In todays news...

Current affairs, Politics, News.
User avatar
Cousin Jack
Posts: 4465
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:36 pm
Location: Down in the Duchy
Has thanked: 2554 times
Been thanked: 2287 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Cousin Jack »

cheb wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:39 am It'll be interesting and slightly saddening to see how much Murrell is accused of embezzling. I'm minded of the Lib Dem couple that threw away their careers etc for a speeding fine.
I think they will have him bang to rights for a large expensive motor home, allegedly the property of his 80 year old Mum.
Cornish Tart #1

Remember An Gof!
Mussels
Posts: 4445
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:02 pm
Has thanked: 838 times
Been thanked: 1241 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Mussels »

Manchester police investigating non-crimes for social media likes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-68826423
Taking the piss out of women out on the lash is distasteful but it's the sort of stuff many papers would print, why is this special?
User avatar
Count Steer
Posts: 11830
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 6382 times
Been thanked: 4763 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Count Steer »

Mussels wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:00 am Manchester police investigating non-crimes for social media likes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-68826423
Taking the piss out of women out on the lash is distasteful but it's the sort of stuff many papers would print, why is this special?
Filmed without them knowing and not with their consent? Wot? Like CCTV cameras?
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one
.
Voltaire
Mussels
Posts: 4445
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:02 pm
Has thanked: 838 times
Been thanked: 1241 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Mussels »

Count Steer wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:03 am
Mussels wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:00 am Manchester police investigating non-crimes for social media likes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-68826423
Taking the piss out of women out on the lash is distasteful but it's the sort of stuff many papers would print, why is this special?
Filmed without them knowing and not with their consent? Wot? Like CCTV cameras?
Or police body cams, which is then commonly shared between their mates.

Also in today's news:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-68229350
Paul Wells' family 'appalled' police officer shared dead body pictures
User avatar
MrLongbeard
Posts: 4595
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:06 pm
Has thanked: 599 times
Been thanked: 2449 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by MrLongbeard »

"There's videos of girls like falling over and having their underwear on show and stuff. And then being posted online like that, something really needs to be done about it."
Yeah, like learning how to hold your drink, ya daft arsed lightweights.
Mr. Dazzle
Posts: 13957
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:57 pm
Location: Milton Keynes
Has thanked: 2552 times
Been thanked: 6257 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Mr. Dazzle »

Mussels wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:00 am Manchester police investigating non-crimes for social media likes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-68826423
Taking the piss out of women out on the lash is distasteful but it's the sort of stuff many papers would print, why is this special?
I think that's a bit of a simplistic interpretation of events.

People have being making tits out of themselves when drunk for as long as drink has been a thing. All of us here have done it. Up until now it all ended up in the past, but for pretty much the first time in human history the technology exists for it to stay on the internet forever.

What happens in Vegas no longer stays in Vegas.

We as a society will need to deal with this one way or another. Either by not getting shit faced, not caring when it's on social media, not posting it on social media, making it a crime to post on social media or some combinaton thereof.

FWIW it was already ilegal for Newspapers to print 'upskirt' photos and the like, so it's not as though legal protection hadn't been necessary in The Good Old Days
Mussels
Posts: 4445
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:02 pm
Has thanked: 838 times
Been thanked: 1241 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Mussels »

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:37 am
Mussels wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:00 am Manchester police investigating non-crimes for social media likes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-68826423
Taking the piss out of women out on the lash is distasteful but it's the sort of stuff many papers would print, why is this special?
I think that's a bit of a simplistic interpretation of events.

People have being making tits out of themselves when drunk for as long as drink has been a thing. All of us here have done it. Up until now it all ended up in the past, but for pretty much the first time in human history the technology exists for it to stay on the internet forever.

What happens in Vegas no longer stays in Vegas.

We as a society will need to deal with this one way or another. Either by not getting shit faced, not caring when it's on social media, not posting it on social media, making it a crime to post on social media or some combinaton thereof.

