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?
Gay bloke living in north london (in a place he inherited and was happy to call out his privilege) if i recall correctly, I'd be happy to be corrected tho.
George W. Bush. Not much loved outside America in his time(!) but oh, the contrast with what we have now...
Perhaps the manner of his leaving office and his behaviour afterwards?
He extended a genuine welcome to President elect Obama and coordinated a real handover of information from his staff to Obama’s. The result was an enduring friendship between his family and the Obama family.
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
+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?
Gay bloke living in north london (in a place he inherited and was happy to call out his privilege) if i recall correctly, I'd be happy to be corrected tho.
You could well be right. Not somebody I knew that well although we had a few interesting conversations.
George W. Bush. Not much loved outside America in his time(!) but oh, the contrast with what we have now...
Perhaps the manner of his leaving office and his behaviour afterwards?
He extended a genuine welcome to President elect Obama and coordinated a real handover of information from his staff to Obama’s. The result was an enduring friendship between his family and the Obama family.
But he could make a joke and laugh at himself.
And for all his verbal slips there was nothing like the bizarre outpourings we get routinely with the Mushroom Shaped One.
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.
It's very hard to explain to people without kids what's good about having kids. Objectively, it sounds shit. And much about it is. And yet you very rarely meet anyone who regrets having kids. Indeed, a large proportion of kids are had by people who already have kids and therefore kniw what they are letting themselves in for. If that is what you want, even a little bit, I hope that is how the world works out for you. I'm sure you will find it just as existentially satisfying as you suspect.
George W. Bush. Not much loved outside America in his time(!) but oh, the contrast with what we have now...
Perhaps the manner of his leaving office and his behaviour afterwards?
He extended a genuine welcome to President elect Obama and coordinated a real handover of information from his staff to Obama’s. The result was an enduring friendship between his family and the Obama family.
But he could make a joke and laugh at himself.
And for all his verbal slips there was nothing like the bizarre outpourings we get routinely with the Mushroom Shaped One.
Indeed. The million dead people resulting from Iraq was a small price to pay for having such an all round good guy.
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
Come again?
Perhaps @Tres you could explain, or if you have got it wrong, maybe summon up the class to apologise.
George W. Bush. Not much loved outside America in his time(!) but oh, the contrast with what we have now...
Perhaps the manner of his leaving office and his behaviour afterwards?
He extended a genuine welcome to President elect Obama and coordinated a real handover of information from his staff to Obama’s. The result was an enduring friendship between his family and the Obama family.
But he could make a joke and laugh at himself.
And for all his verbal slips there was nothing like the bizarre outpourings we get routinely with the Mushroom Shaped One.
Indeed. The million dead people resulting from Iraq was a small price to pay for having such an all round good guy.
I didn't say that he was an 'all-round good guy.' I said he was better than Trump. Which he was (and is). For a start, Bush may have had the judgement of a day-old kitten in foreign affairs but I don't think he ever committed treason, tried to lock up his political opponents or encouraged enemies of America to attack their allies.
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.
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.
George W. Bush. Not much loved outside America in his time(!) but oh, the contrast with what we have now...
Perhaps the manner of his leaving office and his behaviour afterwards?
He extended a genuine welcome to President elect Obama and coordinated a real handover of information from his staff to Obama’s. The result was an enduring friendship between his family and the Obama family.
But he could make a joke and laugh at himself.
And for all his verbal slips there was nothing like the bizarre outpourings we get routinely with the Mushroom Shaped One.
Indeed. The million dead people resulting from Iraq was a small price to pay for having such an all round good guy.
I didn't say that he was an 'all-round good guy.' I said he was better than Trump. Which he was (and is). For a start, Bush may have had the judgement of a day-old kitten in foreign affairs but I don't think he ever committed treason, tried to lock up his political opponents or encouraged enemies of America to attack their allies.
There's a lot of dead people who might differ from your view.
George W. Bush. Not much loved outside America in his time(!) but oh, the contrast with what we have now...
Perhaps the manner of his leaving office and his behaviour afterwards?
He extended a genuine welcome to President elect Obama and coordinated a real handover of information from his staff to Obama’s. The result was an enduring friendship between his family and the Obama family.
But he could make a joke and laugh at himself.
And for all his verbal slips there was nothing like the bizarre outpourings we get routinely with the Mushroom Shaped One.
Indeed. The million dead people resulting from Iraq was a small price to pay for having such an all round good guy.
I didn't say that he was an 'all-round good guy.' I said he was better than Trump. Which he was (and is). For a start, Bush may have had the judgement of a day-old kitten in foreign affairs but I don't think he ever committed treason, tried to lock up his political opponents or encouraged enemies of America to attack their allies.
Its not so much a low bar as a subterranean cable, isn't it?
