| Removed thread 22:18 - Jan 26 with 28381 views | PhilTWTD |
Previously banned user being tedious, not Frimley. One day I'll fill everyone in on some of what certain banned users have got up to over the years. |  | | |  |
| Removed thread on 15:00 - Jan 28 with 2494 views | DJR |
| Removed thread on 12:13 - Jan 28 by lowhouseblue |
absolutely, but is that understanding widespread? we have talk of curtailing free speech on the basis of 'harms'. but does 'harms' mean preparing and inciting violence or does 'harms' mean upsetting people. it's a spectrum and far from simple, but on the basis of what is reported today home office officials seem to be further towards the not upsetting people end than i would like. [Post edited 28 Jan 12:15]
|
Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated in UK law, provides as follows.
Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
I am not aware of any law (such as permitted by the second limb) which outlaws upsetting people per se.
Of course, there is nothing to stop me upsetting people (and if I were to go so far as being racist it might involve a criminal sanction), but many people are sensitive and tolerant enough not to engage in this type of behaviour.
As regards any criminal sanctions, it is also interesting to note that they only kick in after the event, so don't actually prevent, say, hate speech.
For what it is worth, it is also interesting to note that some on the right these days, whilst professing a concern for freedom of speech, seem much less concerned about other aspects of liberal democracy such as the rule of law (eg Johnson's prorogation of Parliament and disregard for international law, and Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election).
Finally, things like clause 28 and book bans in Florida don't seem to me evidence that the right has the higher moral ground when it comes to freedom of speech. And I am happy to criticise those, whether of the left or right, who don't act in accordance with what I regard liberal values (including tolerance). [Post edited 28 Jan 15:28]
|  | | |
| Removed thread on 15:37 - Jan 28 with 2393 views | lowhouseblue |
| Removed thread on 15:00 - Jan 28 by DJR |
Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated in UK law, provides as follows.
Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
I am not aware of any law (such as permitted by the second limb) which outlaws upsetting people per se.
Of course, there is nothing to stop me upsetting people (and if I were to go so far as being racist it might involve a criminal sanction), but many people are sensitive and tolerant enough not to engage in this type of behaviour.
As regards any criminal sanctions, it is also interesting to note that they only kick in after the event, so don't actually prevent, say, hate speech.
For what it is worth, it is also interesting to note that some on the right these days, whilst professing a concern for freedom of speech, seem much less concerned about other aspects of liberal democracy such as the rule of law (eg Johnson's prorogation of Parliament and disregard for international law, and Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election).
Finally, things like clause 28 and book bans in Florida don't seem to me evidence that the right has the higher moral ground when it comes to freedom of speech. And I am happy to criticise those, whether of the left or right, who don't act in accordance with what I regard liberal values (including tolerance). [Post edited 28 Jan 15:28]
|
i wasn't commenting on where the law currently stands but on the implications of the report produced by home office officials which is in the news today.
"for the protection of the reputation or rights of others" potentially allows law makers and an activist judiciary to significantly restrict speech while remaining within article 10. we already have 'non-crime hate incidents' which depend on nothing more than someone being upset or offended (they are recorded without any process, investigation or assessment of validity). the report from the home office officials apparently wants to extend the use of non-crime hate incidents.
out of interest we also have the malicious communications act 1988 which refers to language ‘intended to cause distress or anxiety’ and section 127 of the communications act 2003 which makes it an offence to send messages which are ‘grossly offensive’. so even existing law in not as benign as you wish.
"As regards any criminal sanctions, it is also interesting to note that they only kick in after the event, so don't actually prevent, say, hate speech." in terms of free speech that is nonsense - the courts have long recognised the "chilling effect" of punitive sanctions. clearly ex-post prosecution can act to curtail free speech.
what i referred to in my post was the implication of the leaked home office report, which apparently raises the notion of 'harms', seems to be heading in a regressive direction, and has very rightly been squashed by yvette cooper. [Post edited 28 Jan 15:41]
|  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Removed thread on 16:57 - Jan 28 with 2273 views | jaykay |
| Removed thread on 18:35 - Jan 27 by Bigalhunter |
Gone right over my head.
On a separate note, it would be great to have footers and sprucey back though.
Always got on really well with them, but then I suppose they were very left leaning, anti-racism types who didn’t have much time for Covid deniers, Trump, Farage, public stonings, shooting immigrants in boats, moaning about players taking the knee or that Yaxley Lemon chap.
Wasn’t ever gonna butt heads with them on those issues.
