Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Or were you referring to someone else?
Is it reading or comprehension you are struggling with?
Well, if it took eight years to notice he had a washer dryer in his flat, I'm guessing the former?
The UK faces demands to pay up to £200 billion for slavery, while a study in the scientific journal Nature Sustainability last year concluded it will owe £6.2 trillion in climate reparations by 2050 because of its carbon emissions since 1960
And none of it is necessary. Eg I manage to post a great deal of 'out there' thought-provoking material without getting banned. Eight years on here and not even a yellow let alone a red.
The UK faces demands to pay up to £200 billion for slavery, while a study in the scientific journal Nature Sustainability last year concluded it will owe £6.2 trillion in climate reparations by 2050 because of its carbon emissions since 1960
I'm cool with that. We can probably get it back with a 40% uplift from the Italians, Danes and French.
Commercial restrictions by betting operators ... From a total of 14,923,840 active customer accounts, operators reported 643,779 accounts restricted in some form – a rate of 4.31 per cent. ... 25.42 per cent of active customers are in profit vs. 46.78 per cent of restricted customers 72.54 per cent of active customers are in loss vs. 51.29 per cent of restricted customers. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
The anti-Gambling Commission has uncovered some interesting findings although I'm not holding my breath waiting for action.
What proportion of accounts closed for winning over the years are active........
The second most common form of restriction was account closures, with 2.23 per cent of active accounts being closed for commercial reasons. This applies to 51.69 percent of restricted accounts. Given the overlap in the figures, a large proportion of accounts will be subject to stake factoring prior to being permanently closed. Several operators report not using account closures for commercial reasons at all. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
One reason for not closing accounts is that the bookie can report to shareholders that they have more active accounts, even if some are restricted to buttons.
The point I am trying to make is active accounts have to have made a bet in 2024. All the accounts banned in the years before 2024 are deliberately excluded, which makes the analysis completely misleading on closed accounts.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Or were you referring to someone else?
Is it reading or comprehension you are struggling with?
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Honestly, you’re just showing yourself up now.
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
When William gets back he’s going to have hundreds of notifications.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
I have no problem with this, if the mods say talk of remigration is beyond the pale, then it's beyond the pale. And if I were modding the site I would have banned Williamglenn long before this as a Russian troll. Pub rules and all that - the landlord can bar you as it's his pub.
But I think it would be useful, a la Sam Smiths, to have a stickied list of what isn't permitted in pub PB. Namely discussion of certain issues, remigration if that's now a bannable offence, etc. Using the 'nazi bar' analogy (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar) I think it's pretty reasonable to for the mods to keep certain issues and posters out.
But that rules list needs to be clearly flagged to all users and easily available for new users who aren't longtime readers/lurkers.
And none of it is necessary. Eg I manage to post a great deal of 'out there' thought-provoking material without getting banned. Eight years on here and not even a yellow let alone a red.
I think I may have been around a little longer, and also not been banned, warned, or forbidden certain topics. Admittedly I've not managed 'thought provoking' yet, but one can have aspirations.
The UK faces demands to pay up to £200 billion for slavery, while a study in the scientific journal Nature Sustainability last year concluded it will owe £6.2 trillion in climate reparations by 2050 because of its carbon emissions since 1960
I'm cool with that. We can probably get it back with a 40% uplift from the Italians, Danes and French.
Yes, but we will be the only country with a government dumb enough to pay it. "Hooray, international rules," they will say, and "Hooray, a punishment for Britain for being so wicked."
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
I have no problem with this, if the mods say talk of remigration is beyond the pale, then it's beyond the pale. And if I were modding the site I would have banned Williamglenn long before this as a Russian troll. Pub rules and all that - the landlord can bar you as it's his pub.
But I think it would be useful, a la Sam Smiths, to have a stickied list of what isn't permitted in pub PB. Namely discussion of certain issues, remigration if that's now a bannable offence, etc. Using the 'nazi bar' analogy (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar) I think it's pretty reasonable to for the mods to keep certain issues and posters out.
But that rules list needs to be clearly flagged to all users and easily available for new users who aren't longtime readers/lurkers.
I have no problem with whatever they ban or don’t.
And none of it is necessary. Eg I manage to post a great deal of 'out there' thought-provoking material without getting banned. Eight years on here and not even a yellow let alone a red.
I think I may have been around a little longer, and also not been banned, warned, or forbidden certain topics. Admittedly I've not managed 'thought provoking' yet, but one can have aspirations.
Don't do yourself down, Big O. You often get me thinking. It's a stimulating challenge to work out what on earth you're driving at.
And none of it is necessary. Eg I manage to post a great deal of 'out there' thought-provoking material without getting banned. Eight years on here and not even a yellow let alone a red.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Or were you referring to someone else?
Is it reading or comprehension you are struggling with?
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Honestly, you’re just showing yourself up now.
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Go back and read the thread; follow the words along slowly with your finger, if it helps you.
You will observe the plea you made for site rules, and for wanting to know what they are. So by way of direct response I suggested some. They would be very sensible rules, which you would do well to consider (perhaps later, when you have sobered up) - but both you and I know that the site rules aren’t set by me.
So we’re ALL stupid trolling racist twats. At least potentially
It was just a generalised belch of lonely anger, aimed at us from Lapland, by a sad old man wandering the tundra, seeking company. Now I understand
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
I have no problem with this, if the mods say talk of remigration is beyond the pale, then it's beyond the pale. And if I were modding the site I would have banned Williamglenn long before this as a Russian troll. Pub rules and all that - the landlord can bar you as it's his pub.
But I think it would be useful, a la Sam Smiths, to have a stickied list of what isn't permitted in pub PB. Namely discussion of certain issues, remigration if that's now a bannable offence, etc. Using the 'nazi bar' analogy (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar) I think it's pretty reasonable to for the mods to keep certain issues and posters out.
But that rules list needs to be clearly flagged to all users and easily available for new users who aren't longtime readers/lurkers.
Here is a list, although there have been some tweaks (e.g. around grooming scandals):
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
If I saw it I wouldn’t do a thing. Why risk getting stabbed ?
I wouldn’t blame any min wage security guard for not getting involved either.
On our local groups we have been complaining about the rise of it in Durham and Chester for several years. I’m not making a party political point here and hold no torch for JENRICK.
It’s notable locally since Police increased their presence in town incidents of not just shoplifting but other anti social behaviour has declined.
That’s good.
I’d rather raise the issue and try to get some police presence to do something about it than just say ‘oh it’s very bad we can’t really do much but roll our eyes’. If people fear consequences they are less likely to do something.
In Durham a fair bit of the theft was from the local groggers to sell in the local pubs to get some cash to get some grog.
So we probably agree the "answer", if there is one, relates to Policing levels in High Streets as a deterrence.
Fine - but you then have to ask from where do we recruit the additional Police, how are they paid and trained etc? The Met lost 1000 officers last year and is down to 33,000 - how can we recruit and retain officers?
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
Women claim the worst pain is childbirth but they go back and have another baby. Nor were men deterred by the near certainty of madness, disability and death from syphilis or AIDS.
Having more children or experiencing sexual intercourse are, it must be said, much more desirable as human goals than "stealing another 9 sausage rolls from Greggs"
Perhaps you missed that nuance
I came across a German family today with, two children (maybe 8/10? I can never judge age) who are cycling the same miles as me and carrying their own tents and kit across the UK. Ended up in the same place and the two kids have been playing badminton for nearly two hours after 40-50 miles on the bike. Mum has the map out while dad cooks dinner.