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're the one being pompous. Making out that a poster getting 'banned' from PB for a couple of days is some sort of moral atrocity. The free-thinking outlaw renegades being censored by a stultifying middlebrow centrist blob. It's the most utter self-regarding preeny precious tosh.
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.
At least one of those posts from time to time under a new username
George W. Bush. Not much loved outside America in his time(!) but oh, the contrast with what we have now...
Perhaps the manner of his leaving office and his behaviour afterwards?
He extended a genuine welcome to President elect Obama and coordinated a real handover of information from his staff to Obama’s. The result was an enduring friendship between his family and the Obama family.
But he could make a joke and laugh at himself.
And for all his verbal slips there was nothing like the bizarre outpourings we get routinely with the Mushroom Shaped One.
Indeed. The million dead people resulting from Iraq was a small price to pay for having such an all round good guy.
I didn't say that he was an 'all-round good guy.' I said he was better than Trump. Which he was (and is). For a start, Bush may have had the judgement of a day-old kitten in foreign affairs but I don't think he ever committed treason, tried to lock up his political opponents or encouraged enemies of America to attack their allies.
Oh for the days of a big standard bad President.
Who was the worst president - Trump or James Buchanan?
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.
It's very hard to explain to people without kids what's good about having kids. Objectively, it sounds shit. And much about it is. And yet you very rarely meet anyone who regrets having kids. Indeed, a large proportion of kids are had by people who already have kids and therefore kniw what they are letting themselves in for. If that is what you want, even a little bit, I hope that is how the world works out for you. I'm sure you will find it just as existentially satisfying as you suspect.
One of the great bits with having kids is rediscovering simple pleasures like making sandcastles, throwing stones in the sea, decorating cakes etc. Its perfectly possible to do these things without kids, but in practice people don't.
I have always travelled with my boys, and to a number of apparently challenging places like Morocco, South Africa, Kenya, Swaziland, the occupied territories of Palestine, as well as more mainstream destinations. You get an amazing reception in these places with kids, and while you need to structure the trip a bit differently, it all works. It sounds like this German family has managed it. It won't be a holiday that those kids forget.
George W. Bush. Not much loved outside America in his time(!) but oh, the contrast with what we have now...
Perhaps the manner of his leaving office and his behaviour afterwards?
He extended a genuine welcome to President elect Obama and coordinated a real handover of information from his staff to Obama’s. The result was an enduring friendship between his family and the Obama family.
But he could make a joke and laugh at himself.
And for all his verbal slips there was nothing like the bizarre outpourings we get routinely with the Mushroom Shaped One.
Indeed. The million dead people resulting from Iraq was a small price to pay for having such an all round good guy.
I didn't say that he was an 'all-round good guy.' I said he was better than Trump. Which he was (and is). For a start, Bush may have had the judgement of a day-old kitten in foreign affairs but I don't think he ever committed treason, tried to lock up his political opponents or encouraged enemies of America to attack their allies.
There's a lot of dead people who might differ from your view.
George W. Bush. Not much loved outside America in his time(!) but oh, the contrast with what we have now...
Perhaps the manner of his leaving office and his behaviour afterwards?
He extended a genuine welcome to President elect Obama and coordinated a real handover of information from his staff to Obama’s. The result was an enduring friendship between his family and the Obama family.
But he could make a joke and laugh at himself.
And for all his verbal slips there was nothing like the bizarre outpourings we get routinely with the Mushroom Shaped One.
Indeed. The million dead people resulting from Iraq was a small price to pay for having such an all round good guy.
I didn't say that he was an 'all-round good guy.' I said he was better than Trump. Which he was (and is). For a start, Bush may have had the judgement of a day-old kitten in foreign affairs but I don't think he ever committed treason, tried to lock up his political opponents or encouraged enemies of America to attack their allies.
Oh for the days of a big standard bad President.
Who was the worst president - Trump or James Buchanan?
Gee, that's a hard one.
One of them left America in a state of near civil war.
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're the one being pompous. Making out that a poster getting 'banned' from PB for a couple of days is some sort of moral atrocity. The free-thinking outlaw renegades being censored by a stultifying middlebrow centrist blob. It's the most utter self-regarding preeny precious tosh.
I've been on PB for about fifteen years, and I'm quite amazed I've never received a ban.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Macrons file defamation suit against US influencer Candace Owens
"French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte have filed a defamation lawsuit against right-wing influencer Candace Owens, who claims that France's first lady was born male.
The suit, filed Wednesday in the US state of Delaware, said Owens has been spreading "outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions".
Owens has regularly repeated the claims on her popular podcast and social media channels, and in March 2024 stated that she would stake her "entire professional reputation" on her belief that Mrs Macron "is in fact a man".
