101–110 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's ~100m that could be put towards things that actually help people and improve peoples lives.
They are net contributors even before tourism. (Massively so after it, but I suppose it'd be hard to say how much of that would remain, especially in the short term, if we had no current monarchy but still the history, buildings, military, etc.)
Explain your reasoning, please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bit over the top, don't you think? Case in point: we will have elections one of these days, that seems to be proof to me that we still are a democracy. Or do you believe in widespread vote fraud?
As long as most people are not aware of these problems, they will not vote against the politicians that make these laws. This is really not a question about democracy but a question about how well-informed the population is.
It's with some anxiety that I'm looking at the next six months here, it could well go the way of Italy, or possibly much worse (think 'Orban' or something like that).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common misunderstanding. Harassing people near abortion clinics is a separate offense. The lady in question has harassed people in the past, but she was specifically arrested and charged for prayer in this case. This offense of prayer is separate to her harassment of people. It’s like if you had drugs in your pocket while harassing someone. They’re separate offenses. This video explains the situation and re…
If anyone wants to jump straight to the order itself, it's the first link under that youtube video. > the council is satisfied on reasonable grounds that there are a number of activities, carried out or are likely to be carried out in a public space namely the area within and surrounding Station Road, Birmingham, B30, shown outlined on the map attached ( the restricted area) that have had, or are likely to have, a de…
In that case the woman was arrested for silently praying by herself. Her prayer was to stop the abortion clinic, but it was silent and in her own head.
I understand that the intent of the law is to ban prayer near an abortion clinic to stop harassment, but they have banned prayer.
(I support everything else in that order, I’m pro choice. I just don’t think we should ban prayer)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they are trying to get the law passed, despite the obvious objection that message filtering is impossible, by saying "we know it's impossible but we would like to have the legal right to do it in case it becomes possible in the future"?
>they are trying to get the law passed they did pass the law through the lower house. the upper house can demand amendments and stall things a bit, but it can also just be completely ignored given enough time. > despite the obvious objection that message filtering is impossible it's not impossible, it's just a horrificly bad idea, and why would being impossible affect if it gets passed or not? > by saying "we know it…
> Junior minister Stephen Parkinson appeared to concede ground to the tech companies' arguments on Wednesday, saying in parliament's upper chamber that the Ofcom communications regulator would only require them to scan content where "technically feasible".
What this means is any chat system that isn't using end-to-end encryption is subject to these laws. Anything using end-to-end encryption is considered unfeasible to scan.
Like pieces of paper floating on an ocean of excrement.
The pieces of paper are new, but the ocean has not changed.
Welcome to the United Kingdom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anyone wants to jump straight to the order itself, it's the first link under that youtube video. > the council is satisfied on reasonable grounds that there are a number of activities, carried out or are likely to be carried out in a public space namely the area within and surrounding Station Road, Birmingham, B30, shown outlined on the map attached ( the restricted area) that have had, or are likely to have, a de…
By specifically calling out prayer the order does ban prayer... In that case the woman was arrested for silently praying by herself. Her prayer was to stop the abortion clinic, but it was silent and in her own head. I understand that the intent of the law is to ban prayer near an abortion clinic to stop harassment, but they have banned prayer. (I support everything else in that order, I’m pro choice. I just don’t thi…
Edit, these pictures show that "silently praying" is not an unobtrusive as it sounds:
https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article2379330...
https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article2379331...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>they are trying to get the law passed they did pass the law through the lower house. the upper house can demand amendments and stall things a bit, but it can also just be completely ignored given enough time. > despite the obvious objection that message filtering is impossible it's not impossible, it's just a horrificly bad idea, and why would being impossible affect if it gets passed or not? > by saying "we know it…
They said nothing about it being practical. Specifically from the Reuters article: > Junior minister Stephen Parkinson appeared to concede ground to the tech companies' arguments on Wednesday, saying in parliament's upper chamber that the Ofcom communications regulator would only require them to scan content where "technically feasible". What this means is any chat system that isn't using end-to-end encryption is sub…
Why are you asserting this is true?
Adding a backdoor to an e2e system is technically feasible, what makes you imagine that is excluded?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By specifically calling out prayer the order does ban prayer... In that case the woman was arrested for silently praying by herself. Her prayer was to stop the abortion clinic, but it was silent and in her own head. I understand that the intent of the law is to ban prayer near an abortion clinic to stop harassment, but they have banned prayer. (I support everything else in that order, I’m pro choice. I just don’t thi…
She would have been guilty of harassment even if she were not praying. Edit, these pictures show that "silently praying" is not an unobtrusive as it sounds: https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article2379330... https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article2379331...
Has the UK banned some prayer and arrested at least one person for thought crime?
The answer to both of those questions is yes.
It’s not about whether she would have been convicted for something else anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She would have been guilty of harassment even if she were not praying. Edit, these pictures show that "silently praying" is not an unobtrusive as it sounds: https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article2379330... https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article2379331...
Is silent prayer illegal outside some abortion clinics in the UK? Has the UK banned some prayer and arrested at least one person for thought crime? The answer to both of those questions is yes. It’s not about whether she would have been convicted for something else anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm slowly becoming of the opinion that legislators should be punished for creating laws that are nakedly illegal (against the constitution/human rights that have been agreed upon). I don't know what can of worms it would open, but it's getting tiring when politicians just ignore the public and push forward with laws that then spend 5 years in court battles to eventually be struck down. But for those 5 years their bu…
In a country that doesn't have a written constitution [0] (per se), and is continually trying to renege on what human rights have been agreed [1], what would there be to punish against? 0: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-co... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/05/tory-mps-to...
