"Malicious communication"?!? How long has that been an offence? That just sounds like an outright restriction on free speech - you can't even claim it incites hatred.
Since 1988; "Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys— (i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; (ii)a threat; or (iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated."
I understand that Britain is represented by Philip Hammond, Defence Secretary at today's Holocaust Memorial service at Auschwitz. Some other countries sent their Royals. Could we not even have found one of them to turn up? If Charles can skitter off to Riyadh at a moment's notice to pay his respects to a new king could he not have found the time to pay his respects at this event?
Hammond is Foreign Secretary...
You're right. My mistake.
Even so, isn't this the sort of event that royals are made for?
The government planned and fought the war with broad support from the electorate. The royals are of German descent. I think it was the right call.
The Prince of Wales is at the commemoration event in Westminster.
Afternoon all and I suspect Nicky Morgan will see a substantial increase in her majority, just like Anna Soubry and Esther McVeigh.
Sourby looking down the barrel of a 7% Lab majority according to local sources on here..
Yes so we keep getting told but in the real world we saw a 5% Lab to Con swing in a ward by-election before Christmas which was dismissed by NPXMP because it was in a safe Tory ward. He was ignoring the direction of travel and another PBer said the other day all his leftie voting pals in the constituency expect Anna Soubry to pile votes on to her majority.
"Malicious communication"?!? How long has that been an offence? That just sounds like an outright restriction on free speech - you can't even claim it incites hatred.
Since 1988; "Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys— (i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; (ii)a threat; or (iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated."
"A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both."
"Malicious communication"?!? How long has that been an offence? That just sounds like an outright restriction on free speech - you can't even claim it incites hatred.
"Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 5m5 minutes ago My single seat constituency polling in Scotland will be released next week. This should fill some gaps in expectations in Scotland."
Could his Lordship be made aware that while I have no particular problem with his tax avoidance, I do have a major problem with prickteases.
Read what the tweets said - there's a hatfull of stand-up comedians who say 'worse' every night. Sure it was distasteful, but people need to get off the outrage bus and grow some thicker skin. And the police need to spend their time elsewhere.
How the hell did we end up in a situation like this? The hypocrisy after the defence of Charlie Hebdo is startling.
[although I do like the Record's reporting style: "On the same day, tattooed clown Denny posted about the “elaborate skittle show” in Glasgow.", and, "Another degenerate, Ricky Clobb, posted: 'Hope the driver wasn’t the same guy who was flying that helicopter last year.'" Very malcolmg.]
Nobody has explained (at least on PB) quite why the victims and their relatives should have to tolerate such abuse. They wouldn't be expected to tolerate being bawled at in the local shopping centre or having malicious gossip spread about them so why on the virtual world? People will be poorly enough as it is.
In general, why is it permissible to treat people in this way so personally? How many depressions, nervous breakdowns and suicides do you consider acceptable?
That's where I find the arguments in favour of free speech weak. Because they do real harm to people in this sort of case. I'd be grateful if someone could resolve the issue, because I don't want free speech to be lost either.
Were the comments sent to the relatives? If not, unless they were present or someone drew it to their attention how would they hear about them?
I'm not on Twitter or Facebook. For all I know (and care) there may well be whole Twitter threads and Facebook pages devoted to writing the most appalling (but not libellous) things about me. But if I don't know about them, what's the issue?
Personally I think people who write malicious stories about people they don't know who are grieving are acting horribly and indecently. But that's a matter of good manners and common decency rather than the criminal law.
"Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 5m5 minutes ago My single seat constituency polling in Scotland will be released next week. This should fill some gaps in expectations in Scotland."
Could his Lordship be made aware that while I have no particular problem with his tax avoidance, I do have a major problem with prickteases.
Going to be a fun day for Scottish Labour I expect.
I understand that Britain is represented by Philip Hammond, Defence Secretary at today's Holocaust Memorial service at Auschwitz. Some other countries sent their Royals. Could we not even have found one of them to turn up? If Charles can skitter off to Riyadh at a moment's notice to pay his respects to a new king could he not have found the time to pay his respects at this event?
Hammond is Foreign Secretary...
You're right. My mistake.
Even so, isn't this the sort of event that royals are made for?
The government planned and fought the war with broad support from the electorate. The royals are of German descent. I think it was the right call.
The Prince of Wales is at the commemoration event in Westminster.
There were plenty of off colour jokes about Nasa when the NASA Shuttle crashed.- need another seven astronauts.
How far families of the bereaved would have seen the twitter comments is another matter, but allowing Twitter to become a court of public opinion is not a desirable outcome. If the joke was made in a comedy club, it may have been received with a stony silence. Perhaps the guy who made the Tweet should remember Wellington - publish and be damned.
Hmm. And yet allowing Twitter to become a lynch mob is not acceptable either, nor is committing a breach of the peace (at least one of those reported tweets would certainly qualify as that if said out loud in some parts of Glasgow).
Of course, we don't know (and I can't be bothered to check) whether the tweets were made in, say, a memorial webpage or the like - in which case it would be more like disrupting a family funeral (as a rough analogy), and there action would be more justified surely.
Okay, probably no simple answer. So we'll see how it goes. Some of the discussion here has been very useful for me in considering the issues, though what is also interesting about the whole Glasgow affair is how completely unfounded some of the demands/notions made at the time were - how the Scots were NEVER going to name the driver and how the Scots Police were going to prosecute everyone who commented: in fact, it was the Northumbria Police who arrested the original tweeter in question.
"Malicious communication"?!? How long has that been an offence? That just sounds like an outright restriction on free speech - you can't even claim it incites hatred.
Since 1988; "Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys— (i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; (ii)a threat; or (iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated."
"A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both."
That's horrendous. So it's actually illegal to be "grossly offensive" when you Tweet? And the state determines what is and isn't offensive.
Jonathan Chait said it right in the column I just linked:
"Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate."