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're the one being pompous. Making out that a poster getting 'banned' from PB for a couple of days is some sort of moral atrocity. The free-thinking outlaw renegades being censored by a stultifying middlebrow centrist blob. It's the most utter self-regarding preeny precious tosh.
I've been on PB for about fifteen years, and I'm quite amazed I've never received a ban.
I got sin binned for a few days once, and was informed why. I have not repeated the offence.
We are guests here, so don't get to set the rules.
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
The state has demonstrated its willingness to hand out harsh and disproportionate sentences when it is threatened - see the people jailed for years for tweets last year.
Do the same for people caught and convicted of shoplifting. Allow shopkeepers to tag offenders with anti theft paint and have the police round them up later.
Or we risk devolving into a country where the state is more worried about punishing mean tweets then repeated, habitual theft that makes those of us who actually pay for food/the tube/etc look like mugs.
Yes. Shoplifting may seem like a trivial offence, but like all these offences, if it goes entirely unpunished then the social contract shatters. Why should anyone obey the law, pay for a ticket, buy their food, cough up their taxes, when the state turns a blind eye to those that don't do this, and indeed seems to treat the generally law-abiding more harshly
This is how an Establishment loses all legitimacy. That is now happening in the UK, and it is happening fast. The government no longer rules by consent so it must do so by force. As Prof David Betz has said, we are on the road to something very dark
And on top of that, we have the Afghan scandal. We now know the government will eagerly lie to us, for years, on the most profound and controversial subjects, and could be lying right now, indeed it probably is, and we are forbidden from even discussing the lies?
It ain't good. It really really isn't good
We’ve reached a point where the governing class and the public are just talking past each other.
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.
Lots of people believe that declining CO2 emissions = lower CO2 in the atmosphere. Like they believe inflation falling = prices falling, or that deficit reduction = debt reduction.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
you're so far down the rabbit hole you don't even know it
Ok dear. Might be nice if you explained where you think my explanation falls down, rather than casually accusing me of a criminal act, and then backing it up with 'the rabbit hole'.
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.
It's very hard to explain to people without kids what's good about having kids. Objectively, it sounds shit. And much about it is. And yet you very rarely meet anyone who regrets having kids. Indeed, a large proportion of kids are had by people who already have kids and therefore kniw what they are letting themselves in for. If that is what you want, even a little bit, I hope that is how the world works out for you. I'm sure you will find it just as existentially satisfying as you suspect.
My son's now 11, and today was his last day at primary school. I have taken thousands of photos and videos of him doing all sorts of things, but there are lots of moments that I never caught - and I regret that. But having a kid has been an utterly magical experience. Blooming hard work though, especially when he was young.
If you have kids, take loads of photos and videos to capture memories. And do stuff with them, even when they're young. They may not remember that soft play you went to, or that dinosaur park, but you will.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
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.
If this is gonna become a site when you can be banned for literally having an opinion that the centrist dads - the most tedious people on earth - find “unacceptable” simply because they don’t like it, then I shan’t last long
We have lost too many diverse voices because of this hegemony of the mediocre. People like @Malmesbury or @kinabalu or @IanB2 who never ever ever ever say anything politically interesting, ever. Even if the odd dog photo is cute
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're the one being pompous. Making out that a poster getting 'banned' from PB for a couple of days is some sort of moral atrocity. The free-thinking outlaw renegades being censored by a stultifying middlebrow centrist blob. It's the most utter self-regarding preeny precious tosh.
I've been on PB for about fifteen years, and I'm quite amazed I've never received a ban.
I got sin binned for a few days once, and was informed why. I have not repeated the offence.
We are guests here, so don't get to set the rules.
Totally agree
Has it been established if Williams ban is temp or perm, for those who care ?
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
I was recently banned for the first time, some 18 years after first commenting. I understand the site was doing it for legal reasons but those legal reasons struck me as a disgrace and made me wonder who was behind it. Certainly influenced my politics.
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.
If this is gonna become a site when you can be banned for literally having an opinion that the centrist dads - the most tedious people on earth - find “unacceptable” simply because they don’t like it, then I shan’t last long
We have lost too many diverse voices because of this hegemony of the mediocre. People like @Malmesbury or @kinabalu or @IanB2 who never ever ever ever say anything politically interesting, ever. Even if the odd dog photo is cute
I really miss @Charles, @AlastairMeeks and @Richard_Nabavi. I still very much enjoy the site but I am not sure that the level of analysis we once got is currently matched. No doubt these things come in cycles (or even @Cyclefrees).
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
The state has demonstrated its willingness to hand out harsh and disproportionate sentences when it is threatened - see the people jailed for years for tweets last year.
Do the same for people caught and convicted of shoplifting. Allow shopkeepers to tag offenders with anti theft paint and have the police round them up later.
