"Farage is not selling out, he is just preparing Reform for government If the current political insurgency fails, what will follow will be genuinely nasty and truly far Right Tim Stanley"
Gone With the Wind, both book and film, we're not works of historical scholarship, but rather were works to profit from and feed the "Lost Cause" mythology of the antebellum South.
This was surprisingly popular even outside the CSA, for example films like "Birth of a Nation" or "The General"
This mythology lives on, so we see MAGA Americans flying Confederate flags alongside their enemy, the Stars and Stripes.
I recall it was only a few years ago that freethinking PBers were desperate to see the turgid masterpiece after HBO (temporarily) pulled it from public view. How many could actually be arsed to watch it after its return is another question.
I can only presume Labour has internal polling or focus group responses that tell them that these attack lines on Reform are going to work, because they seem like transparent bullshit to me, but I’m obviously not the target voter they have in mind:
“Rayner says Farage ‘failing young women’ with plan to scrap Online Safety Act”
Either that, or they’re getting a bit panicky about the whole thing. I note in passing that 4Chan have stuck two fingers up to OFCOM after being threatened with a £20k fine plus daily penalties for being in contravention of the OSA.
It’s also notable that they’re making no effort whatsoever to defend the act itself or engage with any of the criticism of it - it’s all ad hominem attacks on the critics.
Yes, quite
They have almost certainly seen terrible polling on this. Especially with young people
Just for the record, the OSA has widespread across all age groups according to the polling. Even a majority of Reform voters are in favour, and woman and parents by a huge majority. Weirdly, it's young people and parents who think it will be most effective, with older people more sceptical.
I think it's a pretty effective thing for Labour to pursue. There is a broad the consensus that the internet is a very bad thing for kids and some techbros making a fuss about it are unlikely to change anyone's mind about that.
"Farage is not selling out, he is just preparing Reform for government If the current political insurgency fails, what will follow will be genuinely nasty and truly far Right Tim Stanley"
Saving our system from itself is the historic role Farage played in the late 2000s, when the rise of Ukip drained support from the BNP, channelling it into the safer waters of euroscepticism. He is the last gasp of the 20th century, defending its liberality and patriotism, and has an old-fashioned reading of British identity rooted in history and constitutionalism, not race or religion. ... Spying an opportunity, the Tories are triangulating against Reform, suggesting Farage has embraced full communism by seeking to expand child benefit or nationalise industries. Arguably this illustrates their own, very unconservative addiction to economic dogma. Farage has evolved with circumstances – this is an insecure age that demands more babies, more manufacturing – and out of loyalty to constituencies that have been loyal to him.
For those who didn’t know - years back, a certain U.K. law firm (and some fellow firms) started selling “libel tourism”.
That is, anything published on the web is visible in the U.K.
So under this bit of judicial activism, anyone on the planet could sue for libel in U.K. courts, if it is published online. No problems with the 1st Amendment in the US.
Big fees would result….
A cross party group in the US Congress passed a law making the results of any such judgements null and void in the US.
The U.K. law firms and Mr Justice Cocklecarrot* were very upset.
*See Private Eye for real name
That’s been the case even since foreign magazines started to be imported in small numbers.
For all the politisation and polarisation in the US, one of few things on which all of the politicians agree is that the US is not a fan of foreign courts having jurisdiction over anything or anyone American.
Quite right too.
It is undemocratic.
A country should be able to enforce its laws. The “no assets or operations” is a false logic - according to that theory it’s fine for a North Korean hacking cooperative to rob a French bank
A country should be able to enforce its laws on its own citizens or those acting in its own country.
A country should not be able to enforce its laws on citizens of another country acting in another country.
That becomes the realm of foreign relations instead.
You indeed can't enforce French laws on North Koreans acting and living in North Korea.
Quite rightly too the inverse is true, the North Korean dictatorship can't enforce its authoritarian laws on French citizens living in France, nor should it be able to do so.
The issue becomes “what is acting”.
Disseminating a message in the UK is “acting” in my view. If 4chan were to, for example, call for violent revolution in the UK and execution of all members of the government, I think that should be illegal and something that could be enforced against.
May be it’s a simple as requiring companies to have a responsible agent - as I believe they do in Brazil - in the country.
The servers are in America, it is being disseminated in America. If people choose to go online and view American websites then that's their choice, and our government could choose to firewall foreign sites, as the Chinese do, but not enforce laws on people abroad who have had no right to vote on those laws.