I felt the first reproductive twang as I sat back with my beer watching them. Hours of gentle drama and laughter.
Commercial restrictions by betting operators ... From a total of 14,923,840 active customer accounts, operators reported 643,779 accounts restricted in some form – a rate of 4.31 per cent. ... 25.42 per cent of active customers are in profit vs. 46.78 per cent of restricted customers 72.54 per cent of active customers are in loss vs. 51.29 per cent of restricted customers. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
The anti-Gambling Commission has uncovered some interesting findings although I'm not holding my breath waiting for action.
What proportion of accounts closed for winning over the years are active........
The second most common form of restriction was account closures, with 2.23 per cent of active accounts being closed for commercial reasons. This applies to 51.69 percent of restricted accounts. Given the overlap in the figures, a large proportion of accounts will be subject to stake factoring prior to being permanently closed. Several operators report not using account closures for commercial reasons at all. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
One reason for not closing accounts is that the bookie can report to shareholders that they have more active accounts, even if some are restricted to buttons.
The point I am trying to make is active accounts have to have made a bet in 2024. All the accounts banned in the years before 2024 are deliberately excluded, which makes the analysis completely misleading on closed accounts.
I am not sure you have read it correctly.
"We collected data related to commercial restrictions applied to active customer accounts1 within the previous calendar year."
So my many accounts that were closed ten to fifteen years ago are not included.
If operators closed 2.2% of accounts that were active in 2024, one extrapolation would be to assume they do that every year, and that over a decade as many as one in five accounts are getting closed. Now that will include lots of shadow accounts from gamblers who have lost their own accounts so is also misleading, but 2.2% is far from an accurate reflection of the number of gamblers who would like to bet but are not allowed to because of the operators fear of losing to them.
I don't see it as being 'sad' in the least. 'Sad' is someone getting cancer. 'Sad' is someone losing their job.
This **** made a series of choices, under no time or other pressure to do so, that led him into the situation. Worse, it led the rest of his family into the situation, including his kids. He did so wide-eyed. He then actively promoted a fascist, imperialist regime.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
Women claim the worst pain is childbirth but they go back and have another baby. Nor were men deterred by the near certainty of madness, disability and death from syphilis or AIDS.
Having more children or experiencing sexual intercourse are, it must be said, much more desirable as human goals than "stealing another 9 sausage rolls from Greggs"
Perhaps you missed that nuance
I came across a German family today with, two children (maybe 8/10? I can never judge age) who are cycling the same miles as me and carrying their own tents and kit across the UK. Ended up in the same place and the two kids have been playing badminton for nearly two hours after 40-50 miles on the bike. Mum has the map out while dad cooks dinner.
I felt the first reproductive twang as I sat back with my beer watching them. Hours of gentle drama and laughter.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Or were you referring to someone else?
Is it reading or comprehension you are struggling with?
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Honestly, you’re just showing yourself up now.
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Go back and read the thread; follow the words along slowly with your finger, if it helps you.
You will observe the plea you made for site rules, and for wanting to know what they are. So by way of direct response I suggested some. They would be very sensible rules, which you would do well to consider (perhaps later, when you have sobered up) - but both you and I know that the site rules aren’t set by me.
So we’re ALL stupid trolling racist twats. At least potentially
It was just a generalised belch of lonely anger, aimed at us from Lapland, by a sad old man wandering the tundra, seeking company. Now I understand
In the sense that being told not to do anything puts you in the category of people who might, I suppose. But only a drunkard would find any wisdom in such a fatuous thought.
Commercial restrictions by betting operators ... From a total of 14,923,840 active customer accounts, operators reported 643,779 accounts restricted in some form – a rate of 4.31 per cent. ... 25.42 per cent of active customers are in profit vs. 46.78 per cent of restricted customers 72.54 per cent of active customers are in loss vs. 51.29 per cent of restricted customers. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
The anti-Gambling Commission has uncovered some interesting findings although I'm not holding my breath waiting for action.
What proportion of accounts closed for winning over the years are active........
The second most common form of restriction was account closures, with 2.23 per cent of active accounts being closed for commercial reasons. This applies to 51.69 percent of restricted accounts. Given the overlap in the figures, a large proportion of accounts will be subject to stake factoring prior to being permanently closed. Several operators report not using account closures for commercial reasons at all. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
One reason for not closing accounts is that the bookie can report to shareholders that they have more active accounts, even if some are restricted to buttons.
The point I am trying to make is active accounts have to have made a bet in 2024. All the accounts banned in the years before 2024 are deliberately excluded, which makes the analysis completely misleading on closed accounts.
I am not sure you have read it correctly.
"We collected data related to commercial restrictions applied to active customer accounts1 within the previous calendar year."
So my many accounts that were closed ten to fifteen years ago are not included.
If operators closed 2.2% of accounts that were active in 2024, one extrapolation would be to assume they do that every year, and that over a decade as many as one in five accounts are getting closed. Now that will include lots of shadow accounts from gamblers who have lost their own accounts so is also misleading, but 2.2% is far from an accurate reflection of the number of gamblers who would like to bet but are not allowed to because of the operators fear of losing to them.
I deleted that post after re-reading the report. But yes.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
If I saw it I wouldn’t do a thing. Why risk getting stabbed ?
I wouldn’t blame any min wage security guard for not getting involved either.
On our local groups we have been complaining about the rise of it in Durham and Chester for several years. I’m not making a party political point here and hold no torch for JENRICK.
It’s notable locally since Police increased their presence in town incidents of not just shoplifting but other anti social behaviour has declined.
That’s good.
I’d rather raise the issue and try to get some police presence to do something about it than just say ‘oh it’s very bad we can’t really do much but roll our eyes’. If people fear consequences they are less likely to do something.
In Durham a fair bit of the theft was from the local groggers to sell in the local pubs to get some cash to get some grog.
So we probably agree the "answer", if there is one, relates to Policing levels in High Streets as a deterrence.
Fine - but you then have to ask from where do we recruit the additional Police, how are they paid and trained etc? The Met lost 1000 officers last year and is down to 33,000 - how can we recruit and retain officers?
Good news: Give the police the power to taser wrong'uns at will, and you will have potential recruits queuing up everywhere to join- not just in Primrose Hill
Bad news: They won't really the the kind of people we want as police. Not really.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Or were you referring to someone else?
Is it reading or comprehension you are struggling with?
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Honestly, you’re just showing yourself up now.
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
When William gets back he’s going to have hundreds of notifications.
Answerphone: "You have 12... HUNDRED messages!"
Derek Zoolander: "That is a LITTLE above average!"
I don't see it as being 'sad' in the least. 'Sad' is someone getting cancer. 'Sad' is someone losing their job.
This **** made a series of choices, under no time or other pressure to do so, that led him into the situation. Worse, it led the rest of his family into the situation, including his kids. He did so wide-eyed. He then actively promoted a fascist, imperialist regime.
How many of the Indian workers lured by safe jobs in Russia will end up on the front line?
And none of it is necessary. Eg I manage to post a great deal of 'out there' thought-provoking material without getting banned. Eight years on here and not even a yellow let alone a red.
I think I may have been around a little longer, and also not been banned, warned, or forbidden certain topics. Admittedly I've not managed 'thought provoking' yet, but one can have aspirations.
