Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US are very defensive of their written constitution and some sections of American society are fanatical about. Those sections would certainly see some recent events here, such as going to jail for a tweet, as violating their first amendment rights. " Americans are keen on their unamenable amendments. " And there’s a good proposition of our own people who think we are making a laughing stock out of our selves with the never ending list of freebies that we’re willing to just hand over to anyone who can get here. Things we’re unwilling to give to our own citizens. So there must be others around the world who agree. " You're right. If British people believe nonsense like "the never ending list of freebies that we’re willing to just hand over to anyone who can get here. Things we’re unwilling to give to our own citizens" then other people might too. Side note, we were a laughing stock in 2016. Just look at the headlines from around the world. But now-a-days other countries have their own problems, and probably not paying much attention to what's going on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not generally a big fan of JD Vance. But he was spot on when he made that speech about Europe. What exactly are the values that Europe is defending these days? Individual freedom? Definitely not the case, given the number of anti-free-speech legislations that have been passed by countries around Europe. Democracy? That doesn't seem to be the case too, as we are seeing election results annulled and politicians trying hard to ban political parties and people's voices being deliberately disrespected. Say what you will about the Americans, but their first amendment is easily the best legislative framework anyone has written. " The American constitution that allows their president to lie on a daily basis, to publicly rant on his own social media channel, to change trade laws daily with no restrictions and even chest at golf on live TV, to withhold evidence of kiddy fiddlers and he might even be one That America? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not generally a big fan of JD Vance. But he was spot on when he made that speech about Europe. What exactly are the values that Europe is defending these days? Individual freedom? Definitely not the case, given the number of anti-free-speech legislations that have been passed by countries around Europe. Democracy? That doesn't seem to be the case too, as we are seeing election results annulled and politicians trying hard to ban political parties and people's voices being deliberately disrespected. Say what you will about the Americans, but their first amendment is easily the best legislative framework anyone has written. The American constitution that allows their president to lie on a daily basis, to publicly rant on his own social media channel, to change trade laws daily with no restrictions and even chest at golf on live TV, to withhold evidence of kiddy fiddlers and he might even be one That America?" America isn't perfect. I was specifically talking about the first amendment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not generally a big fan of JD Vance. But he was spot on when he made that speech about Europe. What exactly are the values that Europe is defending these days? Individual freedom? Definitely not the case, given the number of anti-free-speech legislations that have been passed by countries around Europe. Democracy? That doesn't seem to be the case too, as we are seeing election results annulled and politicians trying hard to ban political parties and people's voices being deliberately disrespected. Say what you will about the Americans, but their first amendment is easily the best legislative framework anyone has written. " Vance and the current administration are only ok with free speech when it's in their favour.. The trend of loading the Supreme Court, the divisive and dangerous rhetoric towards anyone in the judiciary and the very essential services who dares to oppose even daring to use the Constitution is a slippery slope.. And in time it will be the other side who will repeal and row back on some of what's been done.. I get what you are saying in general but none of them are a good representation.. All too tribal and divided in many western countries .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not generally a big fan of JD Vance. But he was spot on when he made that speech about Europe. What exactly are the values that Europe is defending these days? Individual freedom? Definitely not the case, given the number of anti-free-speech legislations that have been passed by countries around Europe. Democracy? That doesn't seem to be the case too, as we are seeing election results annulled and politicians trying hard to ban political parties and people's voices being deliberately disrespected. Say what you will about the Americans, but their first amendment is easily the best legislative framework anyone has written. The American constitution that allows their president to lie on a daily basis, to publicly rant on his own social media channel, to change trade laws daily with no restrictions and even chest at golf on live TV, to withhold evidence of kiddy fiddlers and he might even be one That America? America isn't perfect. I was specifically talking about the first amendment." But if anyone speaks out about trump they get fired or persecuted how's that work with free speech, what about the rear gas at Lafayette square in 2000, banning press members for asking questions? That first amendment ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not generally a big fan of JD Vance. But he was spot on when he made that speech about Europe. What exactly are the values that Europe is defending these days? Individual freedom? Definitely not the case, given the number of anti-free-speech legislations that have been passed by countries around Europe. Democracy? That doesn't seem to be the