It is undemocratic to apply a law to someone who has no opportunity to vote for the passage, repeal or amendment of that law.
In Russia it is a criminal act to criticise their military or decision to go to war against Ukraine. Should Russia be entitled to enforce that law on its critics abroad?
Or does its jurisprudence end and its borders thank goodness.
That’s just garbage.
Product regulations and all local laws are applied to people who have no opportunity to vote for the passage, repeal or amendment of that law.
If you want to operate in business in the UK even if via a virtual setup then you are required to abide by British laws.
4chan is selling a service to a UK customer. It doesn’t matter where services are provided from, they are required to abide by UK law or not sell their service to UK customers.
4chan is free to view, isn't it? They're not selling a service to a UK customer.
Providing a service, sorry
In America, on American servers to American laws, yes. They're not exporting.
Should OGH and PB be liable to Russian laws if a Russian logs into this site?
They should be able to block Russian IP addresses from accessing it as a safe harbor
What you are saying is profoundly undemocratic : the UK can no longer enforce laws in its own jurisdiction because there is another country that doesn’t agree.
Alleged to be a photograph of a new Ukranian long range missile, called Flamingo, with a range of 3,000km. That’s well over the Urals from Ukraine.
Photo source appears to be AP from the watermark, and it’s being retweeted by dozens of credible Ukranian sources in the past hour. Wanting to send a signal perhaps?
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
For those who didn’t know - years back, a certain U.K. law firm (and some fellow firms) started selling “libel tourism”.
That is, anything published on the web is visible in the U.K.
So under this bit of judicial activism, anyone on the planet could sue for libel in U.K. courts, if it is published online. No problems with the 1st Amendment in the US.
Big fees would result….
A cross party group in the US Congress passed a law making the results of any such judgements null and void in the US.
The U.K. law firms and Mr Justice Cocklecarrot* were very upset.
*See Private Eye for real name
That’s been the case even since foreign magazines started to be imported in small numbers.
For all the politisation and polarisation in the US, one of few things on which all of the politicians agree is that the US is not a fan of foreign courts having jurisdiction over anything or anyone American.
Quite right too.
It is undemocratic.
A country should be able to enforce its laws. The “no assets or operations” is a false logic - according to that theory it’s fine for a North Korean hacking cooperative to rob a French bank
A country should be able to enforce its laws on its own citizens or those acting in its own country.
A country should not be able to enforce its laws on citizens of another country acting in another country.
That becomes the realm of foreign relations instead.
You indeed can't enforce French laws on North Koreans acting and living in North Korea.
Quite rightly too the inverse is true, the North Korean dictatorship can't enforce its authoritarian laws on French citizens living in France, nor should it be able to do so.
The issue becomes “what is acting”.
Disseminating a message in the UK is “acting” in my view. If 4chan were to, for example, call for violent revolution in the UK and execution of all members of the government, I think that should be illegal and something that could be enforced against.
May be it’s a simple as requiring companies to have a responsible agent - as I believe they do in Brazil - in the country.
The servers are in America, it is being disseminated in America. If people choose to go online and view American websites then that's their choice, and our government could choose to firewall foreign sites, as the Chinese do, but not enforce laws on people abroad who have had no right to vote on those laws.
It is undemocratic to apply a law to someone who has no opportunity to vote for the passage, repeal or amendment of that law.
In Russia it is a criminal act to criticise their military or decision to go to war against Ukraine. Should Russia be entitled to enforce that law on its critics abroad?
Or does its jurisprudence end and its borders thank goodness.
That’s just garbage.
Product regulations and all local laws are applied to people who have no opportunity to vote for the passage, repeal or amendment of that law.
If you want to operate in business in the UK even if via a virtual setup then you are required to abide by British laws.
4chan is selling a service to a UK customer. It doesn’t matter where services are provided from, they are required to abide by UK law or not sell their service to UK customers.
4chan is free to view, isn't it? They're not selling a service to a UK customer.
Providing a service, sorry
In America, on American servers to American laws, yes. They're not exporting.
Should OGH and PB be liable to Russian laws if a Russian logs into this site?
If they publish in Russia, then the service is subject to Russian regulation.
The whole "they shall NOT come here to enforece" is just an NY lawyer stirring a straw man he has made up.
OGH doesn't publish in Russia, this site is published in the UK.
4chan doesn't publish in the UK, it is published in America.