Don't do yourself down, Big O. You often get me thinking. It's a stimulating challenge to work out what on earth you're driving at.
I'm very small O in a very big universe. One likes to retain a veil of the unknown.
(The Omnium tag comes from Trollope's character who is a little baffled)
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
So what was the bleedin' line he crossed, then? This is ridic
It's been policy since as long as I can remember that the mods don't litigate their decisions in the comment threads.
No doubt they will have communicated with william himself. They don't really owe you an explanation, and Leon Tribune of the Commenters doesn't really suit you, anyway.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
I have no problem with this, if the mods say talk of remigration is beyond the pale, then it's beyond the pale. And if I were modding the site I would have banned Williamglenn long before this as a Russian troll. Pub rules and all that - the landlord can bar you as it's his pub.
But I think it would be useful, a la Sam Smiths, to have a stickied list of what isn't permitted in pub PB. Namely discussion of certain issues, remigration if that's now a bannable offence, etc. Using the 'nazi bar' analogy (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar) I think it's pretty reasonable to for the mods to keep certain issues and posters out.
But that rules list needs to be clearly flagged to all users and easily available for new users who aren't longtime readers/lurkers.
Here is a list, although there have been some tweaks (e.g. around grooming scandals):
Then the mods should sticky it and add to it / subtract from it as needed.
I'm familiar with most of these as a long term visitor to this site, though I still read most threads I no longer comment regularly due to the rampant transphobia of recent years.
Had cyclefree posted that my partner (who was trans, post op, GRC, and now sadly some years deceased) rather than Beth Upton was transitioning primarily to get a peek at the ladies in the changing rooms, both she and this site would be hearing from my lawyers. Yet not a bannable offence, apparently, while Williamglenn's fashy crap is.
My point is it would be nice to have a specific, current, regularly updated and easily accessible rules list to point to.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
If I saw it I wouldn’t do a thing. Why risk getting stabbed ?
I wouldn’t blame any min wage security guard for not getting involved either.
On our local groups we have been complaining about the rise of it in Durham and Chester for several years. I’m not making a party political point here and hold no torch for JENRICK.
It’s notable locally since Police increased their presence in town incidents of not just shoplifting but other anti social behaviour has declined.
That’s good.
I’d rather raise the issue and try to get some police presence to do something about it than just say ‘oh it’s very bad we can’t really do much but roll our eyes’. If people fear consequences they are less likely to do something.
In Durham a fair bit of the theft was from the local groggers to sell in the local pubs to get some cash to get some grog.
So we probably agree the "answer", if there is one, relates to Policing levels in High Streets as a deterrence.
Fine - but you then have to ask from where do we recruit the additional Police, how are they paid and trained etc? The Met lost 1000 officers last year and is down to 33,000 - how can we recruit and retain officers?
Also targeting. Part of the reason serious crime has fallen so much is because the police target the really sick bastards while leaving the High Street unattended. An example is taking sexual assault much more seriously, particularly within relationships. Fraser Nelson gets a lot of grief for pointing this out.
It's probably the case we've swung too much away from neighbourhood policing for optimal outcomes. But there's always a tradeoff - e.g. the focus on speeding drivers is there because it's the most likely reason a young healthy person ends up dead or disabled, rather than murder or assault.
I don't see it as being 'sad' in the least. 'Sad' is someone getting cancer. 'Sad' is someone losing their job.
This **** made a series of choices, under no time or other pressure to do so, that led him into the situation. Worse, it led the rest of his family into the situation, including his kids. He did so wide-eyed. He then actively promoted a fascist, imperialist regime.
How many of the Indian workers lured by safe jobs in Russia will end up on the front line?
Just catching up with the news that Essex Police bussed in counter protestors. Literally picked them up from the station and plopped them into the protests. First they lied about it, now they're claiming they were 'facilitating the right to assembly'.
I'm not sure there's even a word in the English lexicon for a police force deliberately attempting to inflame a protest that they are in charge of policing. It is surely completely unprecedented historically.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
Women claim the worst pain is childbirth but they go back and have another baby. Nor were men deterred by the near certainty of madness, disability and death from syphilis or AIDS.
Having more children or experiencing sexual intercourse are, it must be said, much more desirable as human goals than "stealing another 9 sausage rolls from Greggs"
Perhaps you missed that nuance
I came across a German family today with, two children (maybe 8/10? I can never judge age) who are cycling the same miles as me and carrying their own tents and kit across the UK. Ended up in the same place and the two kids have been playing badminton for nearly two hours after 40-50 miles on the bike. Mum has the map out while dad cooks dinner.
I felt the first reproductive twang as I sat back with my beer watching them. Hours of gentle drama and laughter.
That reads a little creepy - I’m certain unintentionally. I’m not sure getting primal urges whilst sitting drinking in a campsite spying on a family is the best look,.
And none of it is necessary. Eg I manage to post a great deal of 'out there' thought-provoking material without getting banned. Eight years on here and not even a yellow let alone a red.
I think I may have been around a little longer, and also not been banned, warned, or forbidden certain topics. Admittedly I've not managed 'thought provoking' yet, but one can have aspirations.
I don't see it as being 'sad' in the least. 'Sad' is someone getting cancer. 'Sad' is someone losing their job.
This **** made a series of choices, under no time or other pressure to do so, that led him into the situation. Worse, it led the rest of his family into the situation, including his kids. He did so wide-eyed. He then actively promoted a fascist, imperialist regime.
How many of the Indian workers lured by safe jobs in Russia will end up on the front line?
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
If I saw it I wouldn’t do a thing. Why risk getting stabbed ?
I wouldn’t blame any min wage security guard for not getting involved either.
On our local groups we have been complaining about the rise of it in Durham and Chester for several years. I’m not making a party political point here and hold no torch for JENRICK.
It’s notable locally since Police increased their presence in town incidents of not just shoplifting but other anti social behaviour has declined.
That’s good.
I’d rather raise the issue and try to get some police presence to do something about it than just say ‘oh it’s very bad we can’t really do much but roll our eyes’. If people fear consequences they are less likely to do something.
In Durham a fair bit of the theft was from the local groggers to sell in the local pubs to get some cash to get some grog.
So we probably agree the "answer", if there is one, relates to Policing levels in High Streets as a deterrence.
Fine - but you then have to ask from where do we recruit the additional Police, how are they paid and trained etc? The Met lost 1000 officers last year and is down to 33,000 - how can we recruit and retain officers?
Good news: Give the police the power to taser wrong'uns at will, and you will have potential recruits queuing up everywhere to join- not just in Primrose Hill
Bad news: They won't really the the kind of people we want as police. Not really.
The YouTube compilations suggest the police love a bit of tasing under a veneer of Dura_Ace-style mil-speak - "subject is on foot, high risk to local wildlife, taser at 50,000 volts deployed"
I don't see it as being 'sad' in the least. 'Sad' is someone getting cancer. 'Sad' is someone losing their job.
This **** made a series of choices, under no time or other pressure to do so, that led him into the situation. Worse, it led the rest of his family into the situation, including his kids. He did so wide-eyed. He then actively promoted a fascist, imperialist regime.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
Women claim the worst pain is childbirth but they go back and have another baby. Nor were men deterred by the near certainty of madness, disability and death from syphilis or AIDS.