FWIW it was already ilegal for Newspapers to print 'upskirt' photos and the like, so it's not as though legal protection hadn't been necessary in The Good Old Days
There are lots of embarassing things that end up being put on the internet, both words and pictures. This isn't for sexual gratification so I fail to see the link with upskirting, it's showing them exactly how they presented themselves in public so more like the pic of MLSP in fancy dress.
Mr. Dazzle
Posts: 13957
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:57 pm
Location: Milton Keynes
Has thanked: 2552 times
Been thanked: 6257 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Mr. Dazzle »

There are certainly a lot more pictures of drunk women than drunk men on the Internet/in the newspapers. If it's nothing to do with sexual gratification, why is that?
Mussels
Posts: 4445
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:02 pm
Has thanked: 838 times
Been thanked: 1241 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Mussels »

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 11:13 am There are certainly a lot more pictures of drunk women than drunk men on the Internet/in the newspapers. If it's nothing to do with sexual gratification, why is that?
I doubt these women are all drunk so that's incidental, they probably only object to the pictures because they aren't flattering. It's not a crime to upset someone by publishing a deliberately unflattering photo, if it was the police would be right in the shit.
User avatar
Yambo
Posts: 2470
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:08 pm
Location: Self Isolating
Has thanked: 598 times
Been thanked: 1647 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Yambo »

BBC wrote:Meg, 23, from Manchester, was a victim of the disturbing social trend.

The make up artist and TikTok influencer said she was filmed on a night out in Manchester. She said she did not realise she had been filmed until she was sent a link to the video.
Surely a TikTok influencer spends a lot of time trying to get her face on social media. I think it's only a problem for Meg because she's getting nothing out of it for herself.
cheb
Posts: 4908
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 6:51 am
Been thanked: 2618 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by cheb »

Cousin Jack wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 9:55 am
cheb wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:39 am It'll be interesting and slightly saddening to see how much Murrell is accused of embezzling. I'm minded of the Lib Dem couple that threw away their careers etc for a speeding fine.
I think they will have him bang to rights for a large expensive motor home, allegedly the property of his 80 year old Mum.
It's still not that much considering their status.
User avatar
Cousin Jack
Posts: 4465
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:36 pm
Location: Down in the Duchy
Has thanked: 2554 times
Been thanked: 2287 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Cousin Jack »

cheb wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 11:57 am
Cousin Jack wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 9:55 am
cheb wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:39 am It'll be interesting and slightly saddening to see how much Murrell is accused of embezzling. I'm minded of the Lib Dem couple that threw away their careers etc for a speeding fine.
I think they will have him bang to rights for a large expensive motor home, allegedly the property of his 80 year old Mum.
It's still not that much considering their status.
It isn't that much, but it is an example of how the political class think that the rules are only for little people. Councilors, MPs MSPs, Labour, Tory, SNP, etc. They all seem to think they are above the rules.
Cornish Tart #1

Remember An Gof!
Felix
Posts: 3952
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2021 12:34 am
Has thanked: 485 times
Been thanked: 1429 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Felix »

Count Steer wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:03 am
Mussels wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:00 am Manchester police investigating non-crimes for social media likes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-68826423
Taking the piss out of women out on the lash is distasteful but it's the sort of stuff many papers would print, why is this special?
Filmed without them knowing and not with their consent? Wot? Like CCTV cameras?
Like various film crews for programs like pissed up brits abroad. Seen a few UK ones also mostly filmed in Newcastle.
User avatar
Rockburner
Posts: 4379
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2020 11:06 am
Location: Hiding in your blind spot
Has thanked: 7820 times
Been thanked: 2530 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Rockburner »

Felix wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 3:25 pm
Count Steer wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:03 am
Mussels wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:00 am Manchester police investigating non-crimes for social media likes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-68826423
Taking the piss out of women out on the lash is distasteful but it's the sort of stuff many papers would print, why is this special?
Filmed without them knowing and not with their consent? Wot? Like CCTV cameras?
Like various film crews for programs like pissed up brits abroad. Seen a few UK ones also mostly filmed in Newcastle.
They'd probably argue that filming with a big professional camera is a bit different than sneakily recording with a phone.

Also, iirc, pro-crews need to apply for filming licences from the local authorities, so there's a trail of responsibility - if the "victim" believes they've been mis-represented they can track down the film producers, and the producer would have a legal responsibiltity for recompense (obviously following legal arguments); with these TikTok videos that's not always possible.
non quod, sed quomodo
Mussels
Posts: 4445
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:02 pm
Has thanked: 838 times
Been thanked: 1241 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Mussels »

Rockburner wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 5:07 pm
Felix wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 3:25 pm
Count Steer wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:03 am

Filmed without them knowing and not with their consent? Wot? Like CCTV cameras?
Like various film crews for programs like pissed up brits abroad. Seen a few UK ones also mostly filmed in Newcastle.
They'd probably argue that filming with a big professional camera is a bit different than sneakily recording with a phone.