Any of our 'Saturday morning visitors' coming here and reading this site in Moscow doesn't mean OGH can be prosecuted under Russian laws for criticising Putin - nor should it mean that.
For those who didn’t know - years back, a certain U.K. law firm (and some fellow firms) started selling “libel tourism”.
That is, anything published on the web is visible in the U.K.
So under this bit of judicial activism, anyone on the planet could sue for libel in U.K. courts, if it is published online. No problems with the 1st Amendment in the US.
Big fees would result….
A cross party group in the US Congress passed a law making the results of any such judgements null and void in the US.
The U.K. law firms and Mr Justice Cocklecarrot* were very upset.
*See Private Eye for real name
That’s been the case even since foreign magazines started to be imported in small numbers.
For all the politisation and polarisation in the US, one of few things on which all of the politicians agree is that the US is not a fan of foreign courts having jurisdiction over anything or anyone American.
Quite right too.
It is undemocratic.
A country should be able to enforce its laws. The “no assets or operations” is a false logic - according to that theory it’s fine for a North Korean hacking cooperative to rob a French bank
A country should be able to enforce its laws on its own citizens or those acting in its own country.
A country should not be able to enforce its laws on citizens of another country acting in another country.
That becomes the realm of foreign relations instead.
You indeed can't enforce French laws on North Koreans acting and living in North Korea.
Quite rightly too the inverse is true, the North Korean dictatorship can't enforce its authoritarian laws on French citizens living in France, nor should it be able to do so.
The issue becomes “what is acting”.
Disseminating a message in the UK is “acting” in my view. If 4chan were to, for example, call for violent revolution in the UK and execution of all members of the government, I think that should be illegal and something that could be enforced against.
May be it’s a simple as requiring companies to have a responsible agent - as I believe they do in Brazil - in the country.
The servers are in America, it is being disseminated in America. If people choose to go online and view American websites then that's their choice, and our government could choose to firewall foreign sites, as the Chinese do, but not enforce laws on people abroad who have had no right to vote on those laws.
It is undemocratic to apply a law to someone who has no opportunity to vote for the passage, repeal or amendment of that law.
In Russia it is a criminal act to criticise their military or decision to go to war against Ukraine. Should Russia be entitled to enforce that law on its critics abroad?
Or does its jurisprudence end and its borders thank goodness.
That’s just garbage.
Product regulations and all local laws are applied to people who have no opportunity to vote for the passage, repeal or amendment of that law.
If you want to operate in business in the UK even if via a virtual setup then you are required to abide by British laws.
4chan is selling a service to a UK customer. It doesn’t matter where services are provided from, they are required to abide by UK law or not sell their service to UK customers.
4chan is free to view, isn't it? They're not selling a service to a UK customer.
Providing a service, sorry
In America, on American servers to American laws, yes. They're not exporting.
Should OGH and PB be liable to Russian laws if a Russian logs into this site?
They should be able to block Russian IP addresses from accessing it as a safe harbor
What you are saying is profoundly undemocratic : the UK can no longer enforce laws in its own jurisdiction because there is another country that doesn’t agree.
The Russian authorities have no standing to demand British sites block Russian IPs, we're not subject to their laws. Just as Americans aren't subject to our laws, moreover they're protected by their First Amendment instead.
4chan is not in the UK's jurisdiction, it is in America's. Delaware to be precise.
If the UK government wants to firewall the rest of the world, China-style, then it is possible to do that. However the UK government has no jurisdiction over websites published abroad.
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
My history's a little hazy, but did Corbyn ever become PM?
Alleged to be a photograph of a new Ukranian long range missile, called Flamingo, with a range of 3,000km. That’s well over the Urals from Ukraine.
Photo source appears to be AP from the watermark, and it’s being retweeted by dozens of credible Ukranian sources in the past hour. Wanting to send a signal perhaps?
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
Just for the record, the OSA has widespread across all age groups according to the polling. Even a majority of Reform voters are in favour, and woman and parents by a huge majority. Weirdly, it's young people and parents who think it will be most effective, with older people more sceptical.
I think it's a pretty effective thing for Labour to pursue. There is a broad the consensus that the internet is a very bad thing for kids and some techbros making a fuss about it are unlikely to change anyone's mind about that.
You're being very somewhat disingenuous here. The question IPSOS asks is not "do you support the OSA" it is asking people if they support checks on "platforms that may host content related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders and pornography."