Having more children or experiencing sexual intercourse are, it must be said, much more desirable as human goals than "stealing another 9 sausage rolls from Greggs"
Perhaps you missed that nuance
I came across a German family today with, two children (maybe 8/10? I can never judge age) who are cycling the same miles as me and carrying their own tents and kit across the UK. Ended up in the same place and the two kids have been playing badminton for nearly two hours after 40-50 miles on the bike. Mum has the map out while dad cooks dinner.
I felt the first reproductive twang as I sat back with my beer watching them. Hours of gentle drama and laughter.
That reads a little creepy - I’m certain unintentionally. I’m not sure getting primal urges whilst sitting drinking in a campsite spying on a family is the best look,.
I thinks that's you, not me. Surely it's ok to look at a happy family and think that would be quite nice to have?
And none of it is necessary. Eg I manage to post a great deal of 'out there' thought-provoking material without getting banned. Eight years on here and not even a yellow let alone a red.
I think I may have been around a little longer, and also not been banned, warned, or forbidden certain topics. Admittedly I've not managed 'thought provoking' yet, but one can have aspirations.
I don't see it as being 'sad' in the least. 'Sad' is someone getting cancer. 'Sad' is someone losing their job.
This **** made a series of choices, under no time or other pressure to do so, that led him into the situation. Worse, it led the rest of his family into the situation, including his kids. He did so wide-eyed. He then actively promoted a fascist, imperialist regime.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
If I saw it I wouldn’t do a thing. Why risk getting stabbed ?
I wouldn’t blame any min wage security guard for not getting involved either.
On our local groups we have been complaining about the rise of it in Durham and Chester for several years. I’m not making a party political point here and hold no torch for JENRICK.
It’s notable locally since Police increased their presence in town incidents of not just shoplifting but other anti social behaviour has declined.
That’s good.
I’d rather raise the issue and try to get some police presence to do something about it than just say ‘oh it’s very bad we can’t really do much but roll our eyes’. If people fear consequences they are less likely to do something.
In Durham a fair bit of the theft was from the local groggers to sell in the local pubs to get some cash to get some grog.
So we probably agree the "answer", if there is one, relates to Policing levels in High Streets as a deterrence.
Fine - but you then have to ask from where do we recruit the additional Police, how are they paid and trained etc? The Met lost 1000 officers last year and is down to 33,000 - how can we recruit and retain officers?
Well locally the Police, partly due to local politicians involvement and partly through local PACT and partly through the local businesses affected raising the issue, have prioritised the issue and done something about it.
We now get this sort of action. It also helps that the chief constable wants to focus on community issues as does the PCC.
Also what doesn’t help is when the Police do a great job, catch a prolific thief, he goes to court. Is convicted and gets some bollocks behaviour order
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
Women claim the worst pain is childbirth but they go back and have another baby. Nor were men deterred by the near certainty of madness, disability and death from syphilis or AIDS.
Having more children or experiencing sexual intercourse are, it must be said, much more desirable as human goals than "stealing another 9 sausage rolls from Greggs"
Perhaps you missed that nuance
I came across a German family today with, two children (maybe 8/10? I can never judge age) who are cycling the same miles as me and carrying their own tents and kit across the UK. Ended up in the same place and the two kids have been playing badminton for nearly two hours after 40-50 miles on the bike. Mum has the map out while dad cooks dinner.
I felt the first reproductive twang as I sat back with my beer watching them. Hours of gentle drama and laughter.
That reads a little creepy - I’m certain unintentionally. I’m not sure getting primal urges whilst sitting drinking in a campsite spying on a family is the best look,.
I thinks that's you, not me. Surely it's ok to look at a happy family and think that would be quite nice to have?
I don't see it as being 'sad' in the least. 'Sad' is someone getting cancer. 'Sad' is someone losing their job.
This **** made a series of choices, under no time or other pressure to do so, that led him into the situation. Worse, it led the rest of his family into the situation, including his kids. He did so wide-eyed. He then actively promoted a fascist, imperialist regime.
Matt Wrack, disgraced ex-head of the FBU, who was ousted after various shenanigans over a disciplinary matter, elected General Secretary of NASUWT.
He had the princely number of 5000 votes, which shows how seriously NASUWT's 178,000 members took this vote. That is a mistake, as one of the things the old fool wants to do is merge with the NEU.
I don't see it as being 'sad' in the least. 'Sad' is someone getting cancer. 'Sad' is someone losing their job.
This **** made a series of choices, under no time or other pressure to do so, that led him into the situation. Worse, it led the rest of his family into the situation, including his kids. He did so wide-eyed. He then actively promoted a fascist, imperialist regime.
Just catching up with the news that Essex Police bussed in counter protestors. Literally picked them up from the station and plopped them into the protests. First they lied about it, now they're claiming they were 'facilitating the right to assembly'.
I'm not sure there's even a word in the English lexicon for a police force deliberately attempting to inflame a protest that they are in charge of policing. It is surely completely unprecedented historically.
look at you, spreading lies trying to incite more riots
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
I have no problem with this, if the mods say talk of remigration is beyond the pale, then it's beyond the pale. And if I were modding the site I would have banned Williamglenn long before this as a Russian troll. Pub rules and all that - the landlord can bar you as it's his pub.
But I think it would be useful, a la Sam Smiths, to have a stickied list of what isn't permitted in pub PB. Namely discussion of certain issues, remigration if that's now a bannable offence, etc. Using the 'nazi bar' analogy (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar) I think it's pretty reasonable to for the mods to keep certain issues and posters out.
But that rules list needs to be clearly flagged to all users and easily available for new users who aren't longtime readers/lurkers.
Here is a list, although there have been some tweaks (e.g. around grooming scandals):
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
I have no problem with this, if the mods say talk of remigration is beyond the pale, then it's beyond the pale. And if I were modding the site I would have banned Williamglenn long before this as a Russian troll. Pub rules and all that - the landlord can bar you as it's his pub.
But I think it would be useful, a la Sam Smiths, to have a stickied list of what isn't permitted in pub PB. Namely discussion of certain issues, remigration if that's now a bannable offence, etc. Using the 'nazi bar' analogy (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar) I think it's pretty reasonable to for the mods to keep certain issues and posters out.
But that rules list needs to be clearly flagged to all users and easily available for new users who aren't longtime readers/lurkers.
Here is a list, although there have been some tweaks (e.g. around grooming scandals):
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
I have no problem with this, if the mods say talk of remigration is beyond the pale, then it's beyond the pale. And if I were modding the site I would have banned Williamglenn long before this as a Russian troll. Pub rules and all that - the landlord can bar you as it's his pub.
But I think it would be useful, a la Sam Smiths, to have a stickied list of what isn't permitted in pub PB. Namely discussion of certain issues, remigration if that's now a bannable offence, etc. Using the 'nazi bar' analogy (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar) I think it's pretty reasonable to for the mods to keep certain issues and posters out.
But that rules list needs to be clearly flagged to all users and easily available for new users who aren't longtime readers/lurkers.
Here is a list, although there have been some tweaks (e.g. around grooming scandals):
I don't see it as being 'sad' in the least. 'Sad' is someone getting cancer. 'Sad' is someone losing their job.
This **** made a series of choices, under no time or other pressure to do so, that led him into the situation. Worse, it led the rest of his family into the situation, including his kids. He did so wide-eyed. He then actively promoted a fascist, imperialist regime.