Ah well, can’t curate your perfect forum as that might get a bit boring after a bit. |
thats one thing i cant work out , i thought once they had gone along with jeera there would be no more pile ons . but according to to some frimmers and zappers had this done to them.
mind you its always a mob doing the pile ons now, never no names.
some also holding up a certain 2 who have been banned lately as saints. no sniping or trolling from them , even if phil could see it i would rather believe him than others. |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
| Removed thread on 17:31 - Jan 28 with 2227 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Removed thread on 16:57 - Jan 28 by jaykay |
thats one thing i cant work out , i thought once they had gone along with jeera there would be no more pile ons . but according to to some frimmers and zappers had this done to them.
mind you its always a mob doing the pile ons now, never no names.
some also holding up a certain 2 who have been banned lately as saints. no sniping or trolling from them , even if phil could see it i would rather believe him than others. |
That;s such a distortion. This rose tinted view of those 2 recently departed posters really doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Getting a little tired of this rewriting of history.
Never saw Zapers piled upon but did see his rationalisation of pretty appalling current day events.
Frimley was just being Frimley on uppers and that is too much. If you wite antagonistic stuff and then double down on it there will be criticism |  | | |
| Removed thread on 17:38 - Jan 28 with 2203 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Removed thread on 08:59 - Jan 28 by Cafe_Newman |
Cheers, though I'm not sure that's helped a great deal.
I'm not too sure if I'm too old, my memory is failing or both but I would really appreciate having:
a) an explanation of what the "banter era" is.
b) an explanation of what the "anti-bullying gang" is, who's in it and who's opposed to it.
c) a large diagram showing the political orientation of each of the regular posters here.
Also who are Dollers, Paz and MGH?
There was something else, but I've already forgotten it.
EDIT: Or is it MBH? [Post edited 28 Jan 9:06]
|
No idea why you're mentioning me, I've not previously been mentioned in this thread or am remotely connected to the people mentioned in it. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Removed thread on 17:42 - Jan 28 with 2173 views | DJR |
| Removed thread on 15:37 - Jan 28 by lowhouseblue |
i wasn't commenting on where the law currently stands but on the implications of the report produced by home office officials which is in the news today.
"for the protection of the reputation or rights of others" potentially allows law makers and an activist judiciary to significantly restrict speech while remaining within article 10. we already have 'non-crime hate incidents' which depend on nothing more than someone being upset or offended (they are recorded without any process, investigation or assessment of validity). the report from the home office officials apparently wants to extend the use of non-crime hate incidents.
out of interest we also have the malicious communications act 1988 which refers to language ‘intended to cause distress or anxiety’ and section 127 of the communications act 2003 which makes it an offence to send messages which are ‘grossly offensive’. so even existing law in not as benign as you wish.
"As regards any criminal sanctions, it is also interesting to note that they only kick in after the event, so don't actually prevent, say, hate speech." in terms of free speech that is nonsense - the courts have long recognised the "chilling effect" of punitive sanctions. clearly ex-post prosecution can act to curtail free speech.
what i referred to in my post was the implication of the leaked home office report, which apparently raises the notion of 'harms', seems to be heading in a regressive direction, and has very rightly been squashed by yvette cooper. [Post edited 28 Jan 15:41]
|
If I can find the time, I'll get back to you but it's not the sort of post that it's wise to bash off a quick response to as you raise a number of issues. [Post edited 28 Jan 17:44]
| | | |
| Removed thread on 19:40 - Jan 28 with 2045 views | Cafe_Newman |
| Removed thread on 17:38 - Jan 28 by The_Flashing_Smile |
No idea why you're mentioning me, I've not previously been mentioned in this thread or am remotely connected to the people mentioned in it. |
Dollers is a name I've seen pop up quite regularly along with the others I mentioned and I had no idea who was being referred to. I just wanted to know who these people were. Now I know. Nothing more than that. |  | | |
| Removed thread on 19:49 - Jan 28 with 2007 views | Ryorry |
| Removed thread on 16:57 - Jan 28 by jaykay |
thats one thing i cant work out , i thought once they had gone along with jeera there would be no more pile ons . but according to to some frimmers and zappers had this done to them.
mind you its always a mob doing the pile ons now, never no names.
some also holding up a certain 2 who have been banned lately as saints. no sniping or trolling from them , even if phil could see it i would rather believe him than others. |
I hope you’re not referring to my comment about Spruce, as I specifically said he was *largely* a good poster, which by definition means not entirely. What I said about his self awareness is I’m sure correct - was in PMs which others obviously won’t have seen.
Totally agree about history sometimes being inaccurately rewritten about some former posters, fwiw. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Removed thread on 20:09 - Jan 28 with 1917 views | Ryorry |
| Removed thread on 19:49 - Jan 28 by Ryorry |
I hope you’re not referring to my comment about Spruce, as I specifically said he was *largely* a good poster, which by definition means not entirely. What I said about his self awareness is I’m sure correct - was in PMs which others obviously won’t have seen.