That is not what the OSA is. The wording of the act explicitly demands verification of any site hosting content that is not curated and filtered to be child safe. It requires almost the whole internet to be locked behind content filters. PB almost certainly falls within the remit of the OSA, if you interpret it strictly. Ofcom may choose to not enforce the act that vigorously, but a bad law with lax enforcement is still a bad law.
I suspect the polling will change sharply when Ofcom starts to bite 'offenders' and people realise what censoring the internet means. Wikipedia goes dark, YouTube demands ID to watch anything, foreign hosted sites are blocked on Ofcom's orders, and small forum operators shut down in droves when the first few are prosecuted.
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
She lost more potential votes via the dementia tax proposals, also not many expected Corbyn to win so voting Lab was seen as a free hit. She didn't do much to win the votes of younger electors, most of her policies were aimed at older/Brexit voters
Doubt she lost many votes off the back of the Julie Etchingham interview, that was more comedy than politics
Her response to Grenfell was poor, though it was a week after the election
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
She lost more potential votes via the dementia tax proposals, also not many expected Corbyn to win so voting Lab was seen as a free hit. She didn't do much to win the votes of younger electors, most of her policies were aimed at older/Brexit voters
Doubt she lost many votes off the back of the Julie Etchingham interview, that was more comedy than politics
Her response to Grenfell was poor, though it was a week after the election
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
I think that period of a few weeks when May was supposedly so popular that even scousers were supposedly not opposed to her was just massive polling failure. I don't believe she was never THAT popular. Ahead definitely, but not Singapore Leader popularity.
I can also understand why so many people voted for Corbyn. May ran this weird campaign hidden away in a bunker and was terrible when she came out, but also her message was the Hiliary Clinton one basically no changed required. Except large numbers of people, not just the youngsters, were going you what...no change required other than a death tax, you are having a giraffe right.
Corbyn was out and about, holding loads of rallies and his message was pretty simple, don't think too hard if any of the numbers add up, but I will guarantee change. All round a much more positive hopeful message than boring depressing Maybot saying full steam ahead to managed decline.
Boris in 2019 repeated this, get Brexit done, and things will change, levelling up and all that. And by which time Corbyn was bogged down by every body and their dog hearing much more about his past cozying up to terrorist and antisemites.
Skynews US correspondent James Mathews 'European Leaders will have been aghast at the Presidents pliability but I think they will see opportunity in that he is a man influenced by the last voice he heard in his ear'.
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
I think that period of a few weeks when May was supposedly so popular that even scousers were supposedly not opposed to her was just massive polling failure. I don't believe she was never THAT popular. Ahead definitely, but not Singapore Leader popularity.
I'm not sure I agree. The local elections that year were stunningly good for the Conservatives. I think her popularity was an inch deep, but genuine enough while it lasted. And had it lasted another couple of months the country's history would have been very different.
Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is "such a feminist".
In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said "you can't have a woman. It just doesn't work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else".
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
I think that period of a few weeks when May was supposedly so popular that even scousers were supposedly not opposed to her was just massive polling failure. I don't believe she was never THAT popular. Ahead definitely, but not Singapore Leader popularity.
I'm not sure I agree. The local elections that year were stunningly good for the Conservatives. I think her popularity was an inch deep, but genuine enough while it lasted. And had it lasted another couple of months the country's history would have been very different.
Indeed: it's also well worth remembering that the Conservatives also won a parliamentary byelection, while in government.
Unfortunately, Mrs. May wanted to be honest about many of the challenges facing the UK, particularly around paying for care, which did not go down well. She was also poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. Finally, her decision not to debate Jeremy Corbyn also came back to haunt her.
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
I think that period of a few weeks when May was supposedly so popular that even scousers were supposedly not opposed to her was just massive polling failure. I don't believe she was never THAT popular. Ahead definitely, but not Singapore Leader popularity.
I'm not sure I agree. The local elections that year were stunningly good for the Conservatives. I think her popularity was an inch deep, but genuine enough while it lasted. And had it lasted another couple of months the country's history would have been very different.
I had my two most successful GE betting results in 2015 and in 2017 because I followed a gut instinct that the polls had got it wrong. I bet on the Conservatives gaining a majority in 2015 and the Libdems having a very bad night, and that stunning SNP result here in Scotland helped deliver it. But from the moment Theresa May announced that surprise early GE I thought she had made a huge strategic political error, it looked cynically self serving due to her then polling lead rather than a genuine attempt to seek her own mandate as the new Conservative leader and PM and bet accordingly. Ironically, it was the performance of the Scottish Conservatives which still made it my most successful GE result.