It’s more “play silly games, win silly prizes.”
FAFO
That's much more like it.
I do feel very sorry for the kids. It'll be interesting to see if the widow wants to, or can, get back to the USA.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
Women claim the worst pain is childbirth but they go back and have another baby. Nor were men deterred by the near certainty of madness, disability and death from syphilis or AIDS.
Having more children or experiencing sexual intercourse are, it must be said, much more desirable as human goals than "stealing another 9 sausage rolls from Greggs"
Perhaps you missed that nuance
I came across a German family today with, two children (maybe 8/10? I can never judge age) who are cycling the same miles as me and carrying their own tents and kit across the UK. Ended up in the same place and the two kids have been playing badminton for nearly two hours after 40-50 miles on the bike. Mum has the map out while dad cooks dinner.
I felt the first reproductive twang as I sat back with my beer watching them. Hours of gentle drama and laughter.
That reads a little creepy - I’m certain unintentionally. I’m not sure getting primal urges whilst sitting drinking in a campsite spying on a family is the best look,.
I thinks that's you, not me. Surely it's ok to look at a happy family and think that would be quite nice to have?
Yes, that's on boulay - who has no kids - not you
Looking at a happy family and thinking Oh, yes, is one of the most normal things in the world
It happened to me. One minute I was resolutely anti-kids, "families are calamitous", ugh no way!, then suddenly I was looking at familial happiness and thinking Hmm; also I started reading obituaries which ended "he died without issue" which abruptly seemed the most tragic outcome in the world
Within three years I had two daughters. I never did achieve that regular domestic happiness, unfortunately, but I do not regret having kids at all. Despite all the grief and the anxiety (and the cost!) it was possibly the sanest thing I ever did, and now I have two healthy grown up daughters who don't seem to hate me, and indeed like hanging out with me. At least sometimes. That's priceless
Politics is both boring and depressing at the moment, has been for some time now. Wit has turned into witlessness on all sides. No one believes anything that any of them are saying.
Its hardly surprising that the great British public are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Even to Coldplay.
Yet the truth is if you ask "the great British public" what "the answer is" all you get is incoherent gibberish which usually starts with tax rises for everyone except me and swingeing cuts for everyone else who uses the services I don't use.
That's the problem with trying to be honest - the electorate don't want politicians to be dishonest but they don't want them to be honest either.
Top politics is about shaping the future anew. No-one has seriously tried a reasonable degree of honesty for quite a long time. Political distortion and lying has dominated the culture for many years. Peter Oborne's book The Rise of Political Lying was published 20 years ago. And he wrote it at a point many years into the new manipulative culture being in place. It's a long time since truth was tried. When you are 17% in the polls and used to dominate the political scene could be a good moment for the Tories to give it a try.
I do agree it's about "the vision thing" and if I were a Conservative. Lib Dem or Green, I'd be thinking hard about how I envisage governing Britain in the 2030s and beyond.
What does that Britain look like? How does it work? How does it operate in the best interests of all its citizens? The first thing is probably to tear up past policies and even ideologies and look at practical solutions to problems.
We've seen many times conservatism and liberalism re-invent themselves to take account of societal and technological changes. That doesn't mean abandoning core principles but recognising adaptation and evolution.
To be honest, the first thing the Conservatives need to do is be more willing to undertake a profound mea culpa - Sunak started that on the day after the election but it was never going to be enough to turn the page in and of itself.
Agree. The mea culpa is important of course, but it has to be about something, showing not only what they got wrong, but how they plan to put it right. Core principles are good too, but at this point I want clarity as to the fundamental philosophy of Conservatism in a way which, without straw men, distinguishes it from Labour, LD and Reform. at the moment I don't know what that is. Part of the reason I don't know what it is, is that all parties in fact agree (without saying so) on the very large managed state as in all western european countries, which amounts to social democracy with tinkering at the edges. Social democracy is what spends all the discretionary money (health, safety net, pensions, free education to 18, NATO, law and order, infrastructure) and, as Reform will find out, cannot be reduced much.
So, what would Conservatism be which is radically different?
I'm not a Conservative though I sense you were.
What we came to call Thatcherism was the radical solution to the cul-de-sac of Butskellism and it may be we need to think in similarly radical terms if we believe the social democratic State has come to a dead end.
We are an ageing population and a "large managed state" works well for many. Improvements in medical technology have prolonged life (though not always its quality) yet we still apply 20th century mindsets to the 21st century world. The world of factories, shifts, class and conformity casts a long shadow but that world is disappearing or fragmenting.
Our interactions with and dependency on elements of "the State" to deliver basic services are a cornerstone of our life and society and I'd like to see an honest debate about what kind of State we want and how much we are willing to pay for it.
My feeling is that almost universally we want a very large state, and reluctantly accept it has to be paid for but by others as far as possible. I think also we all know that such a large state is not good for us if on the whole it works sclerotically, though it would be better for us if it worked brilliantly.
I also think that a smaller state is almost certainly unachievable. This has a parallel. The planet wants less CO2 in the atmosphere and fears the consequence of too much. But (I think) within the constraints of pragmatic reality this is not actually going to happen.
So large and larger state and CO2 rising are both going to happen for now, even if they both bankrupt and kill us.
One certainty: A smaller state will not be delivered by Reform. Overall there will be no significant cuts to TME, currently about 45% of GDP. They would struggle to knock a single % point off it.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
Women claim the worst pain is childbirth but they go back and have another baby. Nor were men deterred by the near certainty of madness, disability and death from syphilis or AIDS.
Having more children or experiencing sexual intercourse are, it must be said, much more desirable as human goals than "stealing another 9 sausage rolls from Greggs"
Perhaps you missed that nuance
I came across a German family today with, two children (maybe 8/10? I can never judge age) who are cycling the same miles as me and carrying their own tents and kit across the UK. Ended up in the same place and the two kids have been playing badminton for nearly two hours after 40-50 miles on the bike. Mum has the map out while dad cooks dinner.
I felt the first reproductive twang as I sat back with my beer watching them. Hours of gentle drama and laughter.
That reads a little creepy - I’m certain unintentionally. I’m not sure getting primal urges whilst sitting drinking in a campsite spying on a family is the best look,.
I thinks that's you, not me. Surely it's ok to look at a happy family and think that would be quite nice to have?
Yes, that's on boulay - who has no kids - not you
Looking at a happy family and thinking Oh, yes, is one of the most normal things in the world
It happened to me. One minute I was resolutely anti-kids, "families are calamitous", ugh no way!, then suddenly I was looking at familial happiness and thinking Hmm; also I started reading obituaries which ended "he died without issue" which abruptly seemed the most tragic outcome in the world
Within three years I had two daughters. I never did achieve that regular domestic happiness, unfortunately, but I do not regret having kids at all. Despite all the grief and the anxiety (and the cost!) it was possibly the sanest thing I ever did, and now I have two healthy grown up daughters who don't seem to hate me, and indeed like hanging out with me. At least sometimes. That's priceless
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
I have no problem with this, if the mods say talk of remigration is beyond the pale, then it's beyond the pale. And if I were modding the site I would have banned Williamglenn long before this as a Russian troll. Pub rules and all that - the landlord can bar you as it's his pub.