Or we risk devolving into a country where the state is more worried about punishing mean tweets then repeated, habitual theft that makes those of us who actually pay for food/the tube/etc look like mugs.
Yes. Shoplifting may seem like a trivial offence, but like all these offences, if it goes entirely unpunished then the social contract shatters. Why should anyone obey the law, pay for a ticket, buy their food, cough up their taxes, when the state turns a blind eye to those that don't do this, and indeed seems to treat the generally law-abiding more harshly
This is how an Establishment loses all legitimacy. That is now happening in the UK, and it is happening fast. The government no longer rules by consent so it must do so by force. As Prof David Betz has said, we are on the road to something very dark
And on top of that, we have the Afghan scandal. We now know the government will eagerly lie to us, for years, on the most profound and controversial subjects, and could be lying right now, indeed it probably is, and we are forbidden from even discussing the lies?
It ain't good. It really really isn't good
We’ve reached a point where the governing class and the public are just talking past each other.
Which, is astonishing when you think about it.
Why?
Why is it astonishing?
Most ruling classes, through history, have talked past The Common Man. Many were proudly exultant about the fact.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
What is it that you want me to back up?
I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
you're so far down the rabbit hole you don't even know it
Ok dear. Might be nice if you explained where you think my explanation falls down, rather than casually accusing me of a criminal act, and then backing it up with 'the rabbit hole'.
It's quite simple. If you're not aware of any of your friends or relatives going down the rabbit hole - you've gone down the rabbit hole.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
What is it that you want me to back up?
I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.
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're the one being pompous. Making out that a poster getting 'banned' from PB for a couple of days is some sort of moral atrocity. The free-thinking outlaw renegades being censored by a stultifying middlebrow centrist blob. It's the most utter self-regarding preeny precious tosh.
Once, just once, say something interesting. Or funny. Or clever. Or witty. Just once?
Somewhere in that desolate pit of nullity that is your golfing non-soul, there must be ONE comment worth making
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
you're so far down the rabbit hole you don't even know it
Ok dear. Might be nice if you explained where you think my explanation falls down, rather than casually accusing me of a criminal act, and then backing it up with 'the rabbit hole'.
It's quite simple. If you're not aware of any of your friends or relatives going down the rabbit hole - you've gone down the rabbit hole.
One could argue that when someone tosses off an accusation of incitement in response to someone else posting their alarm at a news story on PB, then refuses to back up their accusation with anything more than vague allusions to rabbit holes, they themselves are perhaps burrowing rather deep.
Ethnic cleansing should certainly be off the table, but I don't think discussion of a level of remigration should be.
Sweden and Denmark are already doing it.
Everyone will draw their lines somewhere different. But it is up to the hosts to decide the lines for each site. If you run a site then you will get to choose the rules. None of us should expect the rules here to marry up with our personal lines.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
What is it that you want me to back up?
I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.
Obviously you're unable to post any evidence.
Fool.
Um, OK. What is it that you're denying? Exactly. Is it the 'bussed' thing? Do you think the police just 'gave them a lift'? If I knew what to prove, I could perhaps have a stab.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
What is it that you want me to back up?
I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.
Obviously you're unable to post any evidence.
Fool.
Um, OK. What is it that you're denying? Exactly. Is it the 'bussed' thing? Do you think the police just 'gave them a lift'? If I knew what to prove, I could perhaps have a stab.
In words of one syllable: BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR SHUT UP.
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.
I remember - many years ago - living in a shared flat. It was just about the time 'itemised bills' were coming in. And we asked BT to turn it on so we could all pay for our correct usage of The Phone Line In The Hall.
Except, mysteriously, BT claimed for the time we'd been in the itemised list we'd spent about £10. And for the two days we hadn't - we'd spent £20,000.
Phone call to their support line revealed that "Computers don't make mistakes". And yet, after a letter (yes) to the ombudsman it turned out that, in fact, they did make mistakes. And we had a grovelling apology and the next six months phone calls for free.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
What is it that you want me to back up?
I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.
Obviously you're unable to post any evidence.
Fool.
Um, OK. What is it that you're denying? Exactly. Is it the 'bussed' thing? Do you think the police just 'gave them a lift'? If I knew what to prove, I could perhaps have a stab.
In words of one syllable: BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR SHUT UP.
Sure, delightfully put as always, but I still need you to dispute my claim - or some area of it. If you tell me what it is about by claim that you are contesting, I can seek to prove 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.
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.
If this is gonna become a site when you can be banned for literally having an opinion that the centrist dads - the most tedious people on earth - find “unacceptable” simply because they don’t like it, then I shan’t last long
We have lost too many diverse voices because of this hegemony of the mediocre. People like @Malmesbury or @kinabalu or @IanB2 who never ever ever ever say anything politically interesting, ever. Even if the odd dog photo is cute
The site is diminished by the departure of people who didn't fit the centrist consensus. From the left, where did Ghedevrav (sp?) and Cleitophon go?