''He was ignoring the direction of travel and another PBer said the other day all his leftie voting pals in the constituency expect Anna Soubry to pile votes on to her majority. ''
If Soubry increases her maj I reckon it will be because NP's vote is a no show. That's the trend we've seen in recent months, a discrepancy between labour's poll score and the numbers actually prepared to vote for ed.
In terms of actual on the ground voter punch in 2015 I reckon labour might be closer to 25 than 35 in poll terms.
Individual voter registration might make a difference, too.
"Malicious communication"?!? How long has that been an offence? That just sounds like an outright restriction on free speech - you can't even claim it incites hatred.
Since 1988; "Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys— (i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; (ii)a threat; or (iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated."
"A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both."
It is clear that 'grossly offensive' is being given a very broad definition at the moment - leading to some ludicrous convictions.
Plus I am not certain that the courts are fully examining the issue of the intention behind the communications.
We certainly need to revisit this piece of legislation and make sure it is actually dealing with a real issue. Not being abused by the over-zealous
"Malicious communication"?!? How long has that been an offence? That just sounds like an outright restriction on free speech - you can't even claim it incites hatred.
The Malicious Communication act is 1988
The Margaret Thatcher Malicious Communication Act, 1988?
There were plenty of off colour jokes about Nasa when the NASA Shuttle crashed.- need another seven astronauts.
How far families of the bereaved would have seen the twitter comments is another matter, but allowing Twitter to become a court of public opinion is not a desirable outcome. If the joke was made in a comedy club, it may have been received with a stony silence. Perhaps the guy who made the Tweet should remember Wellington - publish and be damned.
Hmm. And yet allowing Twitter to become a lynch mob is not acceptable either, nor is committing a breach of the peace (at least one of those reported tweets would certainly qualify as that if said out loud in some parts of Glasgow).
Of course, we don't know (and I can't be bothered to check) whether the tweets were made in, say, a memorial webpage or the like - in which case it would be more like disrupting a family funeral (as a rough analogy), and there action would be more justified surely.
Okay, probably no simple answer. So we'll see how it goes. Some of the discussion here has been very useful for me in considering the issues, though what is also interesting about the whole Glasgow affair is how completely unfounded some of the demands/notions made at the time were - how the Scots were NEVER going to name the driver and how the Scots Police were going to prosecute everyone who commented: in fact, it was the Northumbria Police who arrested the original tweeter in question.
Some of the stuff Frankie Boyle has come out with is grossly offensive, by any definition. Should it be illegal ? No.
I understand that Britain is represented by Philip Hammond, Defence Secretary at today's Holocaust Memorial service at Auschwitz. Some other countries sent their Royals. Could we not even have found one of them to turn up? If Charles can skitter off to Riyadh at a moment's notice to pay his respects to a new king could he not have found the time to pay his respects at this event?
Hammond is Foreign Secretary...
You're right. My mistake.
Even so, isn't this the sort of event that royals are made for?
The government planned and fought the war with broad support from the electorate. The royals are of German descent. I think it was the right call.
The Prince of Wales is at the commemoration event in Westminster.
"Malicious communication"?!? How long has that been an offence? That just sounds like an outright restriction on free speech - you can't even claim it incites hatred.
Since 1988; "Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys— (i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; (ii)a threat; or (iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated."
"A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both."
That's horrendous. So it's actually illegal to be "grossly offensive" when you Tweet? And the state determines what is and isn't offensive.
Jonathan Chait said it right in the column I just linked:
"Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate."
Only illegal if the "purpose in sending it is that it should cause distress or anxiety to the recipient", which shouldn't count here
He'll hold I'm afraid, London Conservatives are no SNP.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. My brother lives and works there and locals were up in arms about the complete balls up the Lib Dems made of the council, including shambolic installation of traffic-free zones. Hence why the LibDems got booted out last year and it went back Tory.
Don't be too rash to dismiss claims that Ed Davey is in trouble.
So if making a public joke about a recent car crash can land you in trouble with the police, what else is banned? Is it dependent on how long ago the deaths happened? Would 9/11 jokes be illegal? How about ones about the Falkland War? The Second World War? The Cromwellian conquest of Ireland? The viking invasions?
He'll hold I'm afraid, London Conservatives are no SNP.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. My brother lives and works there and locals were up in arms about the complete balls up the Lib Dems made of the council, including shambolic installation of traffic-free zones. Hence why the LibDems got booted out last year and it went back Tory.
Don't be too rash to dismiss claims that Ed Davey is in trouble.
Thanks for your concern about my betting, but I'll take polling data over anecdote
Read what the tweets said - there's a hatfull of stand-up comedians who say 'worse' every night. Sure it was distasteful, but people need to get off the outrage bus and grow some thicker skin. And the police need to spend their time elsewhere.
How the hell did we end up in a situation like this? The hypocrisy after the defence of Charlie Hebdo is startling.
[although I do like the Record's reporting style: "On the same day, tattooed clown Denny posted about the “elaborate skittle show” in Glasgow.", and, "Another degenerate, Ricky Clobb, posted: 'Hope the driver wasn’t the same guy who was flying that helicopter last year.'" Very malcolmg.]
Nobody has explained (at least on PB) quite why the victims and their relatives should have to tolerate such abuse. They wouldn't be expected to tolerate being bawled at in the local shopping centre or having malicious gossip spread about them so why on the virtual world? People will be poorly enough as it is.
In general, why is it permissible to treat people in this way so personally? How many depressions, nervous breakdowns and suicides do you consider acceptable?
That's where I find the arguments in favour of free speech weak. Because they do real harm to people in this sort of case. I'd be grateful if someone could resolve the issue, because I don't want free speech to be lost either.
Were the comments sent to the relatives? If not, unless they were present or someone drew it to their attention how would they hear about them?
I'm not on Twitter or Facebook. For all I know (and care) there may well be whole Twitter threads and Facebook pages devoted to writing the most appalling (but not libellous) things about me. But if I don't know about them, what's the issue?