But I think it would be useful, a la Sam Smiths, to have a stickied list of what isn't permitted in pub PB. Namely discussion of certain issues, remigration if that's now a bannable offence, etc. Using the 'nazi bar' analogy (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar) I think it's pretty reasonable to for the mods to keep certain issues and posters out.
But that rules list needs to be clearly flagged to all users and easily available for new users who aren't longtime readers/lurkers.
Here is a list, although there have been some tweaks (e.g. around grooming scandals):
The only person I'm aware of with multiple persona's has only used 1 at a time. And it's obvious it's the same bloke as every poster on here has a stalker you can follow on X...
Just catching up with the news that Essex Police bussed in counter protestors. Literally picked them up from the station and plopped them into the protests. First they lied about it, now they're claiming they were 'facilitating the right to assembly'.
I'm not sure there's even a word in the English lexicon for a police force deliberately attempting to inflame a protest that they are in charge of policing. It is surely completely unprecedented historically.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
Incidentally I have found another gas/leccy company that are almost as useless as British Gas.
Six weeks ago I had to take out a temporary account with Scottish Power to complete a house sale.
I specifically said any contact should be the bare minimum and only by email.
I then had an extraordinary eight phone calls in 96 hours from them. The first time I reminded them of their obligations and hung up. The second time I blocked their number. The fifth time I deleted my own. None of that stopped them.
When I complained, they first denied ever ringing me, then admitted this wasn't true and said that it was normal practice for their retention team to contact departing customers to persuade them to stay.
I suggested that if they thought that was a good way of persuading departing customers to stay it was small wonder they were leaving.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Or were you referring to someone else?
Is it reading or comprehension you are struggling with?
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Honestly, you’re just showing yourself up now.
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Go back and read the thread; follow the words along slowly with your finger, if it helps you.
You will observe the plea you made for site rules, and for wanting to know what they are. So by way of direct response I suggested some. They would be very sensible rules, which you would do well to consider (perhaps later, when you have sobered up) - but both you and I know that the site rules aren’t set by me.
And yet you're forever involving yourself in that area and the rest of the time attacking individuals. Really unedifying.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
If I saw it I wouldn’t do a thing. Why risk getting stabbed ?
I wouldn’t blame any min wage security guard for not getting involved either.
On our local groups we have been complaining about the rise of it in Durham and Chester for several years. I’m not making a party political point here and hold no torch for JENRICK.
It’s notable locally since Police increased their presence in town incidents of not just shoplifting but other anti social behaviour has declined.
That’s good.
I’d rather raise the issue and try to get some police presence to do something about it than just say ‘oh it’s very bad we can’t really do much but roll our eyes’. If people fear consequences they are less likely to do something.
In Durham a fair bit of the theft was from the local groggers to sell in the local pubs to get some cash to get some grog.
So we probably agree the "answer", if there is one, relates to Policing levels in High Streets as a deterrence.
Fine - but you then have to ask from where do we recruit the additional Police, how are they paid and trained etc? The Met lost 1000 officers last year and is down to 33,000 - how can we recruit and retain officers?
Increase the number of Specials? They’ve been chock full for years - people waiting to get into the police proper.
They aren’t free, but are cheaper than regular plod, and can take on mundane stuff.
A friend used to do shifts of driving a lockup van to the city centre - the regular police there would fill the van up with fighting fuckwits. He drove the FFs to the station where other regular decanted them into cells.
So he freed up on regular officer for the whole shift.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
“Yeah them poor old bosses need all the help they can get”
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
You can always set up Knappy-Gaz-betting.com or something?
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
Women claim the worst pain is childbirth but they go back and have another baby. Nor were men deterred by the near certainty of madness, disability and death from syphilis or AIDS.
Having more children or experiencing sexual intercourse are, it must be said, much more desirable as human goals than "stealing another 9 sausage rolls from Greggs"
Perhaps you missed that nuance
I came across a German family today with, two children (maybe 8/10? I can never judge age) who are cycling the same miles as me and carrying their own tents and kit across the UK. Ended up in the same place and the two kids have been playing badminton for nearly two hours after 40-50 miles on the bike. Mum has the map out while dad cooks dinner.
I felt the first reproductive twang as I sat back with my beer watching them. Hours of gentle drama and laughter.
That reads a little creepy - I’m certain unintentionally. I’m not sure getting primal urges whilst sitting drinking in a campsite spying on a family is the best look,.
I thinks that's you, not me. Surely it's ok to look at a happy family and think that would be quite nice to have?
Yes, that's on boulay - who has no kids - not you
Looking at a happy family and thinking Oh, yes, is one of the most normal things in the world
It happened to me. One minute I was resolutely anti-kids, "families are calamitous", ugh no way!, then suddenly I was looking at familial happiness and thinking Hmm; also I started reading obituaries which ended "he died without issue" which abruptly seemed the most tragic outcome in the world
Within three years I had two daughters. I never did achieve that regular domestic happiness, unfortunately, but I do not regret having kids at all. Despite all the grief and the anxiety (and the cost!) it was possibly the sanest thing I ever did, and now I have two healthy grown up daughters who don't seem to hate me, and indeed like hanging out with me. At least sometimes. That's priceless
You are both of course correct, I did just find the idea of a chap sitting at a campsite drinking beers watching a family did have some true crime type story potential even though clearly that’s not what Eabhal was getting at. I shall endeavour to only take notice of the light side of my brain/soul.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
You can always set up Knappy-Gaz-betting.com or something?
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
You can always set up Knappy-Gaz-betting.com or something?
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
You can always set up Knappy-Gaz-betting.com or something?
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
Just catching up with the news that Essex Police bussed in counter protestors. Literally picked them up from the station and plopped them into the protests. First they lied about it, now they're claiming they were 'facilitating the right to assembly'.
I'm not sure there's even a word in the English lexicon for a police force deliberately attempting to inflame a protest that they are in charge of policing. It is surely completely unprecedented historically.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
You can always set up Knappy-Gaz-betting.com or something?
The site is poorer for all the free-thinkers chased away. We are left with the dregs of the centrists
Haven’t had contact with him for a while but he was travelling and living the life. Did mention he would be sailing in the summer and likely coming this way so would catch up so if he does I shall update accordingly.
Just catching up with the news that Essex Police bussed in counter protestors. Literally picked them up from the station and plopped them into the protests. First they lied about it, now they're claiming they were 'facilitating the right to assembly'.
I'm not sure there's even a word in the English lexicon for a police force deliberately attempting to inflame a protest that they are in charge of policing. It is surely completely unprecedented historically.
look at you, spreading lies trying to incite more riots
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
You can always set up Knappy-Gaz-betting.com or something?
I don't see it as being 'sad' in the least. 'Sad' is someone getting cancer. 'Sad' is someone losing their job.
This **** made a series of choices, under no time or other pressure to do so, that led him into the situation. Worse, it led the rest of his family into the situation, including his kids. He did so wide-eyed. He then actively promoted a fascist, imperialist regime.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
You can always set up Knappy-Gaz-betting.com or something?
The site is poorer for all the free-thinkers chased away. We are left with the dregs of the centrists
+1 for Ish. A vituperative and argumentative old public school bugger I used to argue with often. I miss him. I often think he is me in another 40 years.
Also:
Al Meeks I disagreed with on everything but thought him a valuable and insightful commentator. Educated and intellectual, he provided the chum that got the rest of PB's sharks into a feeding frenzy.