Skynews US correspondent James Mathews 'European Leaders will have been aghast at the Presidents pliability but I think they will see opportunity in that he is a man influenced by the last voice he heard in his ear'.
The continued failure to understand President Trump is a consistent theme of senior politicians on both sides of the Atlantic.
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
I think that period of a few weeks when May was supposedly so popular that even scousers were supposedly not opposed to her was just massive polling failure. I don't believe she was never THAT popular. Ahead definitely, but not Singapore Leader popularity.
I'm not sure I agree. The local elections that year were stunningly good for the Conservatives. I think her popularity was an inch deep, but genuine enough while it lasted. And had it lasted another couple of months the country's history would have been very different.
Indeed: it's also well worth remembering that the Conservatives also won a parliamentary byelection, while in government.
Unfortunately, Mrs. May wanted to be honest about many of the challenges facing the UK, particularly around paying for care, which did not go down well. She was also poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. Finally, her decision not to debate Jeremy Corbyn also came back to haunt her.
Yes, May was incredible poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill from the moment she entered No10 as PM. Her other big error was to allow the petty public sacking of George Osborne as Chancellor rather than allowing him to resign gracefully due to their previous issues with him, it turns out he was not wrong about them. I often wonder how her Premiership would have panned out if she kept him in a key Cabinet role in No11 or the Foreign Office and used his political acumen to help her navigate the early tough internal and external political challenges she faced due to Brexit.
For those who didn’t know - years back, a certain U.K. law firm (and some fellow firms) started selling “libel tourism”.
That is, anything published on the web is visible in the U.K.
So under this bit of judicial activism, anyone on the planet could sue for libel in U.K. courts, if it is published online. No problems with the 1st Amendment in the US.
Big fees would result….
A cross party group in the US Congress passed a law making the results of any such judgements null and void in the US.
The U.K. law firms and Mr Justice Cocklecarrot* were very upset.
*See Private Eye for real name
That’s been the case even since foreign magazines started to be imported in small numbers.
For all the politisation and polarisation in the US, one of few things on which all of the politicians agree is that the US is not a fan of foreign courts having jurisdiction over anything or anyone American.
Quite right too.
It is undemocratic.
A country should be able to enforce its laws. The “no assets or operations” is a false logic - according to that theory it’s fine for a North Korean hacking cooperative to rob a French bank
A country should be able to enforce its laws on its own citizens or those acting in its own country.
A country should not be able to enforce its laws on citizens of another country acting in another country.
That becomes the realm of foreign relations instead.
You indeed can't enforce French laws on North Koreans acting and living in North Korea.
Quite rightly too the inverse is true, the North Korean dictatorship can't enforce its authoritarian laws on French citizens living in France, nor should it be able to do so.
The issue becomes “what is acting”.
Disseminating a message in the UK is “acting” in my view. If 4chan were to, for example, call for violent revolution in the UK and execution of all members of the government, I think that should be illegal and something that could be enforced against.
May be it’s a simple as requiring companies to have a responsible agent - as I believe they do in Brazil - in the country.
The servers are in America, it is being disseminated in America. If people choose to go online and view American websites then that's their choice, and our government could choose to firewall foreign sites, as the Chinese do, but not enforce laws on people abroad who have had no right to vote on those laws.
It is undemocratic to apply a law to someone who has no opportunity to vote for the passage, repeal or amendment of that law.
In Russia it is a criminal act to criticise their military or decision to go to war against Ukraine. Should Russia be entitled to enforce that law on its critics abroad?
Or does its jurisprudence end and its borders thank goodness.
That’s just garbage.
Product regulations and all local laws are applied to people who have no opportunity to vote for the passage, repeal or amendment of that law.
If you want to operate in business in the UK even if via a virtual setup then you are required to abide by British laws.
4chan is selling a service to a UK customer. It doesn’t matter where services are provided from, they are required to abide by UK law or not sell their service to UK customers.
4chan is free to view, isn't it? They're not selling a service to a UK customer.
Providing a service, sorry
In America, on American servers to American laws, yes. They're not exporting.
Should OGH and PB be liable to Russian laws if a Russian logs into this site?