case too, as we are seeing election results annulled and politicians trying hard to ban political parties and people's voices being deliberately disrespected. Say what you will about the Americans, but their first amendment is easily the best legislative framework anyone has written. Vance and the current administration are only ok with free speech when it's in their favour.. The trend of loading the Supreme Court, the divisive and dangerous rhetoric towards anyone in the judiciary and the very essential services who dares to oppose even daring to use the Constitution is a slippery slope.. And in time it will be the other side who will repeal and row back on some of what's been done.. I get what you are saying in general but none of them are a good representation.. All too tribal and divided in many western countries .." Freedom of speech is about citizens being able to speak without facing legal consequences to it. The first amendment has some exceptions sure. But they are all well defined and the policy of the courts is to lean more towards freedom of speech whenever there is a grey area. People in public service roles being thrown around depending on their alignment with the ruling party isn't covered by that and it's not specially a Republican problem either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But if anyone speaks out about trump they get fired " Fired from where? If it's from their political party or a political role, it's not about freedom of speech. " or persecuted " Who got persecuted? " what about the rear gas at Lafayette square in 2000, " There are court cases still going on about it. And many were already given settlements. " banning press members for asking questions? " A court has ordered White House to restore access to the AP journalists. So the first amendment is doing its job pretty well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"US media appears to be portraying the UK as a country descending into tyranny and on the verge of meltdown. I’ve heard this commentary even from more reputable sources like the Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile international crypto exchange Coinbase has released a satirical advert portraying the UK as a failing shithole with people living in poor accommodation, expensive food, rubbish and rat filled streets, and whose only possibility of employment is food delivery. Unsurprisingly the advert has been banned for UK TV display. Coinbase said it was another example of UK censorship. Why are foreigners developing this perspective? Once upon a time Britain was “cool”. Do we have a PR problem?" The uk population are victims of an in-house drive by. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not generally a big fan of JD Vance. But he was spot on when he made that speech about Europe. What exactly are the values that Europe is defending these days? Individual freedom? Definitely not the case, given the number of anti-free-speech legislations that have been passed by countries around Europe. Democracy? That doesn't seem to be the case too, as we are seeing election results annulled and politicians trying hard to ban political parties and people's voices being deliberately disrespected. Say what you will about the Americans, but their first amendment is easily the best legislative framework anyone has written. Vance and the current administration are only ok with free speech when it's in their favour.. The trend of loading the Supreme Court, the divisive and dangerous rhetoric towards anyone in the judiciary and the very essential services who dares to oppose even daring to use the Constitution is a slippery slope.. And in time it will be the other side who will repeal and row back on some of what's been done.. I get what you are saying in general but none of them are a good representation.. All too tribal and divided in many western countries .. Freedom of speech is about citizens being able to speak without facing legal consequences to it. The first amendment has some exceptions sure. But they are all well defined and the policy of the courts is to lean more towards freedom of speech whenever there is a grey area. People in public service roles being thrown around depending on their alignment with the ruling party isn't covered by that and it's not specially a Republican problem either. " Freedom of speech within the parameters as defined by the laws of the land.. By all means say what you like but be prepared to accept the consequences.. Such things as you know apply to a common societal responsibility like driving etc .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not generally a big fan of JD Vance. But he was spot on when he made that speech about Europe. What exactly are the values that Europe is defending these days? Individual freedom? Definitely not the case, given the number of anti-free-speech legislations that have been passed by countries around Europe. Democracy? That doesn't seem to be the case too, as we are seeing election results annulled and politicians trying hard to ban political parties and people's voices being deliberately disrespected. Say what you will about the Americans, but their first amendment is easily the best legislative framework anyone has written. Vance and the current administration are only ok with free speech when it's in their favour.. The trend of loading the Supreme Court, the divisive and dangerous rhetoric towards anyone in the judiciary and the very essential services who dares to oppose even daring to use the Constitution is a slippery slope.. And in time it will be the other side who will repeal and row back on some of what's been done.. I get what you are saying in general but none of them are a good representation.. All too tribal and divided in many western countries .. Freedom of speech is about citizens being able to speak without facing legal consequences to it. The first amendment has some exceptions sure. But they are all well defined and the policy of the courts is to lean more towards freedom of speech whenever there is a grey area. People in public service roles being thrown around depending on their alignment with the ruling party isn't covered by that and it's not specially a Republican problem either. Freedom of speech within the parameters as defined by the laws of the land.. By all means say what you like but be prepared to accept the consequences.. Such things as you know apply to a common societal responsibility like driving etc .." Freedom of speech is not binary. It's on a spectrum with absolute freedom of speech on one side and total authoritarianism on the other side. The American framework of freedom of speech leans more towards freedom whereas in European countries, it's more away from freedom of speech. At this rate, we will be similar to China in a decade or two. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not generally a big fan of JD Vance. But he was spot on when he made that speech about Europe. What exactly are the values that Europe is defending these days? Individual freedom? Definitely not the case, given the number of anti-free-speech legislations that have been passed by countries around Europe. Democracy? That doesn't seem to be the case too, as we are seeing election results annulled and politicians trying hard to ban political parties and people's voices being deliberately disrespected. Say what you will about the Americans, but their first amendment is easily the best legislative framework anyone has written. Vance and the current administration are only ok with free speech when it's in their favour.. The trend of loading the Supreme Court, the divisive and dangerous rhetoric towards anyone in the judiciary and the very essential services who dares to oppose even daring to use the Constitution is a slippery slope.. And in time it will be the other side who will repeal and row back on some of what's been done.. I get what you are saying in general but none of them are a good representation.. All too tribal and divided in many western countries .. Freedom of speech is about citizens being able to speak without facing legal consequences to it. The first amendment has some exceptions sure. But they are all well defined and the policy of the courts is to lean more towards freedom of speech whenever there is a grey area. People in public service roles being thrown around depending on their alignment with the ruling party isn't covered by that and it's not specially a Republican problem either. Freedom of speech within the parameters as defined by the laws of the land.. By all means say what you like but be prepared to accept the consequences.. Such things as you know apply to a common societal responsibility like driving etc .. Freedom of speech is not binary. It's on a spectrum with absolute freedom of speech on one side and total authoritarianism on the other side. The American framework of freedom of speech leans more towards freedom whereas in European countries, it's more away from freedom of speech. At this rate, we will be similar to China in a decade or two." The facts are we have a more regressive political establishment than China.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not generally a big fan of JD Vance. But he was spot on when he made that speech about Europe. What exactly are the values that Europe is defending these days? Individual freedom? Definitely not the case, given the number of anti-free-speech legislations that have been passed by countries around Europe. Democracy? That doesn't seem to be the case too, as we are seeing election results annulled and politicians trying hard to ban political parties and people's voices being deliberately disrespected. Say what you will about the Americans, but their first amendment is easily the best legislative framework anyone has written. Vance and the current administration are only ok with free speech when it's in their favour.. The trend of loading the Supreme Court, the divisive and dangerous rhetoric towards anyone in the judiciary and the very essential services who dares to oppose even daring to use the Constitution is a slippery slope.. And in time it will be the other side who will repeal and row back on some of what's been done.. I get what you are saying in general but none of them are a good representation.. All too tribal and divided in many western countries .. Freedom of speech is about citizens being able to speak without facing legal consequences to it. The first amendment has some exceptions sure. But they are all well defined and the policy of the courts is to lean more towards freedom of speech whenever there is a grey area. People in public service roles being thrown around depending on their alignment with the ruling party isn't covered by that and it's not specially a Republican problem either. Freedom of speech within the parameters as defined by the laws of the land.. By all means say what you like but be prepared to accept the consequences.. Such things as you know apply to a common societal responsibility like driving etc .. Freedom of speech is not binary. It's on a spectrum with absolute freedom of speech on one side and total authoritarianism on the other side. The American framework of freedom of speech leans more towards freedom whereas in European countries, it's more away from freedom of speech. At this rate, we will be similar to China in a decade or two." We absolutely won't.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Freedom of speech is not binary. It's on a spectrum with absolute freedom of speech on one side and total authoritarianism on the other side. The American framework of freedom of speech leans more towards freedom whereas in European countries, it's more away from freedom of speech. At this rate, we will be similar to China in a decade or two. We absolutely won't.. " I can point to some legislations passed over the last two decades deliberately written vaguely by the politicians so that they can arrest people for random reasons. UK makes 12,000 arrests per year for social media posts, just under the 2003 communications act. That's not a small number. It's approximately 30 people per day. And I have not even started talking about the farce that are the public order and religious hatred act. And now we have the Online Safety bill. In parallel, both the British government and EU are pushing hard against end to end encryption, all the while pretending like they care about user's online privacy with their ridiculous regulations. You say we won't become China? We are already half way becoming China. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Freedom of speech is not binary. It's on a spectrum with absolute freedom of speech on one side and total authoritarianism on the other side. The American framework of freedom of speech leans more towards freedom whereas in European countries, it's more away from freedom of speech. At this rate, we will be similar to China in a decade or two. We absolutely won't.. I can point to some legislations passed over the last two decades deliberately written vaguely by the politicians so that they can arrest people for random reasons. UK makes 12,000 arrests per year for social media posts, just under the 2003 communications act. That's not a small number. It's approximately 30 people per day. And I have not even started talking about the farce that are the public order and religious hatred act. And now we have the Online Safety bill. " Is that your perception, the vagueness of the legislation? If there's that many arrests then they surely have breached the threshold, there certainly an increase in hatred, racism and incitement to harm a particular group or race .. Maybe if people weren't essentially being cunts they might not have their collars felt.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Freedom of speech is not binary. It's on a spectrum with absolute freedom of speech on one side and total authoritarianism on the other side. The American framework of freedom of speech leans more towards freedom whereas in European countries, it's more away from freedom of speech. At this rate, we will be similar to China in a decade or two. We absolutely won't.. I can point to some legislations passed over the last two decades deliberately written vaguely by the politicians so that they can arrest people for random reasons. UK makes 12,000 arrests per year for social media posts, just under the 2003 communications act. That's not a small number. It's approximately 30 people per day. And I have not even started talking about the farce that are the public order and religious hatred act. And now we have the Online Safety bill. Is that your perception, the vagueness of the legislation? " The 2003 communications act says that posting anything "grossly offensive" is illegal. Can you tell me what "grossly offensive" means? " If there's that many arrests then they surely have breached the threshold, there certainly an increase in hatred, racism and incitement to harm a particular group or race .. " That's exactly what Chinese government tells too - They must have done something wrong. If 30 people are arrested every day over social media posts, it definitely warrants questioning of the legal framework. " Maybe if people weren't essentially being cunts they might not have their collars felt.." By cunts, do you mean being "grossly offensive"?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Freedom of speech is not binary. It's on a spectrum with absolute freedom of speech on one side and total authoritarianism on the other side. The American framework of freedom of speech leans more towards freedom whereas in European countries, it's more away from freedom of speech. At this rate, we will be similar to China in a decade or two. We absolutely won't.. I can point to some legislations passed over the last two decades deliberately written vaguely by the politicians so that they can arrest people for random reasons. UK makes 12,000 arrests per year for social media posts, just under the 2003 communications act. That's not a small number. It's approximately 30 people per day. And I have not even started talking about the farce that are the public order and religious hatred act. And now we have the Online Safety bill. Is that your perception, the vagueness of the legislation? The 2003 communications act says that posting anything "grossly offensive" is illegal. Can you tell me what "grossly offensive" means? If there's that many arrests then they surely have breached the threshold, there certainly an increase in hatred, racism and incitement to harm a particular group or race .. That's exactly what Chinese government tells too - They must have done something wrong. If 30 people are arrested every day over social media posts, it definitely warrants questioning of the legal framework. Maybe if people weren't essentially being cunts they might not have their collars felt.. By cunts, do you mean being "grossly offensive"? "No, I'm good with offensive in the right context..
I'm very ok with cunting people off and being told the same .. 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At one time China would have been seen as an adversary and enemy. But I think certainly since Covid the political class across Europe is increasingly seeing China as a model. In part that’s driven by almost total reliance on China for much of its manufacturing. And the entire Net Zero agenda to be even remotely achievable (it won’t be anyway) is reliant on “cheap” Chinese imports. But on top of that the European political elite knows that it is running out of time as the populus becomes more restive (ironically because of elite failure). So implementing a Chinese system of surveillance and control starts to look pretty appealing if you are running scared of your own population." Agreed
And the European politicians as always are being very shrewd about it. They know every trick in the authoritarian playbook to get people to give up their rights.