Charles. Was deeply interesting once you got past the "do you know who I am?" - I'm a bit posh but not *that* posh. Charles provided genuine insight into a worldview most don't get to meet.
148grss - perhaps the site's only interesting and intellectual marxist. Did I agree with a word he said? No. Did I find his words challenged my worldview? Hell yes, in a way few other posters on here ever do.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Since you seem to have a low IQ, I’ll spell it out for you.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Christ, can this site get any more pompous? The odour of the self righteous centrist dad is pungent, tonight
You can always set up Knappy-Gaz-betting.com or something?
The site is poorer for all the free-thinkers chased away. We are left with the dregs of the centrists
+1 for Ish. A vituperative and argumentative old public school bugger I used to argue with often. I miss him. I often think he is me in another 40 years.
Also:
Al Meeks I disagreed with on everything but thought him a valuable and insightful commentator. Educated and intellectual, he provided the chum that got the rest of PB's sharks into a feeding frenzy.
Charles. Was deeply interesting once you got past the "do you know who I am?" - I'm a bit posh but not *that* posh. Charles provided genuine insight into a worldview most don't get to meet.
148grss - perhaps the site's only interesting and intellectual marxist. Did I agree with a word he said? No. Did I find his words challenged my worldview? Hell yes, in a way few other posters on here ever do.
I think 148grss is/was a she, no?
Tend to agree with you on the others (and her, for the matter of that). I miss the punning contests I used to have with Ishmael.
Incidentally I have found another gas/leccy company that are almost as useless as British Gas.
Six weeks ago I had to take out a temporary account with Scottish Power to complete a house sale.
I specifically said any contact should be the bare minimum and only by email.
I then had an extraordinary eight phone calls in 96 hours from them. The first time I reminded them of their obligations and hung up. The second time I blocked their number. The fifth time I deleted my own. None of that stopped them.
When I complained, they first denied ever ringing me, then admitted this wasn't true and said that it was normal practice for their retention team to contact departing customers to persuade them to stay.
I suggested that if they thought that was a good way of persuading departing customers to stay it was small wonder they were leaving.
Before Covid, I was a member of the British Interplanetary Society for a few years. Because I didn't have time to read as much as I used to, I cancelled my membership. A few weeks later, I got a phone call from a lady asking why I had cancelled. I explained, and she thanked me. I was never contacted by them again about membership.
Politics is both boring and depressing at the moment, has been for some time now. Wit has turned into witlessness on all sides. No one believes anything that any of them are saying.
Its hardly surprising that the great British public are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Even to Coldplay.
Yet the truth is if you ask "the great British public" what "the answer is" all you get is incoherent gibberish which usually starts with tax rises for everyone except me and swingeing cuts for everyone else who uses the services I don't use.
That's the problem with trying to be honest - the electorate don't want politicians to be dishonest but they don't want them to be honest either.
Top politics is about shaping the future anew. No-one has seriously tried a reasonable degree of honesty for quite a long time. Political distortion and lying has dominated the culture for many years. Peter Oborne's book The Rise of Political Lying was published 20 years ago. And he wrote it at a point many years into the new manipulative culture being in place. It's a long time since truth was tried. When you are 17% in the polls and used to dominate the political scene could be a good moment for the Tories to give it a try.
I do agree it's about "the vision thing" and if I were a Conservative. Lib Dem or Green, I'd be thinking hard about how I envisage governing Britain in the 2030s and beyond.
What does that Britain look like? How does it work? How does it operate in the best interests of all its citizens? The first thing is probably to tear up past policies and even ideologies and look at practical solutions to problems.
We've seen many times conservatism and liberalism re-invent themselves to take account of societal and technological changes. That doesn't mean abandoning core principles but recognising adaptation and evolution.
To be honest, the first thing the Conservatives need to do is be more willing to undertake a profound mea culpa - Sunak started that on the day after the election but it was never going to be enough to turn the page in and of itself.
Agree. The mea culpa is important of course, but it has to be about something, showing not only what they got wrong, but how they plan to put it right. Core principles are good too, but at this point I want clarity as to the fundamental philosophy of Conservatism in a way which, without straw men, distinguishes it from Labour, LD and Reform. at the moment I don't know what that is. Part of the reason I don't know what it is, is that all parties in fact agree (without saying so) on the very large managed state as in all western european countries, which amounts to social democracy with tinkering at the edges. Social democracy is what spends all the discretionary money (health, safety net, pensions, free education to 18, NATO, law and order, infrastructure) and, as Reform will find out, cannot be reduced much.
So, what would Conservatism be which is radically different?
I'm not a Conservative though I sense you were.
What we came to call Thatcherism was the radical solution to the cul-de-sac of Butskellism and it may be we need to think in similarly radical terms if we believe the social democratic State has come to a dead end.
We are an ageing population and a "large managed state" works well for many. Improvements in medical technology have prolonged life (though not always its quality) yet we still apply 20th century mindsets to the 21st century world. The world of factories, shifts, class and conformity casts a long shadow but that world is disappearing or fragmenting.
Our interactions with and dependency on elements of "the State" to deliver basic services are a cornerstone of our life and society and I'd like to see an honest debate about what kind of State we want and how much we are willing to pay for it.
My feeling is that almost universally we want a very large state, and reluctantly accept it has to be paid for but by others as far as possible. I think also we all know that such a large state is not good for us if on the whole it works sclerotically, though it would be better for us if it worked brilliantly.
I also think that a smaller state is almost certainly unachievable. This has a parallel. The planet wants less CO2 in the atmosphere and fears the consequence of too much. But (I think) within the constraints of pragmatic reality this is not actually going to happen.
So large and larger state and CO2 rising are both going to happen for now, even if they both bankrupt and kill us.
One certainty: A smaller state will not be delivered by Reform. Overall there will be no significant cuts to TME, currently about 45% of GDP. They would struggle to knock a single % point off it.
I do agree we should be endeavouring to make the State work better but that's far more than simply trying to squeeze out "efficiencies" by trying to do more with less.
Sometimes to do more you have to spend more.
I also agree part of making the State work better is to try and streamline or reduce the levels of regulation and bureaucracy which are such a source of irritation to so many. A lot of that relates to central Government constantly monitoring and asking for information and that's a trust thing.
As for CO2, I'm already seeing a few claiming the climate change emergency is over because emissions are declining - perhaps but the level of atmospheric CO2 (the Keeling Curve) is rising remorselessly and that's the real challenge.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/20/starmer-faces-slavery-reparations-demands-at-commonwealth-summit
The UK faces demands to pay up to £200 billion for slavery, while a study in the scientific journal Nature Sustainability last year concluded it will owe £6.2 trillion in climate reparations by 2050 because of its carbon emissions since 1960
"Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce379k4v3pwo
But I think it would be useful, a la Sam Smiths, to have a stickied list of what isn't permitted in pub PB. Namely discussion of certain issues, remigration if that's now a bannable offence, etc. Using the 'nazi bar' analogy (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar) I think it's pretty reasonable to for the mods to keep certain issues and posters out.
But that rules list needs to be clearly flagged to all users and easily available for new users who aren't longtime readers/lurkers.
It's a truly sad tale of someone running away from something they fear, arguably irrationally, and ending up in something far, far worse.
See thread:
https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1947935345338691679
Their forum, their rules. Either stay or go.