They should be able to block Russian IP addresses from accessing it as a safe harbor
What you are saying is profoundly undemocratic : the UK can no longer enforce laws in its own jurisdiction because there is another country that doesn’t agree.
The Russian authorities have no standing to demand British sites block Russian IPs, we're not subject to their laws. Just as Americans aren't subject to our laws, moreover they're protected by their First Amendment instead.
4chan is not in the UK's jurisdiction, it is in America's. Delaware to be precise.
If the UK government wants to firewall the rest of the world, China-style, then it is possible to do that. However the UK government has no jurisdiction over websites published abroad.
You keep stating that as a fact. It is not. Of the UK wishes to deem that a site which is viewed from the UK has been “published” in the UK it can do so. The US may resist direct enforcement - as is their right - which is where you end up with the concept of a registered agent who has legal responsibility for a corporate’s actions.
Fundamentally social media has not been good for society and it should be regulated. Sites like 4chan are corrosive to Western civilisation. Algorithms radicalise people and drive them towards the worst in humanity; at best they divide and polarise the demos.
Free speech was designed for a world where humans talked to humans. But freedom comes with responsibility and that’s what you always always miss. Actions have consequences and societies have interests that are greater than the sum of the parts.
Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is "such a feminist".
In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said "you can't have a woman. It just doesn't work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else".
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
I think that period of a few weeks when May was supposedly so popular that even scousers were supposedly not opposed to her was just massive polling failure. I don't believe she was never THAT popular. Ahead definitely, but not Singapore Leader popularity.
I'm not sure I agree. The local elections that year were stunningly good for the Conservatives. I think her popularity was an inch deep, but genuine enough while it lasted. And had it lasted another couple of months the country's history would have been very different.
Indeed: it's also well worth remembering that the Conservatives also won a parliamentary byelection, while in government.
Unfortunately, Mrs. May wanted to be honest about many of the challenges facing the UK, particularly around paying for care, which did not go down well. She was also poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. Finally, her decision not to debate Jeremy Corbyn also came back to haunt her.
Yes, May was incredible poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill from the moment she entered No10 as PM. Her other big error was to allow the petty public sacking of George Osborne as Chancellor rather than allowing him to resign gracefully due to their previous issues with him, it turns out he was not wrong about them. I often wonder how her Premiership would have panned out if she kept him in a key Cabinet role in No11 or the Foreign Office and used his political acumen to help her navigate the early tough internal and external political challenges she faced due to Brexit.
I never understood the firing: it was just extraordinarily petty.
Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is "such a feminist".
In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said "you can't have a woman. It just doesn't work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else".
Totally agree with Helen Mirren. There is no doubt that the whole Bond franchise needs a huge reboot after the Daniel Craig era in the role, but James Bond has to be James Bond. But what is long overdue is finally seeing a powerful woman play the arch villian in the franchise.
Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is "such a feminist".
In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said "you can't have a woman. It just doesn't work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else".
Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is "such a feminist".
In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said "you can't have a woman. It just doesn't work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else".
Skynews US correspondent James Mathews 'European Leaders will have been aghast at the Presidents pliability but I think they will see opportunity in that he is a man influenced by the last voice he heard in his ear'.
The continued failure to understand President Trump is a consistent theme of senior politicians on both sides of the Atlantic.
I think also there is poor understanding of the antipathy of many Americans to enter foreign wars especially in Europe which expects others to pay. I suspect the open contempt many Europeans show for all things American doesn't help.
Skynews US correspondent James Mathews 'European Leaders will have been aghast at the Presidents pliability but I think they will see opportunity in that he is a man influenced by the last voice he heard in his ear'.
The continued failure to understand President Trump is a consistent theme of senior politicians on both sides of the Atlantic.
I think also there is poor understanding of the antipathy of many Americans to enter foreign wars especially in Europe which expects others to pay. I suspect the open contempt many Europeans show for all things American doesn't help.
Sure: but the total contempt that Trump shows for other people's agency doesn't help either.
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
I think that period of a few weeks when May was supposedly so popular that even scousers were supposedly not opposed to her was just massive polling failure. I don't believe she was never THAT popular. Ahead definitely, but not Singapore Leader popularity.
I'm not sure I agree. The local elections that year were stunningly good for the Conservatives. I think her popularity was an inch deep, but genuine enough while it lasted. And had it lasted another couple of months the country's history would have been very different.
Indeed: it's also well worth remembering that the Conservatives also won a parliamentary byelection, while in government.
