Online Safety Act

[Scruples]

The only thing I'll agree with is your point about voting out the Tories. That was a huge mistake which people are beginning to realise and pay for.

However we saw an example of government totalitarianism with the hastily implemented prosecutions and silencing of criticism on social media after the events surrounding the Southport child killings and that the government had barely been voted it so it was clear that contingency plans were already afoot to deal with such events before the Labour government had even been elected.

Make no mistake, I neither condone nor support the violence that we saw after the child killings nor the online incitement to violence but it was clear that the police/establishment covered up the facts which contributed to the violence that followed. They used the ploy that the perpetrator was born in the UK so it couldn't have been terror related. Sadly just because a goat is born in a stable, it doesn't make it a horse and terrorism doesn't necessarily mean that the perpetrators were born elsewhere.

Journalists and ordinary people are now receiving visits from the police for something they said online or in print based on nonsense non-crime hate incidents....that's reminiscent of Cold War East Germany's STASI so to claim that we live in a society that supports freedom of speech unfortunately doesn't ring true and I've no doubt that things will only be even more restricted if government's get their way.

The police may have witheld information at the time, but they might have had good reason to do that. The courts would decide if anything was not done according to due process if the IOPC is seen to ignore the actions.

Those that were arrested on the day were dealt with using evidence obtained at the scene. That some people were gradually being contacted, and prosecuted by the state, it is because they have been identified as having been involved in violence or inciting others to violence, which means the system works. There is no hidden agenda for these actions. It is the only process that can succeed. The police must follow the law, submit the facts and evidence to the CPS and then to the courts. That is our system, and it works.

Again, if journalists are approached and/or arrested by the police for something they published, then the arrest must be supported by evidence of a crime. In the absence of evidence, there is no crime, unless the case is still under investigation. The police can ask questions.

I'm interested in knowing what you think the 'non-crime hate incidents were...

 

[Agent_zed]

Looks like a nerve has been touched.
I should have said 'state sanctioned violence' and it was a bit tongue in cheek. It is a bit different and includes such things as death penalties, forceful removal of protestors from highways although it could include the prosecution of wars. There would of course be many that would object to the state initiating violence against individuals or states. You are perfectly free to object if you wish. I'm sure there were many that objected to Britain declaring war on Germany and you can happily count yourself amongst the ranks of the just and righteous.

Somewhat amusing that you attempted to pull me up on my use of language (I note you did not mention that in your response to me) but then in this post you change your words and claim it was 'tongue in cheek'.

So when it's someone else we have to look at the semantics and etymology of specific words they use but when you reply you can just claim it was 'tongue in cheek'.

 

[Agent_zed]

Given that Trump's inauguration is just about upon us, I've no doubt that the internet forums accessible to UK surfers will be full of anti-Trump rhetoric. To Trump supporters, much of it vile.

Should British people who post such hate filled anti-Trump rhetoric be prosecuted to the same level of vilification if those posts meet the same criteria of generating hate much as they did over the events which took place in Southport and elsewhere after the child killings?

Curiously the date of the opening of the trial of the perpetrator chosen just happens to coincide with Trump's inauguration....talk about the government/judiciary choosing a day on which to bury bad news...only the most blind of observers would not see that the establishment are using Trump's inauguration to deflect attention from the trial.
I also note that legal threats have been made against anyone even commenting on the trial on social media.

George Orwell's '1984' is quite apt today...

Trump has done nothing but lie and cheat for decades. There is currently a national disaster, where people have died and thousands lost their homes, and he is referring to the Governor of California as 'Newscum' and posting lies about water declarations (which never existed), looters and firefighters. Trumps lies have real world consequences.

When you are buddies with the richest man in the world who owns one of the biggest social media sites in the world and you your self own a social media site and you've just forced another social media site to remove fact checkers, it's not hard to see that 'free speech' is being used as a weapon.

You want to worry about 1984? perhaps you should be worried about the above because the person that is about to be inaugurated has direct access to the minds of most of the US population.

It's not like he threatened Greenland and Panama, or sent his son to fake a pro-trump reception in Greenland (look it up they were mostly homeless people who were bought with a hot lunch).

But yeah we shouldn't be mean to Trump...

 

[ey_tony]

I'm interested in knowing what you think the 'non-crime hate incidents were...