I'm probs a pim-fortuynist (a socially liberal, queer, omnisexual, weirdo, but also deeply sceptical of immigration in general and particularly mass immigration from anti liberal cultures) but felt driven off here by more orthodox types.
For what it's worth, I find some of the grumbly hacks of the right (not yourself, but you'll get who I mean) harder and much more tedious to read. PB is in its late 2000s 'zanu nu li-bore' phase, criticising the government from an orthodox economic perspective while asylum hotel migrants [something] and then [delete] but we're not allowed to talk about it because [vaudeville hook].
I was recently banned for the first time, some 18 years after first commenting. I understand the site was doing it for legal reasons but those legal reasons struck me as a disgrace and made me wonder who was behind it. Certainly influenced my politics.
Oh behave, when several PBers start posting legally problematic posts it puts the site at risk we restrict discussions on that topic, we've done it over for example the phone hacking scandal, Lord McAlpine, and other topics.
If you think it was a disgrace you need to give your head a wobble.
Ethnic cleansing should certainly be off the table, but I don't think discussion of a level of remigration should be.
Sweden and Denmark are already doing it.
Everyone will draw their lines somewhere different. But it is up to the hosts to decide the lines for each site. If you run a site then you will get to choose the rules. None of us should expect the rules here to marry up with our personal lines.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
What is it that you want me to back up?
I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.
Obviously you're unable to post any evidence.
Fool.
Um, OK. What is it that you're denying? Exactly. Is it the 'bussed' thing? Do you think the police just 'gave them a lift'? If I knew what to prove, I could perhaps have a stab.
In words of one syllable: BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR SHUT UP.
Anyone can see the video showing the Police taking masked agitators, with megaphone, to counter demonstrate in a highly charge situation.
You are choosing to ignore the evidence in front of your own eyes
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
Israel Palestine is the most potent geopolitical evidence for Larkin's immortal insight:
Man hands on misery to man. It deepens like a coastal shelf. Get out as early as you can, And don’t have any kids yourself
As the Germans did to the Jews, so the Jews are doing to the Palestinians. With the added complication that, given the chance, we all know that many many Gazans - far too many - would do exactly the same to every Jew they could find
There is no solution other than the one proposed by - ironically - Trump. Move the Gazans away and stuff their mouths with gold
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
Those are horrific images.
And, property mogul, and part time Trump representative, Witless continues to insist that there is plenty of food. You wouldn't have thought you could get much more disgusting than his boss would you? But where there's a will...
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're the one being pompous. Making out that a poster getting 'banned' from PB for a couple of days is some sort of moral atrocity. The free-thinking outlaw renegades being censored by a stultifying middlebrow centrist blob. It's the most utter self-regarding preeny precious tosh.
I've been on PB for about fifteen years, and I'm quite amazed I've never received a ban.
I got sin binned for a few days once, and was informed why. I have not repeated the offence.
We are guests here, so don't get to set the rules.
That is of course true but, on the other hand, the only reason many (including me) bother to be guests is that this site tolerates a fairly wide spectrum of views, and the less it does so, the less attractive being a guest is.
It is an extremely difficult balance to strike, and one I'm glad I don't have to formulate or enforce. Much respect to those who do and have kept this about as far from being an echo chamber as is possible while preventing it becoming a Twitter-like sewer of slander, misinformation and Russian bots.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
What is it that you want me to back up?
I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.
Obviously you're unable to post any evidence.
Fool.
Um, OK. What is it that you're denying? Exactly. Is it the 'bussed' thing? Do you think the police just 'gave them a lift'? If I knew what to prove, I could perhaps have a stab.
In words of one syllable: BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR SHUT UP.
Sure, delightfully put as always, but I still need you to dispute my claim - or some area of it. If you tell me what it is about by claim that you are contesting, I can seek to prove it.
Truly surreal, even for the "post truth" world we're in now.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
What is it that you want me to back up?
I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.
Who the F keeps flagging you for making entirely reasonable remarks? I suspect it is @Chris, or maybe @bondegezou who will flag anything
People who flag should be visible, and shame-able. It is a pathetic gesture - OOh Miss, look at him! - done by wankers
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're the one being pompous. Making out that a poster getting 'banned' from PB for a couple of days is some sort of moral atrocity. The free-thinking outlaw renegades being censored by a stultifying middlebrow centrist blob. It's the most utter self-regarding preeny precious tosh.
I've been on PB for about fifteen years, and I'm quite amazed I've never received a ban.
I got sin binned for a few days once, and was informed why. I have not repeated the offence.
We are guests here, so don't get to set the rules.