Unfortunately, Mrs. May wanted to be honest about many of the challenges facing the UK, particularly around paying for care, which did not go down well. She was also poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. Finally, her decision not to debate Jeremy Corbyn also came back to haunt her.
Yes, May was incredible poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill from the moment she entered No10 as PM. Her other big error was to allow the petty public sacking of George Osborne as Chancellor rather than allowing him to resign gracefully due to their previous issues with him, it turns out he was not wrong about them. I often wonder how her Premiership would have panned out if she kept him in a key Cabinet role in No11 or the Foreign Office and used his political acumen to help her navigate the early tough internal and external political challenges she faced due to Brexit.
I never understood the firing: it was just extraordinarily petty.
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
I think that period of a few weeks when May was supposedly so popular that even scousers were supposedly not opposed to her was just massive polling failure. I don't believe she was never THAT popular. Ahead definitely, but not Singapore Leader popularity.
I'm not sure I agree. The local elections that year were stunningly good for the Conservatives. I think her popularity was an inch deep, but genuine enough while it lasted. And had it lasted another couple of months the country's history would have been very different.
Indeed: it's also well worth remembering that the Conservatives also won a parliamentary byelection, while in government.
Unfortunately, Mrs. May wanted to be honest about many of the challenges facing the UK, particularly around paying for care, which did not go down well. She was also poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. Finally, her decision not to debate Jeremy Corbyn also came back to haunt her.
Yes, May was incredible poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill from the moment she entered No10 as PM. Her other big error was to allow the petty public sacking of George Osborne as Chancellor rather than allowing him to resign gracefully due to their previous issues with him, it turns out he was not wrong about them. I often wonder how her Premiership would have panned out if she kept him in a key Cabinet role in No11 or the Foreign Office and used his political acumen to help her navigate the early tough internal and external political challenges she faced due to Brexit.
I never understood the firing: it was just extraordinarily petty.
She did also fire Nicky Morgan, although too late to veto the appointment of Spielman.
So it wasn't all bad.
Hiring Boris Johnson and Cressida Dick somewhat cancels that out, however.
Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is "such a feminist".
In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said "you can't have a woman. It just doesn't work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else".
It is a bit of a PB shibolleth that when Farage fails what follows will be even further Right. In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago? Those voters haven't gone away you know.
I'm still very surprised that 40% voted for Corbyn in 2017. Just because Theresa May said she liked running through fields of wheat when she was younger?
I think that period of a few weeks when May was supposedly so popular that even scousers were supposedly not opposed to her was just massive polling failure. I don't believe she was never THAT popular. Ahead definitely, but not Singapore Leader popularity.
I'm not sure I agree. The local elections that year were stunningly good for the Conservatives. I think her popularity was an inch deep, but genuine enough while it lasted. And had it lasted another couple of months the country's history would have been very different.
Indeed: it's also well worth remembering that the Conservatives also won a parliamentary byelection, while in government.
Unfortunately, Mrs. May wanted to be honest about many of the challenges facing the UK, particularly around paying for care, which did not go down well. She was also poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. Finally, her decision not to debate Jeremy Corbyn also came back to haunt her.
Yes, May was incredible poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill from the moment she entered No10 as PM. Her other big error was to allow the petty public sacking of George Osborne as Chancellor rather than allowing him to resign gracefully due to their previous issues with him, it turns out he was not wrong about them. I often wonder how her Premiership would have panned out if she kept him in a key Cabinet role in No11 or the Foreign Office and used his political acumen to help her navigate the early tough internal and external political challenges she faced due to Brexit.
I never understood the firing: it was just extraordinarily petty.
Osborne couldn't stay as Chancellor after all the project fear bollox he had spouted.
I suppose if May had wanted to humiliate Osborne she could have offered him the Home Office - and watch Osborne do less well than she had done.
Skynews US correspondent James Mathews 'European Leaders will have been aghast at the Presidents pliability but I think they will see opportunity in that he is a man influenced by the last voice he heard in his ear'.
The continued failure to understand President Trump is a consistent theme of senior politicians on both sides of the Atlantic.
I think also there is poor understanding of the antipathy of many Americans to enter foreign wars especially in Europe which expects others to pay. I suspect the open contempt many Europeans show for all things American doesn't help.
Sure: but the total contempt that Trump shows for other people's agency doesn't help either.
Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is "such a feminist".