Good question:
Apparently it's any incident which is 'perceived' to be motivated by prejudice or hostility but is not a crime!
Now one man's perception of what is perceived to be based on hostility or prejudice is another person's nonsense as it doesn't involve an actual crime so how on earth can someone be guilty of a non-crime crime? Sounds like wokery and thought police all rolled into one if you ask me.

If we adopt the madness of a non-crime non-crime then most posters on this forum and elsewhere could receive visits the UK's STASI based on the official criteria.

The restrictions to freedom of speech are insidious but they are slowly gaining momentum and unless the people of the UK stand up against our rights being slowly taken away we will be voiceless in the decades to come.

We now have the added farcical situation where apparently the lovely Angela's employments rights bill she is introducing includes a duty of care for employers such a pub owners to police conversations of customers which might just offend bar staff...you can't discuss things online and and you can't discuss things down at the pub without fear of the law coming down on you for some reason or other so where can you discuss things?

I'd say the establishment is gradually closing down any opportunities for ordinary people to discuss things publicly...that to me is not democratic freedom of speech.

 

[ey_tony]

Trump has done nothing but lie and cheat for decades. There is currently a national disaster, where people have died and thousands lost their homes, and he is referring to the Governor of California as 'Newscum' and posting lies about water declarations (which never existed), looters and firefighters. Trumps lies have real world consequences.

When you are buddies with the richest man in the world who owns one of the biggest social media sites in the world and you your self own a social media site and you've just forced another social media site to remove fact checkers, it's not hard to see that 'free speech' is being used as a weapon.

You want to worry about 1984? perhaps you should be worried about the above because the person that is about to be inaugurated has direct access to the minds of most of the US population.

It's not like he threatened Greenland and Panama, or sent his son to fake a pro-trump reception in Greenland (look it up they were mostly homeless people who were bought with a hot lunch).

But yeah we shouldn't be mean to Trump...

If you don't like liars in charge of countries then you'll absolutely HATE this Labour government but be careful what you say as you could end up in the dock!
Personally I don't give a monkey's what yours or the opinions of others are regarding Trump as I don't value them. He's not my president and never will be. In any case we have enough problems with dishonest politicians in this country without criticising other countries and their politicians.

I read the other day that some democrat voters actually believe that the assassination attempt on Trump when the bullet hit his ear was staged!!! Yes someone with a rifle from goodness how far away could pull off such a staged shot and just nick his ear. I've owned firearms all of my life and I'm a decent shot but only a moron would come up with such a conspiracy theory as that...and then they laugh at Trump supporters.

That's how thick people are so when it comes to Trump, what I read about him or what he's alleged to have said or done I take mostly with a large pinch of the proverbial as the majority of the negativity comes from left wing sources or opponents so that info definitely can't be trusted.

As for Musk...I don't particularly like him at all or many of his views but I can agree with him where this government is concerned.
The sooner they are gone the better it would be for the future of the country and I think the vast majority of the people of the UK would now agree with him and that includes many labour voters.
How any elected leader of an advanced nation could be so stupid as to openly send 100 left wing activists to undermine a political candidate for election in the most powerful nation in the Western world has to be an utter buffoon of the highest order.
It's the kind of USSR interference that used to be prevalent during the 60s and 70s in the UK which is why I have absolutely no faith in this government honouring our rights to freedom of speech.

 

[Blackswanwood]

We now have the added farcical situation where apparently the lovely Angela's employments rights bill she is introducing includes a duty of care for employers such a pub owners to police conversations of customers which might just offend bar staff...you can't discuss things online and and you can't discuss things down at the pub without fear of the law coming down on you for some reason or other so where can you discuss things?

That is a gross misrepresentation.

The bill proposes an explicit requirement for employers to not tolerate employees being subject to sexual harassment including if this comes from customers. It has been extrapolated by a headline seeking politician as stopping pub banter.

While there may be elements of the bill that I don’t agree with I’m in favour of people not being abused by customers.

 

[Spectric]

Please keep to the topic of the online safety act and keep politics out of it, especially when there is no connection, ie Trump has nothing to do with this bill or it might be time to close it for further replies.