Personally I think people who write malicious stories about people they don't know who are grieving are acting horribly and indecently. But that's a matter of good manners and common decency rather than the criminal law.
THanks. Some of that already covered in the chat with Dr S.
Points noted. But, thinking abiut what you say, it seems to me that in the particular case of a high-profile story like that, such things are bound to turn up and come to attention unless the relatives don't read a paper for months. Likewise - and not this tine depending on a Record journalist - a Google check on, say, the incident. So distress and in many cases harm can be expected to occur, and should have been taken into account by the poster, unless these people are to have to avoid running Google checks as a result?
I understand that Britain is represented by Philip Hammond, Defence Secretary at today's Holocaust Memorial service at Auschwitz. Some other countries sent their Royals. Could we not even have found one of them to turn up? If Charles can skitter off to Riyadh at a moment's notice to pay his respects to a new king could he not have found the time to pay his respects at this event?
Hammond is Foreign Secretary...
You're right. My mistake.
Even so, isn't this the sort of event that royals are made for?
The government planned and fought the war with broad support from the electorate. The royals are of German descent. I think it was the right call.
Of all the reasons for not sending a royal along the fact that Queen Victoria married a German strikes me as the daftest one. On that basis what on earth was the Queen turning up at the D-Day celebrations?
There are plenty of younger royals around. Are they all so incredibly busy that not one could have turned up at probably the last official commemoration where there will still be living survivors present? And at a time when we have seen a rise in murderous anti-Semitism in Europe?
The German bit was tongue-in-cheek. My point was that it was a political war, not an imperial one. It seemed - to me - more appropriate that the government attend rather than an in-bred stuffed shirt.
Mr. Jimmy, not sufficiently. Being an offensive idiot can be upsetting, annoying and obnoxious but it should not be a criminal offence.
Twitter, and comparable media, are more complicated than the 'olden days', when communication meant speaking to someone, writing in a paper or sending them a letter, but right now the terribly under-resourced police seem ready and willing to arrest Twitterfools for essentially being moronic.
I understand that Britain is represented by Philip Hammond, Defence Secretary at today's Holocaust Memorial service at Auschwitz. Some other countries sent their Royals. Could we not even have found one of them to turn up? If Charles can skitter off to Riyadh at a moment's notice to pay his respects to a new king could he not have found the time to pay his respects at this event?
I'd have thought he wouldn't want to kill off an industry that could well grow if Greece was to leave the Euro
The number of jobs directly or indirectly related to the tourism sector were 840,000 in 2008 and represented 19% of the country's total labor force.[151] In 2009, Greece welcomed over 19.3 million tourists,[152] a major increase from the 17.7 million tourists the country welcomed in 2008.[153]
He'll hold I'm afraid, London Conservatives are no SNP.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. My brother lives and works there and locals were up in arms about the complete balls up the Lib Dems made of the council, including shambolic installation of traffic-free zones. Hence why the LibDems got booted out last year and it went back Tory.
Don't be too rash to dismiss claims that Ed Davey is in trouble.
And 2 by elections since last May have shown swings to the Lib Dems from the Conservatives which indicates that the new Conservative administration is not that well loved .
27 January 2015 at 4:18pm Poll: 55% of Britons would prefer Cameron as PM over Miliband More than half (55%) of Britons would prefer to see David Cameron carry on as prime minister after the general election.
When faced with having to choose either Cameron or Ed Miliband as the next prime minister, only 45% opted for the Labour leader.
The Com Res/ITV News poll found that a slim majority (51%) would prefer to see a Labour majority in the House of Commons, while almost three-quarters (72%) would rather one-party rule over another coalition.
Mr. Jimmy, not sufficiently. Being an offensive idiot can be upsetting, annoying and obnoxious but it should not be a criminal offence.
Twitter, and comparable media, are more complicated than the 'olden days', when communication meant speaking to someone, writing in a paper or sending them a letter, but right now the terribly under-resourced police seem ready and willing to arrest Twitterfools for essentially being moronic.
What if you can prove that they are deliberately trying to cause distress or anxiety for another person?
"Malicious communication"?!? How long has that been an offence? That just sounds like an outright restriction on free speech - you can't even claim it incites hatred.
Since 1988; "Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys— (i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; (ii)a threat; or (iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated."
"A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both."
That's horrendous. So it's actually illegal to be "grossly offensive" when you Tweet? And the state determines what is and isn't offensive.
Jonathan Chait said it right in the column I just linked:
"Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate."
Presumably there's a line. If I send you and every member of your family, a letter every day saying you're a cunt, then at some point it ceases being free speech and becomes harassment.
Presumably there's a line. If I send you and every member of your family, a letter every day saying you're a cunt, then at some point it ceases being free speech and becomes harassment.
The question is merely where the line is drawn.
That's not the same thing at all. One is private harassment. The other is statements on a public forum.
Presumably there's a line. If I send you and every member of your family, a letter every day saying you're a cunt, then at some point it ceases being free speech and becomes harassment.
The question is merely where the line is drawn.
That's not the same thing at all. One is private harassment. The other is statements on a public forum.
But presumably there is a line: if every internet message board you visited was filled with (as above), then at some point you could reasonably claim you were being harassed, right?
Read what the tweets said - there's a hatfull of stand-up comedians who say 'worse' every night. Sure it was distasteful, but people need to get off the outrage bus and grow some thicker skin. And the police need to spend their time elsewhere.
How the hell did we end up in a situation like this? The hypocrisy after the defence of Charlie Hebdo is startling.
[although I do like the Record's reporting style: "On the same day, tattooed clown Denny posted about the “elaborate skittle show” in Glasgow.", and, "Another degenerate, Ricky Clobb, posted: 'Hope the driver wasn’t the same guy who was flying that helicopter last year.'" Very malcolmg.]
.
Were the comments sent to the relatives? If not, unless they were present or someone drew it to their attention how would they hear about them?