Totally agree about history sometimes being inaccurately rewritten about some former posters, fwiw. |
I see my saddo downvoter (without explanation or justification) of around ten years is back.
Cue probably another downvote from him now. Go on then vt, if that's what it takes to make you happy  | |
| |
| Removed thread on 21:30 - Jan 28 with 1798 views | mellowblue |
| Removed thread on 13:14 - Jan 27 by Benters |
I always thought Queen were a bit tame for my liking,as I liked listening to Black Sabbath etc,but as I’ve got older I actually like listening to them.As for Sabbath I still listen to them. |
Ironically and coincidentally , Black Sabbath had an album and track called Never Say Die, (the name of the banned poster). Good track actually, from a fairly patchy and untypical Sabbath album. Their first few albums were really good. |  | | |
| Removed thread on 21:44 - Jan 28 with 1763 views | mellowblue |
| Removed thread on 09:25 - Jan 28 by DJR |
I'm a socialist and don't behave like that.
As George Orwell wrote in The Road to Wigan Pier "Socialism means justice and common decency".
A couple of further Orwell quotes, relevant to this message board, are.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
"Free speech is my right to say what you don't want to hear." [Post edited 28 Jan 9:29]
|
I'm no socialist, but agree that Orwell was a brilliant writer, whether his journalistic books or his novels. | | | |
| Removed thread on 22:29 - Jan 28 with 1681 views | Dubtractor |
| Removed thread on 21:30 - Jan 28 by mellowblue |
Ironically and coincidentally , Black Sabbath had an album and track called Never Say Die, (the name of the banned poster). Good track actually, from a fairly patchy and untypical Sabbath album. Their first few albums were really good. |
Albums 1 to 4 are amazing. |  |
| |
| Removed thread on 22:38 - Jan 28 with 1643 views | Hugoagogo_Reborn |
| Removed thread on 15:00 - Jan 28 by DJR |
Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated in UK law, provides as follows.
Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
I am not aware of any law (such as permitted by the second limb) which outlaws upsetting people per se.
Of course, there is nothing to stop me upsetting people (and if I were to go so far as being racist it might involve a criminal sanction), but many people are sensitive and tolerant enough not to engage in this type of behaviour.
As regards any criminal sanctions, it is also interesting to note that they only kick in after the event, so don't actually prevent, say, hate speech.
For what it is worth, it is also interesting to note that some on the right these days, whilst professing a concern for freedom of speech, seem much less concerned about other aspects of liberal democracy such as the rule of law (eg Johnson's prorogation of Parliament and disregard for international law, and Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election).
Finally, things like clause 28 and book bans in Florida don't seem to me evidence that the right has the higher moral ground when it comes to freedom of speech. And I am happy to criticise those, whether of the left or right, who don't act in accordance with what I regard liberal values (including tolerance). [Post edited 28 Jan 15:28]
|
This is an interesting conundrum.
Example: if, in a country such as the UK, where freedom of expression is supported, let's say, (for example) a golf club says that jeans are not permitted on their premises, and certain other rules of expression/morals/ethics/codes (call them what you will) are imposed as part of the membership, should it be the right of one person to say "I'm a member, but I choose to exercise my right to express myself by wearing jeans, or contravene other 'Ts & Cs' at the club who's rules say if I do so I can't be a member. Also, I'll be complaining that they didn't allow me to express myself as I choose. It's oppression." ?
I think, if Phil believes a member of the forum has contravened his rules of membership, then he has absolute jurisdiction over deciding who he keeps, and who he 'expels'.
Suggesting otherwise is oppressing him, and the website and membership thereof that he has spend decades developing and nurturing.
Appreciate I'm hijacking your train of thought here, but it just brought that issue to my mind. [Post edited 28 Jan 22:40]
|  | | |
| Removed thread on 04:11 - Jan 29 with 1478 views | Benters |
| Removed thread on 21:30 - Jan 28 by mellowblue |
Ironically and coincidentally , Black Sabbath had an album and track called Never Say Die, (the name of the banned poster). Good track actually, from a fairly patchy and untypical Sabbath album. Their first few albums were really good. |
I’ve seen it said by Ozzy that he didn’t particularly like this album for me it has some brilliant tracks,NSD,Juniors Eyes,Johnny Blade just to name a couple.But I did prefer the albums before this.
Then came Ronnie James Dio and Heaven and Hell another brilliant album.