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
·
9m
Tulsi Gabbard is using a White House press briefing to accuse Hillary Clinton of using tranquilizers. Dystopian stuff.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1948082863577964650
It was just a generalised belch of lonely anger, aimed at us from Lapland, by a sad old man wandering the tundra, seeking company. Now I understand
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/1895932#Comment_1895932
Fine - but you then have to ask from where do we recruit the additional Police, how are they paid and trained etc? The Met lost 1000 officers last year and is down to 33,000 - how can we recruit and retain officers?
I felt the first reproductive twang as I sat back with my beer watching them. Hours of gentle drama and laughter.
So my many accounts that were closed ten to fifteen years ago are not included.
If operators closed 2.2% of accounts that were active in 2024, one extrapolation would be to assume they do that every year, and that over a decade as many as one in five accounts are getting closed. Now that will include lots of shadow accounts from gamblers who have lost their own accounts so is also misleading, but 2.2% is far from an accurate reflection of the number of gamblers who would like to bet but are not allowed to because of the operators fear of losing to them.
This **** made a series of choices, under no time or other pressure to do so, that led him into the situation. Worse, it led the rest of his family into the situation, including his kids. He did so wide-eyed. He then actively promoted a fascist, imperialist regime.
(I'll get my coat.)
Bad news: They won't really the the kind of people we want as police. Not really.
Derek Zoolander: "That is a LITTLE above average!"
(The Omnium tag comes from Trollope's character who is a little baffled)
No doubt they will have communicated with william himself. They don't really owe you an explanation, and Leon Tribune of the Commenters doesn't really suit you, anyway.
I'm familiar with most of these as a long term visitor to this site, though I still read most threads I no longer comment regularly due to the rampant transphobia of recent years.
Had cyclefree posted that my partner (who was trans, post op, GRC, and now sadly some years deceased) rather than Beth Upton was transitioning primarily to get a peek at the ladies in the changing rooms, both she and this site would be hearing from my lawyers. Yet not a bannable offence, apparently, while Williamglenn's fashy crap is.
My point is it would be nice to have a specific, current, regularly updated and easily accessible rules list to point to.
It's probably the case we've swung too much away from neighbourhood policing for optimal outcomes. But there's always a tradeoff - e.g. the focus on speeding drivers is there because it's the most likely reason a young healthy person ends up dead or disabled, rather than murder or assault.
I'm not sure there's even a word in the English lexicon for a police force deliberately attempting to inflame a protest that they are in charge of policing. It is surely completely unprecedented historically.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/12-indians-fighting-for-russia-killed-so-far-16-missing-centre-7496322
We now get this sort of action. It also helps that the chief constable wants to focus on community issues as does the PCC.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02TWWnvrSUe9mVWYpzKpyxdwXv2APhqruKoexURjdovz4fMFDq1iP93otAQSafFF4cl&id=100082861389864
Also what doesn’t help is when the Police do a great job, catch a prolific thief, he goes to court. Is convicted and gets some bollocks behaviour order
https://www.facebook.com/100064839932575/posts/pfbid0n9hJAVDSvxxat54ZWQK2Jrx9v1WgxrJS2BdgvKHLgQt4khpVHzEgx3WVe1fV1ACSl/?
Matt Wrack, disgraced ex-head of the FBU, who was ousted after various shenanigans over a disciplinary matter, elected General Secretary of NASUWT.
He had the princely number of 5000 votes, which shows how seriously NASUWT's 178,000 members took this vote. That is a mistake, as one of the things the old fool wants to do is merge with the NEU.
Old Ishmael, formerly of this parish, had far more than Leon. Banned, back with another within a few days, and the cycle recurred.
I do feel very sorry for the kids. It'll be interesting to see if the widow wants to, or can, get back to the USA.
Looking at a happy family and thinking Oh, yes, is one of the most normal things in the world
It happened to me. One minute I was resolutely anti-kids, "families are calamitous", ugh no way!, then suddenly I was looking at familial happiness and thinking Hmm; also I started reading obituaries which ended "he died without issue" which abruptly seemed the most tragic outcome in the world
Within three years I had two daughters. I never did achieve that regular domestic happiness, unfortunately, but I do not regret having kids at all. Despite all the grief and the anxiety (and the cost!) it was possibly the sanest thing I ever did, and now I have two healthy grown up daughters who don't seem to hate me, and indeed like hanging out with me. At least sometimes. That's priceless
I also think that a smaller state is almost certainly unachievable. This has a parallel. The planet wants less CO2 in the atmosphere and fears the consequence of too much. But (I think) within the constraints of pragmatic reality this is not actually going to happen.
So large and larger state and CO2 rising are both going to happen for now, even if they both bankrupt and kill us.
One certainty: A smaller state will not be delivered by Reform. Overall there will be no significant cuts to TME, currently about 45% of GDP. They would struggle to knock a single % point off it.
OGH = Our Gracious Host
This is his place. His definition of decent. @TheScreamingEagles is his emissary, enforcing his edicts.
If you want to say things that OGH doesn’t like, you do it elsewhere.
His house, his rules.
Our GENIAL Host.
#pedanticbetting.com
The police have "categorically" denied it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g8nzn3ne9o
(Surely it has always been that)
Six weeks ago I had to take out a temporary account with Scottish Power to complete a house sale.
I specifically said any contact should be the bare minimum and only by email.
I then had an extraordinary eight phone calls in 96 hours from them. The first time I reminded them of their obligations and hung up. The second time I blocked their number. The fifth time I deleted my own. None of that stopped them.
When I complained, they first denied ever ringing me, then admitted this wasn't true and said that it was normal practice for their retention team to contact departing customers to persuade them to stay.
I suggested that if they thought that was a good way of persuading departing customers to stay it was small wonder they were leaving.
They aren’t free, but are cheaper than regular plod, and can take on mundane stuff.
A friend used to do shifts of driving a lockup van to the city centre - the regular police there would fill the van up with fighting fuckwits. He drove the FFs to the station where other regular decanted them into cells.
So he freed up on regular officer for the whole shift.
He was fun. Vituperative when drunk, but fun
The site is poorer for all the free-thinkers chased away. We are left with the dregs of the centrists
He went travelling according to a poster who knew him.
He was an unpleasant POS but I wish him well
https://x.com/retronewsnow/status/1947759491132399880
RIP Ozzy.
He had it coming, he had it coming, he only had himself to blame.
Also:
Al Meeks I disagreed with on everything but thought him a valuable and insightful commentator. Educated and intellectual, he provided the chum that got the rest of PB's sharks into a feeding frenzy.
Charles. Was deeply interesting once you got past the "do you know who I am?" - I'm a bit posh but not *that* posh. Charles provided genuine insight into a worldview most don't get to meet.
148grss - perhaps the site's only interesting and intellectual marxist. Did I agree with a word he said? No. Did I find his words challenged my worldview? Hell yes, in a way few other posters on here ever do.
Tend to agree with you on the others (and her, for the matter of that). I miss the punning contests I used to have with Ishmael.
It's sad that that's so unusual.
Sometimes to do more you have to spend more.
I also agree part of making the State work better is to try and streamline or reduce the levels of regulation and bureaucracy which are such a source of irritation to so many. A lot of that relates to central Government constantly monitoring and asking for information and that's a trust thing.
As for CO2, I'm already seeing a few claiming the climate change emergency is over because emissions are declining - perhaps but the level of atmospheric CO2 (the Keeling Curve) is rising remorselessly and that's the real challenge.