I'm not on Twitter or Facebook. For all I know (and care) there may well be whole Twitter threads and Facebook pages devoted to writing the most appalling (but not libellous) things about me. But if I don't know about them, what's the issue?
Personally I think people who write malicious stories about people they don't know who are grieving are acting horribly and indecently. But that's a matter of good manners and common decency rather than the criminal law.
THanks. Some of that already covered in the chat with Dr S.
Points noted. But, thinking abiut what you say, it seems to me that in the particular case of a high-profile story like that, such things are bound to turn up and come to attention unless the relatives don't read a paper for months. Likewise - and not this tine depending on a Record journalist - a Google check on, say, the incident. So distress and in many cases harm can be expected to occur, and should have been taken into account by the poster, unless these people are to have to avoid running Google checks as a result?
I suppose the moral may be - never wish for fame.
I think that probably if you are a victim of such a terrible incident you have quite enough upsetting you without worrying about what some anonymous half-wit says behind your back. It must be hard though - but unless you isolate yourself completely distress is bound to occur, even by seeing someone else happy let alone as a result of malice. I don't see how the law can stop this though social mores might.
When people wore black armbands maybe it was easier for people to realise that they were fragile and so, maybe, observing common decency was easier to do. I realise that doesn't work in a digital age.
Mr. Jimmy, not sufficiently. Being an offensive idiot can be upsetting, annoying and obnoxious but it should not be a criminal offence.
Twitter, and comparable media, are more complicated than the 'olden days', when communication meant speaking to someone, writing in a paper or sending them a letter, but right now the terribly under-resourced police seem ready and willing to arrest Twitterfools for essentially being moronic.
It's a pretty easy one for the police, though, because the evidence is all there on twitter's servers. Must help the clear-up statistics.
Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
Quite how the lenders can negotiate with someone whose first act is to choke off one of Greece's remaining revenue streams is beyond me. He will never pay.
Presumably there's a line. If I send you and every member of your family, a letter every day saying you're a cunt, then at some point it ceases being free speech and becomes harassment.
The question is merely where the line is drawn.
That's not the same thing at all. One is private harassment. The other is statements on a public forum.
But presumably there is a line: if every internet message board you visited was filled with (as above), then at some point you could reasonably claim you were being harassed, right?
I'm not talking about what people can "reasonably claim". I'm talking about what justification there is for the police to get involved. And comments made publicly on internet forums do not justify that. If I find places like 4chan unpleasant, then I can just visit the nicer ones, like PB.
I understand that Britain is represented by Philip Hammond, Defence Secretary at today's Holocaust Memorial service at Auschwitz. Some other countries sent their Royals. Could we not even have found one of them to turn up? If Charles can skitter off to Riyadh at a moment's notice to pay his respects to a new king could he not have found the time to pay his respects at this event?
Hammond is Foreign Secretary...
You're right. My mistake.
Even so, isn't this the sort of event that royals are made for?
The government planned and fought the war with broad support from the electorate. The royals are of German descent. I think it was the right call.
Of all the reasons for not sending a royal along the fact that Queen Victoria married a German strikes me as the daftest one. On that basis what on earth was the Queen turning up at the D-Day celebrations?
There are plenty of younger royals around. Are they all so incredibly busy that not one could have turned up at probably the last official commemoration where there will still be living survivors present? And at a time when we have seen a rise in murderous anti-Semitism in Europe?
The German bit was tongue-in-cheek. My point was that it was a political war, not an imperial one. It seemed - to me - more appropriate that the government attend rather than an in-bred stuffed shirt.
If we're going to have a Royal family, sending them off to ceremonies and commemorations here, there and everywhere is exactly what they should be doing.
And, tongue also in cheek, they're not really German now - they're more multi-cultural these days, no?
Presumably there's a line. If I send you and every member of your family, a letter every day saying you're a cunt, then at some point it ceases being free speech and becomes harassment.
The question is merely where the line is drawn.
That's not the same thing at all. One is private harassment. The other is statements on a public forum.
But presumably there is a line: if every internet message board you visited was filled with (as above), then at some point you could reasonably claim you were being harassed, right?
I'm not talking about what people can "reasonably claim". I'm talking about what justification there is for the police to get involved. And comments made publicly on internet forums do not justify that. If I find places like 4chan unpleasant, then I can just visit the nicer ones, like PB.
There are very few people who don't find 4chan unpleasant. Most of them are on 4chan. Being dicks.
Mr. Taffys, Tsipras might not be miscalculating, on the eurozone. The EU will be worried about loss of face if Greece toddles off, and very worried that the whole currency could crumble. They might yet buckle, although that then presents the problem of what they do about the likes of Spain, et al.
Never mind this, how about their "Green Deposits Saved" market?
What percentage of Green candidates will save their deposits (by winning more than 5% of the vote) at the General Election?
20% or below 8/1 and a saver on 21-30% at 6/1
Sweet Lord above. Are they trying to give away money?!
Mr. Neil, would you still back 20% or below at 5/2? And how many seats are the Greens hoping to stand in now? I'd have thought 500, given the membership (and coffers) boost?
Tspiras is an amusing effwit. I went to Crete last year on an all-included package at a very upmarket joint, Yes I ate every meal nearly in the resort. But the resort employed alot of locals, and bought alot of local produce and I visited Knossos and places and went through the airport etc. It all helped their economy. To damage the tourist industry is beyond insane. But then he's a hard lefty.....we knew that already...
Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
I understand that Britain is represented by Philip Hammond, Defence Secretary at today's Holocaust Memorial service at Auschwitz. Some other countries sent their Royals. Could we not even have found one of them to turn up? If Charles can skitter off to Riyadh at a moment's notice to pay his respects to a new king could he not have found the time to pay his respects at this event?
Hammond is Foreign Secretary...
You're right. My mistake.
Even so, isn't this the sort of event that royals are made for?
The government planned and fought the war with broad support from the electorate. The royals are of German descent. I think it was the right call.
