has come about because some female MPs were tired of being threatened by nutters on FB and X. Which is a worthy cause, but which has led to Free Speech basically being ended in the UK, because MPs are fecking stupid, or actively malign and authoritarian
And anyway might actually make it worse. If Vanilla or similar companies fear jeopardy from decisions they don't make, they might just shut sites down without explanation.
Now just imagine what Farage will be like in power with the powers of the state.
Only low IQ people would vote for Reform.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Senior cabinet ministers past and present follow me on social media.
PB isn’t an obscure website, at one point 40% of our traffic came from Westminster IP addresses.
So your logic does not prevail
https://x.com/Ostrov_A/status/1949429350937272658?t=Km76bTny2A9z9Hg5O-aoLw&s=19
Edit - ah, have seen your edit.
And Ted Hastings is a Kneecap fan.
https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/celebrity/article/adrian-dunbar-interview-line-of-duty-l07220hl5
My point was just that the Act calls for both proactive and reactive measures: discouraging illegal material being posted in the first place, and removing it swiftly if it appears. It doesn't expect proactive measures alone to be perfect.
The Assisted Dying Bill does exactly that!
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
Speaking of which, yesterday I spray painted a table! I have become a DIY doyen. I used to do hard drugs and tweet from brothels, now I spray paint tables. Oh well
https://x.com/EFischberger/status/1949652071633859057?t=5G8rNMQW-iCQNfo1ivXS0A&s=19
Is it true, is it Israeli PR, is it AI?
EDIT: I see, assisted dying bill. Good point.
Are you on the socials. Every other pro-Hamas post is showing a (often the same) apparently starving child. There are mobiles everywhere.
If you read even the Israeli press rather than just following Twitter, you'd get a better picture of events.
It is what happens when Parliament it is dominated by lawyers and politics graduates who have never had a real job
Then again it’s hardly surprising when it’s easier to earn more, do more good and don’t have to deal with the general public
* worth saying that a change coming in April that impacts probably 1 million workers is only possible because of work I’ve done over the past 5 years
Here is a (non-exhaustive, I bet) list of reasons the poor old UN can't deliver the aid. Wah wah wah. One of the below, admittedly might not be true.
When aid transport roads become too badly damaged by Israeli military operations, when there are insufficient deconfliction mechanisms in place to ensure that aid workers don’t accidentally get hit by IDF fire, when authorizations aren’t given by the army for aid to be picked up and delivered, when our chakras are out of sync, and when looting becomes increasingly widespread due to food insecurity, an environment is created where the UN is physically prevented from doing its job, the former US envoy elaborated.
More broadly, the socials, particularly Twitter, are a deeply unreliable source of information. Stop looking at them! Read some newspapers. I look at those, including the English-language Israeli media (or I rely on a good friend, an Israeli citizen, who speaks Hebrew).