In todays news...

[Count Steer]

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?

[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?

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Yambo]

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]

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.

[Cousin Jack]

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.

[Felix]

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.

[Rockburner]

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.

[Mussels]

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."

[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
.

[Cousin Jack]

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.

[Saga Lout]

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?

[Taipan]

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?

The far left!

[Cousin Jack]

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?

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.

[Buckaroo]

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?

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.

And one by a woman for God's sake!!!! I mean, really

[wheelnut]

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?

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.

I think the 4 gospels included have quite different accounts.