In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said "you can't have a woman. It just doesn't work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else".
Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is "such a feminist".
In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said "you can't have a woman. It just doesn't work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else".
Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is "such a feminist".
In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said "you can't have a woman. It just doesn't work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else".
Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is "such a feminist".
In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said "you can't have a woman. It just doesn't work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else".
Comments
Saving our system from itself is the historic role Farage played in the late 2000s, when the rise of Ukip drained support from the BNP, channelling it into the safer waters of euroscepticism. He is the last gasp of the 20th century, defending its liberality and patriotism, and has an old-fashioned reading of British identity rooted in history and constitutionalism, not race or religion.
...
Spying an opportunity, the Tories are triangulating against Reform, suggesting Farage has embraced full communism by seeking to expand child benefit or nationalise industries. Arguably this illustrates their own, very unconservative addiction to economic dogma. Farage has evolved with circumstances – this is an insecure age that demands more babies, more manufacturing – and out of loyalty to constituencies that have been loyal to him.
What you are saying is profoundly undemocratic : the UK can no longer enforce laws in its own jurisdiction because there is another country that doesn’t agree.
Worked for photo-reconaissance Spitfires in the 1940's.
In a country where 40% voted Corbyn less than a decade ago?
Those voters haven't gone away you know.
4chan doesn't publish in the UK, it is published in America.
Any of our 'Saturday morning visitors' coming here and reading this site in Moscow doesn't mean OGH can be prosecuted under Russian laws for criticising Putin - nor should it mean that.
4chan is not in the UK's jurisdiction, it is in America's. Delaware to be precise.
If the UK government wants to firewall the rest of the world, China-style, then it is possible to do that. However the UK government has no jurisdiction over websites published abroad.
That is not what the OSA is. The wording of the act explicitly demands verification of any site hosting content that is not curated and filtered to be child safe. It requires almost the whole internet to be locked behind content filters. PB almost certainly falls within the remit of the OSA, if you interpret it strictly. Ofcom may choose to not enforce the act that vigorously, but a bad law with lax enforcement is still a bad law.
I suspect the polling will change sharply when Ofcom starts to bite 'offenders' and people realise what censoring the internet means. Wikipedia goes dark, YouTube demands ID to watch anything, foreign hosted sites are blocked on Ofcom's orders, and small forum operators shut down in droves when the first few are prosecuted.
Doubt she lost many votes off the back of the Julie Etchingham interview, that was more comedy than politics
Her response to Grenfell was poor, though it was a week after the election
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_through_fields_of_wheat
I can also understand why so many people voted for Corbyn. May ran this weird campaign hidden away in a bunker and was terrible when she came out, but also her message was the Hiliary Clinton one basically no changed required. Except large numbers of people, not just the youngsters, were going you what...no change required other than a death tax, you are having a giraffe right.
Corbyn was out and about, holding loads of rallies and his message was pretty simple, don't think too hard if any of the numbers add up, but I will guarantee change. All round a much more positive hopeful message than boring depressing Maybot saying full steam ahead to managed decline.
Boris in 2019 repeated this, get Brexit done, and things will change, levelling up and all that. And by which time Corbyn was bogged down by every body and their dog hearing much more about his past cozying up to terrorist and antisemites.
Large scale usage data from over half dozen academic studies gives us some clarity.
https://gvrkiran.substack.com/p/how-people-are-actually-using-ai
Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is "such a feminist".
In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said "you can't have a woman. It just doesn't work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jnen9zklpo
Unfortunately, Mrs. May wanted to be honest about many of the challenges facing the UK, particularly around paying for care, which did not go down well. She was also poorly advised by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. Finally, her decision not to debate Jeremy Corbyn also came back to haunt her.
Fundamentally social media has not been good for society and it should be regulated. Sites like 4chan are corrosive to Western civilisation. Algorithms radicalise people and drive them towards the worst in humanity; at best they divide and polarise the demos.
Free speech was designed for a world where humans talked to humans. But freedom comes with responsibility and that’s what you always always miss. Actions have consequences and societies have interests that are greater than the sum of the parts.
Can you think of a single ginger who's ever made something of their lives?
So it wasn't all bad.
Hiring Boris Johnson and Cressida Dick somewhat cancels that out, however.
Still, it all makes work for the working man robot to do.
I suppose if May had wanted to humiliate Osborne she could have offered him the Home Office - and watch Osborne do less well than she had done.
NEW THREAD