Of all the reasons for not sending a royal along the fact that Queen Victoria married a German strikes me as the daftest one. On that basis what on earth was the Queen turning up at the D-Day celebrations?
There are plenty of younger royals around. Are they all so incredibly busy that not one could have turned up at probably the last official commemoration where there will still be living survivors present? And at a time when we have seen a rise in murderous anti-Semitism in Europe?
The German bit was tongue-in-cheek. My point was that it was a political war, not an imperial one. It seemed - to me - more appropriate that the government attend rather than an in-bred stuffed shirt.
And, tongue also in cheek, they're not really German now - they're more multi-cultural these days, no?
Marrying off an increasing number of sons and daughters to white British commoners (the horror!) rather than foreign blue-bloods has probably had the opposite effect
Never mind this, how about their "Green Deposits Saved" market?
What percentage of Green candidates will save their deposits (by winning more than 5% of the vote) at the General Election?
20% or below 8/1 and a saver on 21-30% at 6/1
Sweet Lord above. Are they trying to give away money?!
Mr. Neil, would you still back 20% or below at 5/2? And how many seats are the Greens hoping to stand in now? I'd have thought 500, given the membership (and coffers) boost?
Yes, 5/2 is still value. The target was for 500 candidates before the surge. I'd be confident of that number being achieved now (maybe even more with the extra members and cash). I would be much less confident of saving 100 deposits!
The law pre-dates the internet, and clarification/amendment is needed to stop people being arrested essentially for being dickish on Twitter.
It was - in the early 2000's: to cover internet message boards and the like as there was a loophole in the MC Act which meant if the communications were made in a public forum but clearly directed at and individual or individuals it wasn't covered as the MC only covered directly sending message too a person.
Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
I reckon only if the tweet was @rellies or was #atrendingtopic would it be possible to argue that it was directed at the relatives.
But then he's a hard lefty.....we knew that already...
It seems the markets don't. Its all 'when in government he'll come to his senses' 'a stitch-up deal will be done' etc.
I'm not so sure. This is a dreadful signal to send. Tsipras' plan appears to be that he creates an everlasting socialist paradise based on an eternal fiscal transfer from elsewhere in Europe.
Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
If he's a two-bit knob with 20 followers, then I'd say he can write what he wants. The harm is done by the professionally offended idiots who shriek about the outrage in every forum they can access.
Mr. Carnyx, the law definitely needs amending to take account of modern communications and protect freedom of speech.
Generally, I think the line should perhaps be drawn between comments made on Twitter and those directly sent to those involved (obviously that does not apply where incitement to criminal actions or leaking of private/confidential information is involved).
Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
How would the relatives find out about it unless they already happened to follow that person - or a related hashtag was involved?
Many, many millions of things are said on Twitter on a daily basis and most probably go unread by anything other than a small handful of people.
This law was never intended to be used on anything like Twitter - as Twitter didn't exist when it was created.
The law is being misused - and has to be revisited before it is dragged even further into disrepute.
Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
How would the relatives find out about it unless they already happened to follow that person - or a related hashtag was involved?
Many, many millions of things are said on Twitter on a daily basis and most probably go unread by anything other than a small handful of people.
This law was never intended to be used on anything like Twitter - as Twitter didn't exist when it was created.
The law is being misused - and has to be revisited before it is dragged even further into disrepute.
It was revised in the early 2000s specifically to cover things like Twitter i.e. public message boards.
Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
No, it wouldn't. And even a single tweet directed towards a relative shouldn't be illegal, since it's easy enough to block. We've become a world of over-sensitive idiots. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?
“A lot of them are political obsessives: activists, poll-watchers, or they work in political HQs. Real anoraky stats people, or political scientists with their own models.” In other words, not necessarily the mug punters the bookies traditionally love.
Shaddick reckons political betting is the fastest-growing area of all types.
Shaddick is the embodiment of the industry’s response. He is 45, and took a degree in politics and modern history at Manchester before becoming a Ladbrokes lifer. A few years back, the firm was looking for someone in the office to look after the politics bets. “I put my hand up on the basis that it would take a couple of hours a week,” said Shaddick. Now it’s his full-time job.
'Alexis Tsipras, leader of the triumphant anti-bailout party Syriza, believes such deals 'alienate tourists from the local economy'
What local tourists? Greece is bust.
Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
You're misreading it, I think; he means, roughly, stops tourists from spending within the wider local economy as opposed to the tour company.
The operators will go simply move elsewhere, if their customers prefer to stay in resorts. Crazy.
Can he fill the hole with those who prefer a more 'local' holiday? I wonder.
He needs to devalue, use the drachma and have beer at 50p a pint - we'll all be over there in a flash.
Don't fall ill. Imagine what healthcare will be like in a completely knackered out economy.
The increased rate of attrition should help with the deficit though. The sick and elderly are not very productive. <-- Offensive enough for a visit from the Old Bill?
Mr. Alistair, cheers for that information. Such arrests appear a relatively recent phenomenon, however.
I would guess that it is because the technology to broadcast grossly offensive messages is now trivially in the hands of idiots, whereas 12 years ago the idea of a portable always-on internet connected terminal was still science fiction and Usenet was still the cutting edge of internet messaging (Usenet remains awesome).
Incidentally here's the CPS's guidlines for prosecuting cases under the '88,'03 laws
Mr. Alistair, cheers for that information. Such arrests appear a relatively recent phenomenon, however.
I would guess that it is because the technology to broadcast grossly offensive messages is now trivially in the hands of idiots, whereas 12 years ago the idea of a portable always-on internet connected terminal was still science fiction and Usenet was still the cutting edge of internet messaging (Usenet remains awesome).
Incidentally here's the CPS's guidlines for prosecuting cases under the '88,'03 laws
27 January 2015 at 4:18pm Poll: 55% of Britons would prefer Cameron as PM over Miliband More than half (55%) of Britons would prefer to see David Cameron carry on as prime minister after the general election.