That is of course true but, on the other hand, the only reason many (including me) bother to be guests is that this site tolerates a fairly wide spectrum of views, and the less it does so, the less attractive being a guest is.
It is an extremely difficult balance to strike, and one I'm glad I don't have to formulate or enforce. Much respect to those who do and have kept this about as far from being an echo chamber as is possible while preventing it becoming a Twitter-like sewer of slander, misinformation and Russian bots.
It would be written so would be libel. Slander is verbal defamation.
Ethnic cleansing should certainly be off the table, but I don't think discussion of a level of remigration should be.
Sweden and Denmark are already doing it.
I just had to look up what is meant by this word and why it’s caused so many sparks.
It should be utterly uncontroversial to discuss non citizens being denied continued right of leave and being asked to leave. When I was overseas, my visa had to be renewed every two years. Thems the rules, I was a guest, fair dinkum.
“Deporting” people born as British citizens is another flavour entirely. But even this has been robustly discussed in parliament, on tv, in every pub and here - the Begum case. For my money, I thought that one a disgrace but I understand both sides.
The growing list of unmentionable topics here is rather odd. The migration issue has long been a prickly one in British society but in big sections of the country it’s the live issue. Since the Afghan super injunction and Epping, I haven’t received so many political messages in a week since the depths of May’s Brexit conundrums. People who have variously voted Tory, Lib Dem and Remain. Not WWC or “knuckle draggers”. Somethings going on out there. The echo chamber is at risk of being left behind.
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
What is it that you want me to back up?
I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.
Obviously you're unable to post any evidence.
Fool.
Um, OK. What is it that you're denying? Exactly. Is it the 'bussed' thing? Do you think the police just 'gave them a lift'? If I knew what to prove, I could perhaps have a stab.
In words of one syllable: BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR SHUT UP.
Sure, delightfully put as always, but I still need you to dispute my claim - or some area of it. If you tell me what it is about by claim that you are contesting, I can seek to prove it.
Truly surreal, even for the "post truth" world we're in now.
The police were giving very obvious preferential treatment to one group of protestors, who just happen to be on the side of the liberal establishment who regulate the police.
Got hit by a car at work today, so I'm now in hospital with three ribs and an ankle broken
Oh wow. Mate
That's bad. Sympathies!!
If you want someone to come to hospital and bring fine wines, let me know. I am totally serious. I have to vacate my flat for decorators (I'm moving on from the bedroom-brothel). I may do a UK roadtrip
Got hit by a car at work today, so I'm now in hospital with three ribs and an ankle broken
Ouch! My sympathies. One broken rib was the worst pain I've ever had. Best wishes for a speedy recovery... although it'll probably be about 8 weeks, I guess!
Ethnic cleansing should certainly be off the table, but I don't think discussion of a level of remigration should be.
Sweden and Denmark are already doing it.
I just had to look up what is meant by this word and why it’s caused so many sparks.
It should be utterly uncontroversial to discuss non citizens being denied continued right of leave and being asked to leave. When I was overseas, my visa had to be renewed every two years. Thems the rules, I was a guest, fair dinkum.
“Deporting” people born as British citizens is another flavour entirely. But even this has been robustly discussed in parliament, on tv, in every pub and here - the Begum case. For my money, I thought that one a disgrace but I understand both sides.
The growing list of unmentionable topics here is rather odd. The migration issue has long been a prickly one in British society but in big sections of the country it’s the live issue. Since the Afghan super injunction and Epping, I haven’t received so many political messages in a week since the depths of May’s Brexit conundrums. People who have variously voted Tory, Lib Dem and Remain. Not WWC or “knuckle draggers”. Somethings going on out there. The echo chamber is at risk of being left behind.
it's not that though is it - it's the insidious redefining of 'citizen' in an ever narrower and narrower sense
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
It's horrendous. The Israelis have slaughtered more civilians in Gaza in two years than the Nazis killed in Bergen Belsen in four. And we're still listening to the tape of Richard Attenborough's heartbreaking broadcast 80 years on.
Sarah Longwell @SarahLongwell25 · 57m “When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a “truckload” of documents related to Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Trump’s name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials.”
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.
I remember - many years ago - living in a shared flat. It was just about the time 'itemised bills' were coming in. And we asked BT to turn it on so we could all pay for our correct usage of The Phone Line In The Hall.
Except, mysteriously, BT claimed for the time we'd been in the itemised list we'd spent about £10. And for the two days we hadn't - we'd spent £20,000.
Phone call to their support line revealed that "Computers don't make mistakes". And yet, after a letter (yes) to the ombudsman it turned out that, in fact, they did make mistakes. And we had a grovelling apology and the next six months phone calls for free.
Gone are those days...
A very topical post, given the thread header on being caught out at a concert. When itemised phone bills came in, they caused lots of divorces.
