851–860 of 936 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is equally absurd.
No it isn't? Real example is Amazon, a US company that sells alcohol in the UK, and is required to check age on order & delivery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Political speech is very much protected in UK law With "protected political speech" being defined as which flavour of the established, incompetent elite you prefer this year. People have been arrested in the UK for holding blank signs within vicinity of Palestine marches. People have been arrested over protesting Charles' coronation. To say nothing of thousands of people arrested every year over tweets. Political s…
You forgot the part where they are literally debating if to get rid of jury trials or not because the government didn't hire enough judges.
Ref: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5lxg2l0lqo
97% of trials in the UK don't have juries anyway.
The changes would mean instead of 3% having juries it would be down to 2.25%.
This would also be reviewed once the existing backlog has been seen to. "This means that currently a suspect being charged with an offence today may not reach trial until 2030."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely they do have the legal basis, that's how the fine got issued. What they're missing is any way to enforce it.
What legal basis?
The Online Safety Act 2023[1][2][3] (OSA) (c. 50) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate online content. It was passed on 26 October 2023 and gives the relevant secretary of state the power to designate, suppress, and record a wide range of online content that they deem illegal or harmful to children.[4][5]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the comment DeathArrow responded to, which is apparently what started all this bickering about racism (collapse that comment to see what I mean), was not. joe_mamba's use of "diversity" reads as being about diversity of opinion; it only appears to be about race given the context you pointed out. Seriously, what part of "United people are dangerous for the elites" suggests that the people should segregate the…
I have a hard time believing that, sorry. joe_mamba literally quoted the same use of the word "diversity" that I did, and concurred with the sentiment - that it "leads to division". And went on to add that Germany was also "under the spell of a cult". You're suggesting that joe_mamba simply used a paragraph of barely-veiled racist drivel as a jumping off point to make a completely unrelated and totally-not-racist poi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Political speech is very much protected in UK law With "protected political speech" being defined as which flavour of the established, incompetent elite you prefer this year. People have been arrested in the UK for holding blank signs within vicinity of Palestine marches. People have been arrested over protesting Charles' coronation. To say nothing of thousands of people arrested every year over tweets. Political s…
> arrested in the UK for holding blank signs within vicinity of Palestine marches. Got a source on this one? Supporting Palestine in the UK has never been illegal. Supporting the specific group "Palestine Action" has been as they were for a while a proscribed terrorist organisation due to what was (IMHO) some property crimes committed against defense contractors by some of their members. Totally wrong, and has now be…
> Got a source on this one?
Not quite arrested but the closest I can find is someone threatened with arrest if they wrote certain things on the blank sign:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/anti-monarch...
The UK Police seem to have switched to a policy of knowingly arresting people erroneously and then releasing them and apologising afterwards.
(At least it is just arresting people and releasing them rather than shooting them and then apologising afterwards whilst also exonerating the officers involved.)
The article does link to an incident in Russia where a protester was dragged away for holding up a blank sign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is a great clickhole headline that your comment reminds me of "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point" 4chan has produced some hilarious/interesting stuff, and they have also driven people to suicide. i suppose it is up to everyone individually to make the value judgement there.
Well, much like HN, 4chan is a couple dozen boards of different topics frequented by something like 22 million unique users every month. So of course there's going to be good things there. And of course there's going to be bad things there. You don't get to pick and choose. Trying to make a "value judgment" and boil the whole thing down to "4chan good" or "4chan bad," seems with even the most generous interpretation.…
and of course my comment is reductive, it is a total of 3 sentences. i dont really know what nuance you were expecting to get out a 3 sentence comment.
everything is gray, with both good and bad. 4chan included. there we go -- more true, less interesting.
Ofcom is currently threatening a Canadian forum that exists to help people with depression. Ofcom claims that geoblocking blocking the UK is "insufficient": > I've also gone back to Ofcom explicitly telling them the UK was now geoblocked (twice now) and I received a response that this was insufficient. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1rk690v/i_ru... Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply gl…
Like most matters concerning the UK: unless your feet are touching their territory, the correct response to their actions, inactions, or very existence, is: "fuck off"
"Dear Sirs, In regards to your recent request, can I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram (1971). Yours etc,"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is false. You of course can regulate and fine a foreign business. That's how trade regulations work. The UK isn't going to get a cent from that but the leadership is banned from entering the UK for the foreseeable future. Doing this a lot as a country is how you achieve pariah status and losing a bunch of trade, though.
> the leadership is banned from entering the UK for the foreseeable future Not at all. But if they do enter, they might find difficulty leaving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump's private army taking guard outside the white house with the new military-grade defensive ballroom might change matters. Who exactly is going to force him to leave?
What are you talking about? I sure hope I'll see you back here on 1/20/29 saying over and over again how wrong you were and how stupid this comment was but I'm sure you'll have some excuse, or pretend you never said it.