When faced with having to choose either Cameron or Ed Miliband as the next prime minister, only 45% opted for the Labour leader.
The Com Res/ITV News poll found that a slim majority (51%) would prefer to see a Labour majority in the House of Commons, while almost three-quarters (72%) would rather one-party rule over another coalition.
Last updated Tue 27 Jan 2015
55/45 to Cameron over Miliband.. you pleased with that?
Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
How would the relatives find out about it unless they already happened to follow that person - or a related hashtag was involved?
Many, many millions of things are said on Twitter on a daily basis and most probably go unread by anything other than a small handful of people.
This law was never intended to be used on anything like Twitter - as Twitter didn't exist when it was created.
The law is being misused - and has to be revisited before it is dragged even further into disrepute.
It was revised in the early 2000s specifically to cover things like Twitter i.e. public message boards.
Internet messaging in 2001 (the last revision) bears no resemblance to Twitter or other online communication options.
The law is not fit for purpose and is being used completely inappropriately.
We do need to protect people from online harassment and make sure that those who target others in a malicious way online are caught. But the law is being applied far too widely and doing damage to free speech as well as the reputation of the legal system as a whole.
Mr. Alistair, cheers for that information. Such arrests appear a relatively recent phenomenon, however.
I would guess that it is because the technology to broadcast grossly offensive messages is now trivially in the hands of idiots, whereas 12 years ago the idea of a portable always-on internet connected terminal was still science fiction and Usenet was still the cutting edge of internet messaging (Usenet remains awesome).
Incidentally here's the CPS's guidlines for prosecuting cases under the '88,'03 laws
"There is no requirement that any person sees the message or be offended by it."
And this one is relevant to the Sunderland chap:
"A prosecution is unlikely to be both necessary and proportionate where the communication was not intended for a wide audience, nor was that the obvious consequence of sending the communication; particularly where the intended audience did not include the victim or target of the communication in question"
Mr. Alistair, cheers for that information. Such arrests appear a relatively recent phenomenon, however.
I would guess that it is because the technology to broadcast grossly offensive messages is now trivially in the hands of idiots, whereas 12 years ago the idea of a portable always-on internet connected terminal was still science fiction and Usenet was still the cutting edge of internet messaging (Usenet remains awesome).
Incidentally here's the CPS's guidlines for prosecuting cases under the '88,'03 laws
Mr. Alistair, cheers for that information. Such arrests appear a relatively recent phenomenon, however.
I would guess that it is because the technology to broadcast grossly offensive messages is now trivially in the hands of idiots, whereas 12 years ago the idea of a portable always-on internet connected terminal was still science fiction and Usenet was still the cutting edge of internet messaging (Usenet remains awesome).
Incidentally here's the CPS's guidlines for prosecuting cases under the '88,'03 laws
Mr. Alistair, cheers for that information. Such arrests appear a relatively recent phenomenon, however.
I would guess that it is because the technology to broadcast grossly offensive messages is now trivially in the hands of idiots, whereas 12 years ago the idea of a portable always-on internet connected terminal was still science fiction and Usenet was still the cutting edge of internet messaging (Usenet remains awesome).
Incidentally here's the CPS's guidlines for prosecuting cases under the '88,'03 laws
''He was ignoring the direction of travel and another PBer said the other day all his leftie voting pals in the constituency expect Anna Soubry to pile votes on to her majority. ''
If Soubry increases her maj I reckon it will be because NP's vote is a no show. That's the trend we've seen in recent months, a discrepancy between labour's poll score and the numbers actually prepared to vote for ed.
In terms of actual on the ground voter punch in 2015 I reckon labour might be closer to 25 than 35 in poll terms.
Individual voter registration might make a difference, too.
Everything is anecdotal except proper polls, but I'm not too worried at present. An Ashcroft revisit that asked with actual candidate names would be good. Individual registration is indeed a serious concern in inner cities for the reasons we've discussed, but registration is actually slightly up in Broxtowe.
Never mind this, how about their "Green Deposits Saved" market?
What percentage of Green candidates will save their deposits (by winning more than 5% of the vote) at the General Election?
20% or below 8/1 and a saver on 21-30% at 6/1
Sweet Lord above. Are they trying to give away money?!
Mr. Neil, would you still back 20% or below at 5/2? And how many seats are the Greens hoping to stand in now? I'd have thought 500, given the membership (and coffers) boost?
Yes, 5/2 is still value. The target was for 500 candidates before the surge. I'd be confident of that number being achieved now (maybe even more with the extra members and cash). I would be much less confident of saving 100 deposits!
For comparison, in 2010 UKIP stood 558 candidates and saved 99 deposits (18%), with a UK vote share of 3.1% and an average vote share of 3.7% in the seats that they contested.
I'd expect the Green vote in 2015 to be more locally concentrated than the UKIP vote in 2010, which would suggest saving fewer deposits for the same national vote share.
Looks like the rebel offensive continues to bear fruit, with heavy casualties inflicted and reserves having to be deployed by government forces. The Novorussian Armed Forces are advancing west of Donetsk, north of Lugansk and probing at Mariupol. Crucially around eight thousand government soldiers are now encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron.
Hopefully a resolution can be achieved quickly and Europe can apply pressure to the Kiev government to forget their dreams of a narrow Galician inspired state, denying the legitimacy of the majority of Ukrainians, and the neo cons are for once made to account for their foreign policy disasters.
Looks like the rebel offensive continues to bear fruit, with heavy casualties inflicted and reserves having to be deployed by government forces. The Novorussian Armed Forces are advancing west of Donetsk, north of Lugansk and probing at Mariupol. Crucially around eight thousand government soldiers are now encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron.
Hopefully a resolution can be achieved quickly and Europe can apply pressure to the Kiev government to forget their dreams of a narrow Galician inspired state, denying the legitimacy of the majority of Ukrainians, and the neo cons are for once made to account for their foreign policy disasters.
Lawyer squeals about no longer earning a king's ransom for getting some paedo off or representing lying foreign toerags trying to screw British army.