I remember back in 1977 listening to Black Sabbath and my mates taking the P out of me calling it ‘Dinosaur music’as they liked Judas Priest,Van Halen,AC/DC etc.But I still carried on listening to it regardless 👌 |  |
| |
| Removed thread on 04:36 - Jan 29 with 1460 views | Benters |
| Removed thread on 22:29 - Jan 28 by Dubtractor |
Albums 1 to 4 are amazing. |
I can remember my parents dining room and the old stereogram along the wall,I can still see my Mum’s face when I put the track Black Sabbath on it,the storm church bells etc,she wasn’t sure of it 🤓😂 | |
| |
| Removed thread on 05:36 - Jan 29 with 1418 views | SitfcB |
| Removed thread on 17:38 - Jan 28 by The_Flashing_Smile |
No idea why you're mentioning me, I've not previously been mentioned in this thread or am remotely connected to the people mentioned in it. |
Touchy. Just wants to know who the name refers to  |  |
| |
| Removed thread on 06:05 - Jan 29 with 1394 views | Benters |
| Removed thread on 05:36 - Jan 29 by SitfcB |
Touchy. Just wants to know who the name refers to |
This is important stuff mate,me personally thinks the said man didn’t know that Flash was indeed Dolly 😂✅ | |
| |
| Removed thread on 06:17 - Jan 29 with 1366 views | Swansea_Blue |
Given the amounts of separate conversations on here, for pretty much the first time ever I can see why some reprobates may choose to use thread mode. Obviously it’s still wrong though. |  |
| |
| Removed thread on 07:08 - Jan 29 with 1267 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Removed thread on 19:40 - Jan 28 by Cafe_Newman |
Dollers is a name I've seen pop up quite regularly along with the others I mentioned and I had no idea who was being referred to. I just wanted to know who these people were. Now I know. Nothing more than that. |
Yes I am Dollers, previous username: Dolly Verbiage.
Board legend, philanthropist, raconteur.
Men want to be me, women want to be in me.
Dogs want to lick me.
More hair than Phil.
Fewer trainers than Sitters.
Welcome to my wondrous world. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Removed thread on 07:17 - Jan 29 with 1231 views | BlueBoots |
| Removed thread on 07:08 - Jan 29 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Yes I am Dollers, previous username: Dolly Verbiage.
Board legend, philanthropist, raconteur.
Men want to be me, women want to be in me.
Dogs want to lick me.
More hair than Phil.
Fewer trainers than Sitters.
Welcome to my wondrous world. |
You left "Don't own a bike helmet" off your list  |  |
| |
| Removed thread on 07:23 - Jan 29 with 1184 views | NeedhamChris |
| Removed thread on 07:08 - Jan 29 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Yes I am Dollers, previous username: Dolly Verbiage.
Board legend, philanthropist, raconteur.
Men want to be me, women want to be in me.
Dogs want to lick me.
More hair than Phil.
Fewer trainers than Sitters.
Welcome to my wondrous world. |
Kids and grown ups love him so | |
| |
| Removed thread on 07:28 - Jan 29 with 1170 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Removed thread on 05:36 - Jan 29 by SitfcB |
Touchy. Just wants to know who the name refers to |
Not touchy. Just wondered why I came to mind when not involved in the thread. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Removed thread on 07:33 - Jan 29 with 1129 views | chicoazul |
| Removed thread on 07:08 - Jan 29 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Yes I am Dollers, previous username: Dolly Verbiage.
Board legend, philanthropist, raconteur.
Men want to be me, women want to be in me.
Dogs want to lick me.
More hair than Phil.
Fewer trainers than Sitters.
Welcome to my wondrous world. |
“Women want to be in me”
Lol |  |
| |
| Removed thread on 07:40 - Jan 29 with 1103 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Removed thread on 07:33 - Jan 29 by chicoazul |
“Women want to be in me”
Lol |
Oi, you leave Peggers, er I mean Dollers alone  | |
| |
| Removed thread on 08:34 - Jan 29 with 1004 views | DJR |
| Removed thread on 22:38 - Jan 28 by Hugoagogo_Reborn |
This is an interesting conundrum.
Example: if, in a country such as the UK, where freedom of expression is supported, let's say, (for example) a golf club says that jeans are not permitted on their premises, and certain other rules of expression/morals/ethics/codes (call them what you will) are imposed as part of the membership, should it be the right of one person to say "I'm a member, but I choose to exercise my right to express myself by wearing jeans, or contravene other 'Ts & Cs' at the club who's rules say if I do so I can't be a member. Also, I'll be complaining that they didn't allow me to express myself as I choose. It's oppression." ?
I think, if Phil believes a member of the forum has contravened his rules of membership, then he has absolute jurisdiction over deciding who he keeps, and who he 'expels'.
Suggesting otherwise is oppressing him, and the website and membership thereof that he has spend decades developing and nurturing.
Appreciate I'm hijacking your train of thought here, but it just brought that issue to my mind. [Post edited 28 Jan 22:40]
|
My post was more concerned with freedom of speech in the context of the law.
Certainly Phil has the right to remove posters if what they say breaches TWTD's rules, but that doesn't stop them exercising their right of free speech elsewhere. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