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
It's horrendous. The Israelis have slaughtered more civilians in Gaza in two years than the Nazis killed in Bergen Belsen in four. And we're still listening to the tape of Richard Attenborough's heartbreaking broadcast 80 years on.
If you want a serious debate, rather than a rant - what do you honestly think the Gazans would do to Israeli Jews, given the chance?
And how do you see this being solved? What should Israel do, to bring this to a humane resolution?
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.
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
That is a link to a police officer saying the protestors went there of their own volition, and walked to the place escorted by police officers.
He at no point denied that the police bussed them there from the station, as is clearly shown in the earlier clip.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
Link to the evidence, if any exists.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
Um, I'm sorry, you find this to be a denial?
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
You claimed the police had "bussed" people to the demonstration.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
What is it that you want me to back up?
I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.
Obviously you're unable to post any evidence.
Fool.
Um, OK. What is it that you're denying? Exactly. Is it the 'bussed' thing? Do you think the police just 'gave them a lift'? If I knew what to prove, I could perhaps have a stab.
In words of one syllable: BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR SHUT UP.
Sure, delightfully put as always, but I still need you to dispute my claim - or some area of it. If you tell me what it is about by claim that you are contesting, I can seek to prove it.
Truly surreal, even for the "post truth" world we're in now.
Yes, it is a bit. Still waiting for which bit it is of the truth you think is 'post'.
I was recently banned for the first time, some 18 years after first commenting. I understand the site was doing it for legal reasons but those legal reasons struck me as a disgrace and made me wonder who was behind it. Certainly influenced my politics.
Oh behave, when several PBers start posting legally problematic posts it puts the site at risk we restrict discussions on that topic, we've done it over for example the phone hacking scandal, Lord McAlpine, and other topics.
If you think it was a disgrace you need to give your head a wobble.
But you do it because of the UK's stifling speech laws and the frankly ridiculous OSA. Not your fault - or the sites but I've always found our courts preposterous on this sort of stuff.
Got hit by a car at work today, so I'm now in hospital with three ribs and an ankle broken
Ouch! My sympathies. One broken rib was the worst pain I've ever had. Best wishes for a speedy recovery... although it'll probably be about 8 weeks, I guess!
I had a couple of ribs cracked, my only ever cycling accident on the coast to coast, some idiot came speeding round a blind bend and hit me.
It’s not pleasant and there’s nothing the medics can do. It just has to knit back. Some stuff like reaching for something becomes wince inducing.
Comments
He extended a genuine welcome to President elect Obama and coordinated a real handover of information from his staff to Obama’s. The result was an enduring friendship between his family and the Obama family.
https://x.com/tonylapidus/status/1948065539479277679?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://x.com/helen_spirit1/status/1948079507316904026?s=61
https://youtu.be/bZ2fwy0tJBE?si=BJdOZxE17Tz5LIxw&t=2m55s
"In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly"
I mean what the actual f***?
And for all his verbal slips there was nothing like the bizarre outpourings we get routinely with the Mushroom Shaped One.
If that is what you want, even a little bit, I hope that is how the world works out for you. I'm sure you will find it just as existentially satisfying as you suspect.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/Ishmael_Z
There were also a few derivatives of Ishmael too.
Who was the worst president - Trump or James Buchanan?
I have always travelled with my boys, and to a number of apparently challenging places like Morocco, South Africa, Kenya, Swaziland, the occupied territories of Palestine, as well as more mainstream destinations. You get an amazing reception in these places with kids, and while you need to structure the trip a bit differently, it all works. It sounds like this German family has managed it. It won't be a holiday that those kids forget.
One of them left America in a state of near civil war.
The other was some kind of Democrat.
He merely added that they had 'walked there' (one tends to walk to one's destination when getting out of a vehicle) and been accompanied by officers.
Had the vehicular assistance not happened, and had evidence of it not been shown, the 'categorical denial' mentioned by NigelB would have been reiterated. It's interesting that you're still in 'denial of the facts' mode yourself. I am surprised that you haven't switched into 'it was clearly the right thing to do' mode yet.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8739w8py4jo
Macrons file defamation suit against US influencer Candace Owens
"French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte have filed a defamation lawsuit against right-wing influencer Candace Owens, who claims that France's first lady was born male.
The suit, filed Wednesday in the US state of Delaware, said Owens has been spreading "outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions".
Owens has regularly repeated the claims on her popular podcast and social media channels, and in March 2024 stated that she would stake her "entire professional reputation" on her belief that Mrs Macron "is in fact a man".
The BBC contacted Owens for comment."
We are guests here, so don't get to set the rules.
Why?
If you have kids, take loads of photos and videos to capture memories. And do stuff with them, even when they're young. They may not remember that soft play you went to, or that dinosaur park, but you will.