Grayling is doing it because he can. Because lawyer is up there with estate agent and traffic warden with the public, largely due to the Bar's own efforts.
''He was ignoring the direction of travel and another PBer said the other day all his leftie voting pals in the constituency expect Anna Soubry to pile votes on to her majority. ''
If Soubry increases her maj I reckon it will be because NP's vote is a no show. That's the trend we've seen in recent months, a discrepancy between labour's poll score and the numbers actually prepared to vote for ed.
In terms of actual on the ground voter punch in 2015 I reckon labour might be closer to 25 than 35 in poll terms.
Individual voter registration might make a difference, too.
Everything is anecdotal except proper polls, but I'm not too worried at present. An Ashcroft revisit that asked with actual candidate names would be good. Individual registration is indeed a serious concern in inner cities for the reasons we've discussed, but registration is actually slightly up in Broxtowe.
But DYOR...
It dates from April 2014, but Ashcroft had you leading Anna Soubry by 44/30%, a swing of 7% compared to 2010. Even if we assume that Soubry will recover some lost ground, that's a big deficit to overcome. I imagine that she's not the sort of MP who would build up much of a personal following.
Looks like the rebel offensive continues to bear fruit, with heavy casualties inflicted and reserves having to be deployed by government forces. The Novorussian Armed Forces are advancing west of Donetsk, north of Lugansk and probing at Mariupol. Crucially around eight thousand government soldiers are now encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron.
Hopefully a resolution can be achieved quickly and Europe can apply pressure to the Kiev government to forget their dreams of a narrow Galician inspired state, denying the legitimacy of the majority of Ukrainians, and the neo cons are for once made to account for their foreign policy disasters.
Does RT not have a forum for you to comment on?
I like the bit where he has a go at Ukraine for dreaming of a "narrow Galician inspired state", while using the term for a Russian imperial statelet in the 19th Century.
Looks like the rebel offensive continues to bear fruit, with heavy casualties inflicted and reserves having to be deployed by government forces. The Novorussian Armed Forces are advancing west of Donetsk, north of Lugansk and probing at Mariupol. Crucially around eight thousand government soldiers are now encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron.
Hopefully a resolution can be achieved quickly and Europe can apply pressure to the Kiev government to forget their dreams of a narrow Galician inspired state, denying the legitimacy of the majority of Ukrainians, and the neo cons are for once made to account for their foreign policy disasters.
Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
How would the relatives find out about it unless they already happened to follow that person - or a related hashtag was involved?
Many, many millions of things are said on Twitter on a daily basis and most probably go unread by anything other than a small handful of people.
This law was never intended to be used on anything like Twitter - as Twitter didn't exist when it was created.
The law is being misused - and has to be revisited before it is dragged even further into disrepute.
It was revised in the early 2000s specifically to cover things like Twitter i.e. public message boards.
Showing how New Labour are the enemies of liberalism.
What's shameful is that the Tories have been co-opted into this new consensus.
Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
I reckon only if the tweet was @rellies or was #atrendingtopic would it be possible to argue that it was directed at the relatives.
Mr. Jimmy, the difference might be a tweet, versus a tweet directed at (say) a relative of someone recently killed.
Hmm. If a tweet said, for instance, that the 6 dead in Glasgow were worthless/not worth worrying about, would that not count as being directed at the rellies?
If he's a two-bit knob with 20 followers, then I'd say he can write what he wants. The harm is done by the professionally offended idiots who shriek about the outrage in every forum they can access.
Mr. Carnyx, the law definitely needs amending to take account of modern communications and protect freedom of speech.
Generally, I think the line should perhaps be drawn between comments made on Twitter and those directly sent to those involved (obviously that does not apply where incitement to criminal actions or leaking of private/confidential information is involved).
Mr. Alistair, cheers for that information. Such arrests appear a relatively recent phenomenon, however.
I would guess that it is because the technology to broadcast grossly offensive messages is now trivially in the hands of idiots, whereas 12 years ago the idea of a portable always-on internet connected terminal was still science fiction and Usenet was still the cutting edge of internet messaging (Usenet remains awesome).
Incidentally here's the CPS's guidlines for prosecuting cases under the '88,'03 laws
Comments
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html
One to watch...
What do I win if correct?
"Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1
"A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both."
My single seat constituency polling in Scotland will be released next week. This should fill some gaps in expectations in Scotland."
Could his Lordship be made aware that while I have no particular problem with his tax avoidance, I do have a major problem with prickteases.
I'm not on Twitter or Facebook. For all I know (and care) there may well be whole Twitter threads and Facebook pages devoted to writing the most appalling (but not libellous) things about me. But if I don't know about them, what's the issue?
Personally I think people who write malicious stories about people they don't know who are grieving are acting horribly and indecently. But that's a matter of good manners and common decency rather than the criminal law.
Of course, we don't know (and I can't be bothered to check) whether the tweets were made in, say, a memorial webpage or the like - in which case it would be more like disrupting a family funeral (as a rough analogy), and there action would be more justified surely.
Okay, probably no simple answer. So we'll see how it goes. Some of the discussion here has been very useful for me in considering the issues, though what is also interesting about the whole Glasgow affair is how completely unfounded some of the demands/notions made at the time were - how the Scots were NEVER going to name the driver and how the Scots Police were going to prosecute everyone who commented: in fact, it was the Northumbria Police who arrested the original tweeter in question.
Jonathan Chait said it right in the column I just linked:
"Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate."
If Soubry increases her maj I reckon it will be because NP's vote is a no show. That's the trend we've seen in recent months, a discrepancy between labour's poll score and the numbers actually prepared to vote for ed.
In terms of actual on the ground voter punch in 2015 I reckon labour might be closer to 25 than 35 in poll terms.
Individual voter registration might make a difference, too.
Plus I am not certain that the courts are fully examining the issue of the intention behind the communications.