Instead of passing one huge legislation that makes everyone angry, they pass multiple smaller legislations which are vague or affect only a few people. The ones who aren't directly affected will ignore them. So the ones who are affected will not be able to protest against these laws. The next legislation will affect another smaller section of people who didn't give a fuck when the previous legislation was passed.
You keep doing this gradually and eventually you achieve your authoritarian dream. This is where a written constitution helps. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Freedom of speech is not binary. It's on a spectrum with absolute freedom of speech on one side and total authoritarianism on the other side. The American framework of freedom of speech leans more towards freedom whereas in European countries, it's more away from freedom of speech. At this rate, we will be similar to China in a decade or two. We absolutely won't.. I can point to some legislations passed over the last two decades deliberately written vaguely by the politicians so that they can arrest people for random reasons. UK makes 12,000 arrests per year for social media posts, just under the 2003 communications act. That's not a small number. It's approximately 30 people per day. And I have not even started talking about the farce that are the public order and religious hatred act. And now we have the Online Safety bill. Is that your perception, the vagueness of the legislation? The 2003 communications act says that posting anything "grossly offensive" is illegal. Can you tell me what "grossly offensive" means? If there's that many arrests then they surely have breached the threshold, there certainly an increase in hatred, racism and incitement to harm a particular group or race .. That's exactly what Chinese government tells too - They must have done something wrong. If 30 people are arrested every day over social media posts, it definitely warrants questioning of the legal framework. Maybe if people weren't essentially being cunts they might not have their collars felt.. By cunts, do you mean being "grossly offensive"?
No, I'm good with offensive in the right context..
I'm very ok with cunting people off and being told the same ..
"Can you explain what that "right context" means in words that's not subjective? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In parallel, both the British government and EU are pushing hard against end to end encryption, all the while pretending like they care about user's online privacy with their ridiculous regulations. You say we won't become China? We are already half way becoming China." The authorities intercepting communications isn't anything new. A postie mate of mine back in the early 1980's who worked in the local sorting office told me they had a list of addresses on mail to keep to one side until the "special copper" came round once a week to do his stuff. Maybe he was talking bollocks but I saw no reason to disbelieve him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Freedom of speech is not binary. It's on a spectrum with absolute freedom of speech on one side and total authoritarianism on the other side. The American framework of freedom of speech leans more towards freedom whereas in European countries, it's more away from freedom of speech. At this rate, we will be similar to China in a decade or two. We absolutely won't.. I can point to some legislations passed over the last two decades deliberately written vaguely by the politicians so that they can arrest people for random reasons. UK makes 12,000 arrests per year for social media posts, just under the 2003 communications act. That's not a small number. It's approximately 30 people per day. And I have not even started talking about the farce that are the public order and religious hatred act. And now we have the Online Safety bill. Is that your perception, the vagueness of the legislation? The 2003 communications act says that posting anything "grossly offensive" is illegal. Can you tell me what "grossly offensive" means? If there's that many arrests then they surely have breached the threshold, there certainly an increase in hatred, racism and incitement to harm a particular group or race .. That's exactly what Chinese government tells too - They must have done something wrong. If 30 people are arrested every day over social media posts, it definitely warrants questioning of the legal framework. Maybe if people weren't essentially being cunts they might not have their collars felt.. By cunts, do you mean being "grossly offensive"?
No, I'm good with offensive in the right context..
I'm very ok with cunting people off and being told the same ..