 

[Agent_zed]

Please keep to the topic of the online safety act and keep politics out of it, especially when there is no connection, ie Trump has nothing to do with this bill or it might be time to close it for further replies.

Whilst I agree with keeping general Trump comments out of the discussion, Trump, Musk and Zuckerburg very much have to do with this bill.

A large section of the world gets fed it's information by American owned tech companies. With Musk taking over twitter and Zuckerburg now bending the knee to Trump there is even more chance of misinformation and hate speech being spread throughout our shores.

Pushing to have rules and regulations in place is the only sensible solution. The alternative is to ban Twitter and Facebook in the UK. And if people think that is terrible, it is exactly what the US (land of free speech) are doing with TikTok, because of alleged foreign interference. Yet for some reason we are perfectly happy to allow foreign companies to manipulate us.

 

[Agent_zed]

the fact that they made use of various media as part of their campaign of bullying is not the issue, it is the bullying that is the issue. It is the bullying that needs addressing.

So you are saying that the things they are saying should be taken into account and they should get some form of intervention by some kind of authority figure, perhaps resulting in some kind of punishment?

I thought we were happy with people saying what they like as long as it doesn't incite violence?

 

[ey_tony]

That is a gross misrepresentation.

The bill proposes an explicit requirement for employers to not tolerate employees being subject to sexual harassment including if this comes from customers. It has been extrapolated by a headline seeking politician as stopping pub banter.

While there may be elements of the bill that I don’t agree with I’m in favour of people not being abused by customers.

They shouldn't tolerate any form sexual harassment or abuse of staff...that shouldn't need any legislation, it's their duty of care as an employer.
As for gross misrepresentation, we'll see what transpires when these laws become valid.
You may wish to look at the link below giving an idea of what could quite possibly happen.

If certain subjects are to be banned from discussion in pubs in order to protect employees then perhaps the sensitive employees should find another job because I can't see landlords banishing pub chat in order to keep Angela and her party happy.
This government has already seriously harmed the job prospects of possibly millions of workers with their taxes on employers, proposed worker's rights etc so if staff are offended by what they hear in a pub, then I can see them soon out of a job as it will be the last straw for pubs which have already been closing at an alarming rate for the past decade..

What if we take it to its extreme ... if a worker who works from home and is an abusive relationship with a partner and part of the abuse take place during working hours is the employer responsible for that? It may sound ridiculous but no more than to ban discussing controversial subjects in a pub or on a bus etc.

I can seriously see a recession looming as a result of the idiocy of this government...
https://rangeofreasonableresponses....people-from-talking-about-transgender-rights/

 

[ey_tony]

https://rangeofreasonableresponses....people-from-talking-about-transgender-rights/

 

[martin45]

Looks like a nerve has been touched.
I should have said 'state sanctioned violence' and it was a bit tongue in cheek. It is a bit different and includes such things as death penalties, forceful removal of protestors from highways although it could include the prosecution of wars.

"it could include the prosecution of wars" You think?? It most definitely includes it whether "state sanctioned violence" or "state sponsored violence".

"There would of course be many that would object to the state initiating violence against individuals or states." Really!! Well knock me down with a feather!

"You are perfectly free to object if you wish." Many thanks for your permission! Much appreciated!

"I'm sure there were many that objected to Britain declaring war on Germany and you can happily count yourself amongst the ranks of the just and righteous." I'm not too sure where this came from but if that's the way you feel about it, then that's your freedom of speech to say so!

"The use of incitement to violence is a bit of a specious argument. As a society, we all agree that violence is wrong (unless state sponsored of course)."

Don't presume to speak for everyone, you don't!

 

[martin45]

I find the above offensive (anti-Semitism) in that "Israels state sponsored violence" has always been in defence, I can't think of a single instance where the Israelis started a conflict.

Well maybe think about the Suez invasion!

If your definition of "defense" includes raining one ton bombs on tented refugee camps, demolishing ten storey apartment blocks full of people, hunting down and slaughtering aid workers and bombing every hospital, health center, school, university and feeding station then you can convince yourself of that!

Is slaughtering a Semitic people "anti semitism" in your mind?

 

[Sideways]

Gentlemen, please stop the anti semitism argument here. Argument and counter argument have both been made. Don't drag the thread further off topic or some more members are going to be taking a temporary holiday from it.