We certainly need to revisit this piece of legislation and make sure it is actually dealing with a real issue. Not being abused by the over-zealous
Don't be too rash to dismiss claims that Ed Davey is in trouble.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927991/Greece-s-radical-new-leader-declares-war-country-s-inclusive-resorts-visited-tens-thousands-Brits-year.html
Points noted. But, thinking abiut what you say, it seems to me that in the particular case of a high-profile story like that, such things are bound to turn up and come to attention unless the relatives don't read a paper for months. Likewise - and not this tine depending on a Record journalist - a Google check on, say, the incident. So distress and in many cases harm can be expected to occur, and should have been taken into account by the poster, unless these people are to have to avoid running Google checks as a result?
I suppose the moral may be - never wish for fame.
Twitter, and comparable media, are more complicated than the 'olden days', when communication meant speaking to someone, writing in a paper or sending them a letter, but right now the terribly under-resourced police seem ready and willing to arrest Twitterfools for essentially being moronic.
The number of jobs directly or indirectly related to the tourism sector were 840,000 in 2008 and represented 19% of the country's total labor force.[151] In 2009, Greece welcomed over 19.3 million tourists,[152] a major increase from the 17.7 million tourists the country welcomed in 2008.[153]
which indicates that the new Conservative administration is not that well loved .
What local tourists? Greece is bust.
Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-01-27/poll-55-of-britons-would-prefer-cameron-as-pm-over-miliband/
27 January 2015 at 4:18pm
Poll: 55% of Britons would prefer Cameron as PM over Miliband
More than half (55%) of Britons would prefer to see David Cameron carry on as prime minister after the general election.
When faced with having to choose either Cameron or Ed Miliband as the next prime minister, only 45% opted for the Labour leader.
The Com Res/ITV News poll found that a slim majority (51%) would prefer to see a Labour majority in the House of Commons, while almost three-quarters (72%) would rather one-party rule over another coalition.
Last updated Tue 27 Jan 2015
The question is merely where the line is drawn.
Why hasn't Ed nipped over to congratulate this new standard bearer for the left?!
I thought the name of the Glasgow driver was never going to be released?
The paper is happy to name him
Can he fill the hole with those who prefer a more 'local' holiday? I wonder.
When people wore black armbands maybe it was easier for people to realise that they were fragile and so, maybe, observing common decency was easier to do. I realise that doesn't work in a digital age.
But your last line is very sage advice.
Quite how the lenders can negotiate with someone whose first act is to choke off one of Greece's remaining revenue streams is beyond me. He will never pay.
And, tongue also in cheek, they're not really German now - they're more multi-cultural these days, no?
Mr. Taffys, Tsipras might not be miscalculating, on the eurozone. The EU will be worried about loss of face if Greece toddles off, and very worried that the whole currency could crumble. They might yet buckle, although that then presents the problem of what they do about the likes of Spain, et al.
60% of Greece's debt is owned by Europe's tax payers, according to a graphic from the Times today.
IT was amended to cover that situation as well.
It seems the markets don't. Its all 'when in government he'll come to his senses' 'a stitch-up deal will be done' etc.
I'm not so sure. This is a dreadful signal to send. Tsipras' plan appears to be that he creates an everlasting socialist paradise based on an eternal fiscal transfer from elsewhere in Europe.
EDIT: What JonnyJimmy said, too
Generally, I think the line should perhaps be drawn between comments made on Twitter and those directly sent to those involved (obviously that does not apply where incitement to criminal actions or leaking of private/confidential information is involved).
Many, many millions of things are said on Twitter on a daily basis and most probably go unread by anything other than a small handful of people.
This law was never intended to be used on anything like Twitter - as Twitter didn't exist when it was created.
The law is being misused - and has to be revisited before it is dragged even further into disrepute.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31007987
MPs to question Chilcot over delays - 4-2-15.
Shaddick reckons political betting is the fastest-growing area of all types.
Shaddick is the embodiment of the industry’s response. He is 45, and took a degree in politics and modern history at Manchester before becoming a Ladbrokes lifer. A few years back, the firm was looking for someone in the office to look after the politics bets. “I put my hand up on the basis that it would take a couple of hours a week,” said Shaddick. Now it’s his full-time job.
Incidentally here's the CPS's guidlines for prosecuting cases under the '88,'03 laws
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/
"There is no requirement that any person sees the message or be offended by it."
The law is not fit for purpose and is being used completely inappropriately.
We do need to protect people from online harassment and make sure that those who target others in a malicious way online are caught. But the law is being applied far too widely and doing damage to free speech as well as the reputation of the legal system as a whole.
"A prosecution is unlikely to be both necessary and proportionate where the communication was not intended for a wide audience, nor was that the obvious consequence of sending the communication; particularly where the intended audience did not include the victim or target of the communication in question"
Ah. So you only have to think something bad, to commit a crime.
"Grayling puts the di[c]k into tat."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/former-tory-mp-calls-justice-5032053
But DYOR...
I'd expect the Green vote in 2015 to be more locally concentrated than the UKIP vote in 2010, which would suggest saving fewer deposits for the same national vote share.
Looks like the rebel offensive continues to bear fruit, with heavy casualties inflicted and reserves having to be deployed by government forces. The Novorussian Armed Forces are advancing west of Donetsk, north of Lugansk and probing at Mariupol. Crucially around eight thousand government soldiers are now encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron.
Hopefully a resolution can be achieved quickly and Europe can apply pressure to the Kiev government to forget their dreams of a narrow Galician inspired state, denying the legitimacy of the majority of Ukrainians, and the neo cons are for once made to account for their foreign policy disasters.
Lawyer squeals about no longer earning a king's ransom for getting some paedo off or representing lying foreign toerags trying to screw British army.
Grayling is doing it because he can. Because lawyer is up there with estate agent and traffic warden with the public, largely due to the Bar's own efforts.
Next.
What's shameful is that the Tories have been co-opted into this new consensus.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31009233
Good news for patients.