Also, iirc, pro-crews need to apply for filming licences from the local authorities, so there's a trail of responsibility - if the "victim" believes they've been mis-represented they can track down the film producers, and the producer would have a legal responsibiltity for recompense (obviously following legal arguments); with these TikTok videos that's not always possible.
I can just imagine it now:
"Dear Channel 4, you broadcast embarrasing footage of me outside a nightclub in Ibiza. I didn't see your camera and didn't give you permission so I'm going to tell the police you violated my rights to something they haven't worked out yet without incriminating themselves."
User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 16750
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:20 pm
Location: Paradise
Has thanked: 10272 times
Been thanked: 6889 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Yorick »

Blimey. 12 months refusing to work?
Removing benefits after 12 months for those deemed fit for work but who do not comply with conditions set by their work coach - such as accepting a job offer
Over here you can only claim benefits up to the number of years you've worked.
Cuts out the proper workshy

https://news.sky.com/uk
.
User avatar
Cousin Jack
Posts: 4465
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:36 pm
Location: Down in the Duchy
Has thanked: 2554 times
Been thanked: 2287 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Cousin Jack »

Yorick wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 7:11 pm Blimey. 12 months refusing to work?
Removing benefits after 12 months for those deemed fit for work but who do not comply with conditions set by their work coach - such as accepting a job offer
Over here you can only claim benefits up to the number of years you've worked.
Cuts out the proper workshy

https://news.sky.com/uk
.
Seems fair to me. UK has far too many people who 'can't find a job'. Meanwhile some industries are crying out for new recruits, no experience necessary.
Cornish Tart #1

Remember An Gof!
Saga Lout
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:38 pm
Location: North East Essex
Has thanked: 566 times
Been thanked: 756 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Saga Lout »

Taipan wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 6:49 am
Cousin Jack wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2024 7:01 pm Religion, or extreme politics verging on a religion (eg Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc) is a major factor. Land is involved, but eg the Zionists don't just want ANY land, they want their land as promised by Jehova.
Its a convenient interpretation of the holy books that leads to justification for war. All holy books are way out of date and need revising for todays world. By todays standards none could be printed as they are, as the texts contain what would be construed as hate speech today with their misogynist, homophobic and sexist views!
But, but, but...

The bible (and possibly other holy books but I know about the bible) is literally the word of God. Who would be arrogant enough to "revise" the word of God? :wtf:
User avatar
Taipan
Posts: 13953
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2020 1:48 pm
Location: Essex Riviera!
Has thanked: 15968 times
Been thanked: 10249 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Taipan »

Saga Lout wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2024 6:29 pm
Taipan wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 6:49 am
Cousin Jack wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2024 7:01 pm Religion, or extreme politics verging on a religion (eg Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc) is a major factor. Land is involved, but eg the Zionists don't just want ANY land, they want their land as promised by Jehova.
Its a convenient interpretation of the holy books that leads to justification for war. All holy books are way out of date and need revising for todays world. By todays standards none could be printed as they are, as the texts contain what would be construed as hate speech today with their misogynist, homophobic and sexist views!
But, but, but...

The bible (and possibly other holy books but I know about the bible) is literally the word of God. Who would be arrogant enough to "revise" the word of God? :wtf:
The far left! :thumbdown:
User avatar
Cousin Jack
Posts: 4465
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:36 pm
Location: Down in the Duchy
Has thanked: 2554 times
Been thanked: 2287 times

Re: In todays news...

Post by Cousin Jack »

Saga Lout wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2024 6:29 pm But, but, but...

The bible (and possibly other holy books but I know about the bible) is literally the word of God. Who would be arrogant enough to "revise" the word of God? :wtf:
Funny that. IIRC the 'Holy Bible' contains 4 Gospels. Selected from about 20 gospels, some with very different accounts. Selected by a group of bishops and suchlike, not by 'God', whoever he is.
Cornish Tart #1

Remember An Gof!