Because what you've just linked doesn't support your claim at all.
If this is gonna become a site when you can be banned for literally having an opinion that the centrist dads - the most tedious people on earth - find “unacceptable” simply because they don’t like it, then I shan’t last long
We have lost too many diverse voices because of this hegemony of the mediocre. People like @Malmesbury or @kinabalu or @IanB2 who never ever ever ever say anything politically interesting, ever. Even if the odd dog photo is cute
Sweden and Denmark are already doing it.
Has it been established if Williams ban is temp or perm, for those who care ?
“In Epping, officers took all three of those into account before making their decisions.”
Most ruling classes, through history, have talked past The Common Man. Many were proudly exultant about the fact.
Back it up.
You're just the kind of prat who whines when the law against incitement is enforced.
And then you try to stir things up by posting claims you can't substantiate.
I'm genuinely struggling here. Is it the fact that you think it was a van not a bus that you find objectionable? Have I exagerrated the wheel size? Are you still denying it happened? Help me out.
Fool.
Somewhere in that desolate pit of nullity that is your golfing non-soul, there must be ONE comment worth making
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears
Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
Except, mysteriously, BT claimed for the time we'd been in the itemised list we'd spent about £10. And for the two days we hadn't - we'd spent £20,000.
Phone call to their support line revealed that "Computers don't make mistakes". And yet, after a letter (yes) to the ombudsman it turned out that, in fact, they did make mistakes. And we had a grovelling apology and the next six months phone calls for free.
Gone are those days...
I'm probs a pim-fortuynist (a socially liberal, queer, omnisexual, weirdo, but also deeply sceptical of immigration in general and particularly mass immigration from anti liberal cultures) but felt driven off here by more orthodox types.
For what it's worth, I find some of the grumbly hacks of the right (not yourself, but you'll get who I mean) harder and much more tedious to read. PB is in its late 2000s 'zanu nu li-bore' phase, criticising the government from an orthodox economic perspective while asylum hotel migrants [something] and then [delete] but we're not allowed to talk about it because [vaudeville hook].
If you think it was a disgrace you need to give your head a wobble.
https://x.com/mattzel89/status/1947750395520155960
“Apologies for that language there”.
You are choosing to ignore the evidence in front of your own eyes
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Jackson_(cricketer)
Two tests for England in 1949 and 1961.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself
As the Germans did to the Jews, so the Jews are doing to the Palestinians. With the added complication that, given the chance, we all know that many many Gazans - far too many - would do exactly the same to every Jew they could find
There is no solution other than the one proposed by - ironically - Trump. Move the Gazans away and stuff their mouths with gold
It is an extremely difficult balance to strike, and one I'm glad I don't have to formulate or enforce. Much respect to those who do and have kept this about as far from being an echo chamber as is possible while preventing it becoming a Twitter-like sewer of slander, misinformation and Russian bots.
It really is tiresome when one set of posters demands another shuts up.
People who flag should be visible, and shame-able. It is a pathetic gesture - OOh Miss, look at him! - done by wankers
H T H
It should be utterly uncontroversial to discuss non citizens being denied continued right of leave and being asked to leave. When I was overseas, my visa had to be renewed every two years. Thems the rules, I was a guest, fair dinkum.
“Deporting” people born as British citizens is another flavour entirely. But even this has been robustly discussed in parliament, on tv, in every pub and here - the Begum case. For my money, I thought that one a disgrace but I understand both sides.
The growing list of unmentionable topics here is rather odd. The migration issue has long been a prickly one in British society but in big sections of the country it’s the live issue. Since the Afghan super injunction and Epping, I haven’t received so many political messages in a week since the depths of May’s Brexit conundrums. People who have variously voted Tory, Lib Dem and Remain. Not WWC or “knuckle draggers”. Somethings going on out there. The echo chamber is at risk of being left behind.
That's bad. Sympathies!!
If you want someone to come to hospital and bring fine wines, let me know. I am totally serious. I have to vacate my flat for decorators (I'm moving on from the bedroom-brothel). I may do a UK roadtrip
I was sad to see former long time PB regulars like Richard Nabavi, Alastair Meeks and JackW were no longer posting on the site?
Two fine Italians enjoying a quality pizza
@AccountableGOP
WSJ: Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files
https://x.com/AccountableGOP/status/1948100240894021984
@SarahLongwell25
·
57m
“When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a “truckload” of documents related to Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Trump’s name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials.”
https://x.com/SarahLongwell25
When itemised phone bills came in, they caused lots of divorces.
And how do you see this being solved? What should Israel do, to bring this to a humane resolution?
It’s not pleasant and there’s nothing the medics can do. It just has to knit back. Some stuff like reaching for something becomes wince inducing.
As for pain, the worst I’ve had was toothache.