Can you explain what that "right context" means in words that's not subjective?"Humour I would think.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In parallel, both the British government and EU are pushing hard against end to end encryption, all the while pretending like they care about user's online privacy with their ridiculous regulations. You say we won't become China? We are already half way becoming China. The authorities intercepting communications isn't anything new. A postie mate of mine back in the early 1980's who worked in the local sorting office told me they had a list of addresses on mail to keep to one side until the "special copper" came round once a week to do his stuff. Maybe he was talking bollocks but I saw no reason to disbelieve him." People who really want to use encryption can use it anyway. In your example of postal messages, the ones who really want to hide can hide them by using some ciphers they have agreed on. If end to end encryption is blocked on Apple and WhatsApp, people who are willing to invest some time and effort can still write their own app or add another layer of encryption they want to use over Apple and WhatsApp's messaging system. There lies the problem. Real criminals and terrorists are the ones who would actually put time and effort to do something like that. Common people will continue using apple message or WhatsApp. So the government stopping Apple from supporting end to end encryption is not about tracking criminals and terrorists but to track common people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who really want to use encryption can use it anyway. In your example of postal messages, the ones who really want to hide can hide them by using some ciphers they have agreed on. If end to end encryption is blocked on Apple and WhatsApp, people who are willing to invest some time and effort can still write their own app or add another layer of encryption they want to use over Apple and WhatsApp's messaging system. There lies the problem. Real criminals and terrorists are the ones who would actually put time and effort to do something like that. Common people will continue using apple message or WhatsApp. So the government stopping Apple from supporting end to end encryption is not about tracking criminals and terrorists but to track common people." You are being quaintly naive if you think that those in power haven't been surveilling "common people" basically forever. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who really want to use encryption can use it anyway. In your example of postal messages, the ones who really want to hide can hide them by using some ciphers they have agreed on. If end to end encryption is blocked on Apple and WhatsApp, people who are willing to invest some time and effort can still write their own app or add another layer of encryption they want to use over Apple and WhatsApp's messaging system. There lies the problem. Real criminals and terrorists are the ones who would actually put time and effort to do something like that. Common people will continue using apple message or WhatsApp. So the government stopping Apple from supporting end to end encryption is not about tracking criminals and terrorists but to track common people. You are being quaintly naive if you think that those in power haven't been surveilling "common people" basically forever." Where did I say that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government is protecting unvetted foreign men despite a number of them r4ping children. I'd say we're a bit of a laughing stock. This week alone we're reading about a 12 and 8 year old in two separate incidents." A twat will be along shortly to insinuate that you're a racist, or to try some whataboutery. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where did I say that?" You said... "In parallel, both the British government and EU are pushing hard against end to end encryption, all the while pretending like they care about user's online privacy with their ridiculous regulations. You say we won't become China? We are already half way becoming China." This implies that our privacy is being eroded rather than that it never existed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""always follow the money". FTSE at all time highs. And, just to put things into perspective, if not at an all time low, GBP/EUR now at its lowest for two years. And I should know, this month's transfer of funds from the UK to France got me 600 euro less than my February transfer." Driven by gilt yields and in turn by interest rate speculation. Only a tenuous link to economy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"US media appears to be portraying the UK as a country descending into tyranny and on the verge of meltdown. I’ve heard this commentary even from more reputable sources like the Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile international crypto exchange Coinbase has released a satirical advert portraying the UK as a failing shithole with people living in poor accommodation, expensive food, rubbish and rat filled streets, and whose only possibility of employment is food delivery. Unsurprisingly the advert has been banned for UK TV display. Coinbase said it was another example of UK censorship. Why are foreigners developing this perspective? Once upon a time Britain was “cool”. Do we have a PR problem?" Let me guess it's all Labours fault? The Tories have had nothing to do with the decline of the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where did I say that? You said... "In parallel, both the British government and EU are pushing hard against end to end encryption, all the while pretending like they care about user's online privacy with their ridiculous regulations. You say we won't become China? We are already half way becoming China." This implies that our privacy is being eroded rather than that it never existed." Looks like you have removed the rest of the post which gave the context. As I mentioned in another post, authoritarianism doesn't happen overnight. Politicians push multiple smaller legislative changes that people don't bother much about. By the time people realise where they are, it's already too late. The British politicians have been passing smaller authoritarian laws over a long period. End to end encryption could have mitigated many of that. But the politicians decided to go against that too. This is true with rest of Europe too. European politicians have no rights to open their mouth about "privacy" or to criticise China. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like you have removed the rest of the post which gave the context. As I mentioned in another post, authoritarianism doesn't happen overnight. Politicians push multiple smaller legislative changes that people don't bother much about. By the time people realise where they are, it's already too late. The British politicians have been passing smaller authoritarian laws over a long period. End to end encryption could have mitigated many of that. But the politicians decided to go against that too. This is true with rest of Europe too. European politicians have no rights to open their mouth about "privacy" or to criticise China." Sorry I'm confused. Your full post was... "I can point to some legislations passed over the last two decades deliberately written vaguely by the politicians so that they can arrest people for random reasons. UK makes 12,000 arrests per year for social media posts, just under the 2003 communications act. That's not a small number. It's approximately 30 people per day. And I have not even started talking about the farce that are the public order and religious hatred act. And now we have the Online Safety bill. In parallel, both the British government and EU are pushing hard against end to end encryption, all the while pretending like they care about user's online privacy with their ridiculous regulations. You say we won't become China? We are already half way becoming China." But I don't see how that alters the meaning of the paragraphs I quoted. Are you saying that privacy in the UK is being eroded or not? My position is that it's not being eroded because it never existed. And if you think it is being eroded rather than it never existed them I consider that quaintly naive as I said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like you have removed the rest of the post which gave the context. As I mentioned in another post, authoritarianism doesn't happen overnight. Politicians push multiple smaller legislative changes that people don't bother much about. By the time people realise where they are, it's already too late. The British politicians have been passing smaller authoritarian laws over a long period. End to end encryption could have mitigated many of that. But the politicians decided to go against that too. This is true with rest of Europe too. European politicians have no rights to open their mouth about "privacy" or to criticise China. Sorry I'm confused. Your full post was... "I can point to some legislations passed over the last two decades deliberately written vaguely by the politicians so that they can arrest people for random reasons. UK makes 12,000 arrests per year for social media posts, just under the 2003 communications act. That's not a small number. It's approximately 30 people per day. And I have not even started talking about the farce that are the public order and religious hatred act. And now we have the Online Safety bill. In parallel, both the British government and EU are pushing hard against end to end encryption, all the while pretending like they care about user's online privacy with their ridiculous regulations. You say we won't become China? We are already half way becoming China." But I don't see how that alters the meaning of the paragraphs I quoted. Are you saying that privacy in the UK is being eroded or not? My position is that it's not being eroded because it never existed. And if you think it is being eroded rather than it never existed them I consider that quaintly naive as I said." I already explained it to you. You shouldn't see the end to end encryption laws in isolation. Look at the 2003 communications act, 2006 religious hatred act and the recent online safety bill. Put them all together with the effort to stop end to end encryption and you will see that, authoritarianism is slowly but steadily increasing in this country. Not sure how many times I have to explain this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure how many times I have to explain this." But I wasn't talking about authoritarianism, I was talking specifically about surveillance. My original comment to you was... "You are being quaintly naive if you think that those in power haven't been surveilling "common people" basically forever." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure how many times I have to explain this. But I wasn't talking about authoritarianism, I was talking specifically about surveillance. My original comment to you was... "You are being quaintly naive if you think that those in power haven't been surveilling "common people" basically forever."" And I never said that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And I never said that" We are going in circles. You implied that privacy is being eroded and I'm saying there's nothing to erode. We don't have privacy and never have had it. That's all. I suspect we more or less agree on this really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And I never said that We are going in circles. You implied that privacy is being eroded and I'm saying there's nothing to erode. We don't have privacy and never have had it. That's all. I suspect we more or less agree on this really." You are the one who is taking us around in circles by making strawman arguments. My post as a whole was about how authoritarianism is slowly creeping in. You picked the end to end encryption part in isolation and kept questioning it. That's not the point I made and I explained multiple times that I am talking about the all the legislations together along with end to end encryption makes our government more authoritarian. I mentioned privacy only because the European politicians pretend like they care about user privacy by passing regulations but when a company tries to use end to end encryption which is probably the best possible way to improve user privacy, they are trying hard to block it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"US media appears to be portraying the UK as a country descending into tyranny and on the verge of meltdown. I’ve heard this commentary even from more reputable sources like the Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile international crypto exchange Coinbase has released a satirical advert portraying the UK as a failing shithole with people living in poor accommodation, expensive food, rubbish and rat filled streets, and whose only possibility of employment is food delivery. Unsurprisingly the advert has been banned for UK TV display. Coinbase said it was another example of UK censorship. Why are foreigners developing this perspective? Once upon a time Britain was “cool”. Do we have a PR problem?" Woke MPs longing for power but won't let their beliefs allow it. Fuck the country, it's all about them do yes we are a laughing stock | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
