That non crime hate incident goes on your criminal record and if you need an enhanced criminal records check, it will show up, and can be used to deny you employment. Its not just intimidation.
there's many to choose from, you can google for more. But here's what got Lucy Connolly a 31 month sentence:
"Mass deportations, now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, if that makes me a racist, so be it".
Racist maybe, although she doesn't seem to care about race.
Offensive, yeah, seems that it could be interpreted as offensive, but thats not technically illegal (the high court has repeatedly affirmed to right to be offensive).
Inciting violence (the offense she was convicted of) no, not at all, she was stating her political opinion and her belief that the lives of immigrants is worth less than british children.
Although people will point out she admitted guilt, but the threat of significant pre-trail imprisonment was used a lot at this time to force guilty pleas.
She called for hotels housing immigrants to be burned in the middle of a riot. Hotels suspected of housing immigrants were, in fact, burned during the course of that riot.
She clearly understood that her actions were wrong, and went on to try to cover her tracks and "play the mental health card".
This is a really poor example to use of censorship - there are very few countries in the world where this wouldn't have been against the law. Even the USA, with it's famed first amendment rights, makes it unlawful to "organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot".
If you're rights are contingent on circumstance, they're not rights.
I don't see anything there encouraging a riot. There is no call to action.
We should know this isn't enough to convict, since a Labour councillor who called for far-right activists' throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally [0], actually inciting violence, was cleared of wrong doing.
From the article, you'll notice politicians calling out situation:
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said of the decision: "It is astonishing that this Labour councillor, who was caught on video calling for throats to be slit, is let off scot-free, whereas Lucy Connolly got 31 months prison for posting something no worse."
I agree, both should have been charged. Only one was. You could argue that the MP is making the greater offence as he/she is in a position of authority.
Thanks for the info. What disturbs me most is the polarization and increasing intolerance of different/opposing ideas and opinions. I'm referring to "slit their throats" kinds of reactions and "set [it] on fire". There's no "lets agree to disagree and meet half way". No compromise. That's seen as weak.
That's the position I came to based on these rulings, or lack thereof.
I think of all the reasons open source shouldn't accept AI created code is that it can't be protected, and that has the potential to threaten the whole project.
OpenClaw, for instance has an MIT license [0], but, per the creators own words, they didn't even review the code. OpenClaw isn't MIT licensed, the MIT license relies on copyright, and because there was not even human review of the majority of the code, no substantial human input, that code base can't be copyrighted.
No need to steal AI code, it doesn't belong to anyone.
In this case isn't it more that:
Every sculpture that is made, every picture drawn, every bed left unmade, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
From where I'm sitting, this is theft, its forced wealth redistribution, from people that are potentially already struggling,to people that choose to slum it as artists. Its not even means tested, this really will result in money transferring from those on the edge of poverty to rich art school kids.
There's currently 16,000 homeless / at risk people in Ireland, including 5000 children [0]. I can think of at least one better use for that money.
Yeah, its almost as if the knives aren't the problem. The gang memebrs will use whatever gives them an advantage, guns, knives, acid, bats, bricks. We can't ban everything, we should possibly tackle the cause instead of the symptom...
But don't worry, in the mean time they're coming for our regular knives.
The BBC has already rolled out Idris Ebla to explain that kitchen knives shouldnt have points[0]. Yes this has been picked up by politicians with the minister for policing at the time calling it an interesting idea [1].
No, and the blades created because of the methods used, would likely not be covered by the legislation anyway, theres a carve out for antiques and weapons made using traditional methods (now define traditional methods, because the law doesn't, but hammer and anvil would seem to be the most obvious traditional approach).
However, in practice the police continually take and often destroy legally owned antiques claiming they are zombie swords.
The law is written in such a way the police can take anything and you have to prove to a judge they aren't illegal.
Members of a team creates a report explaining the state of their small section of the business, usually a 2x2 grid of boxes to fill.
This is then reviewed, usually in an in person meeting that requires full team participation.
These are joined together to create a weekly business review, that will require another meeting to review.
Each month the WBRs are combined to created the monthly business review, with a massive meeting requiring participation by multiple teams.
The pyramid of documents and meetings continues all the way up to the CEO.
I should probably point out, none of this information is unavailable at any level, its copied and pasted from system to 2x2 then copied from doc to doc. It's a spectacle that needs to be seen to be believed.
And that just the reporting, planning is another exercise in multiple report writing that I'll save for another day. But, hopefully you get the idea.
Amazon is 90% internal document writing and 70% work (9-5 does not really exist, it could, it just doesnt).
It's essentially a massive jobs program for middle management that aren't capable enough to join the TSA and that's being unfair to the TSA.
The only reason I can think for the existence of the reporting is to give managers something to do between pipping staff.
i'm curious, how do you think other large companies operate with regards to reporting progress/status/results up the management chain?
At least at companies where the upper management is aware enough of the details to make good judgements, and the business is critical enough for some reason that low level management can't just be entrusted to yeet/yolo-things into production?
His way with words and way to highlight to absurdity of situations is first class.
My favorite is the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. It's a critique of the classification used by the Institute of Bibliography which he considered nonsensical. He claims to have found the list in an ancient Chinese encyclopaedia:
It's such a wonderful thing to be reminded of how silly it is to take language seriously. IMO it's prickles and goo[1] all the way down - and the prickles help us share meaning and exchange information, but there is no project of exactitude to be completed.
The hubris it takes to maintain the view that we can just keep figuring things out if we are rational enough is also sometimes overwhelming to me. It's not that we can't understand things better through analysis, just that it sometimes seems foolish to me to try to get all of it through system-2 type behavior. We will always miss something crucial[2].
An algorithm written in a well specified language with precise semantics might have bugs. A "logical" argument made with natural language is orders of magnitude less precise
What I've always wondered, though, is whether that lack of precision is what allows for meaning to arise in the first place. In the gap between language and - this - .
I never thought I'd say this, but I now fully approve of social media bans for children, screw under 16s, let's go further no children on the internet full stop. No mobile data plans for under 18s, arrest parents if they are found allowing their children to use a computer with an internet connection at home. Remove the internet from schools.
Then we can get rid of the online safety act, no need to dox adults if we just ban the children.
Then when the government refuses to repeal the OSA, we can then have an open and honest discussion about the real reasons that act exists.
> arrest parents if they are found allowing their children to use a computer with an internet connection at home. Remove the internet from schools.
Schools, yes 100%. Likewise mobile data plans.
Home internet? Could work, but I don't know how much time would be needed to transition any "do this on your computer" homework tasks. (Are there any?)
As one extra twist, the UK age-gates a lot of stuff at 16 rather than 18 in a way that is relevant here: back when I was at school myself, an era when writing letters to the editor of a newspaper was the closest most people had to a comments section, I noted the oddity that I was allowed to perform sexual acts at age 16 but wasn't allowed to photograph myself doing those things and couldn't buy videos of those things.
And between 16 and 18, the education choices in the UK are either A-levels, apprenticeships, or volunteering; I think mobile internet could reasonably be considered mandatory by that point in life.
political dissent. Uncomfortable truths. Any speech that does not align with the official narrative.
A Labour MP foolish attended a GB News show and when pushed admitted that the Online Safety Act was also about identifying speech by adults [0].
Sorry about the quality of the link, but the video is there (higher quality is available on X) and its not like the paragon of truth that is the BBC reported on this.
It takes just a few seconds to see that it's a random backbencher who is not in the government. We have a whole range of MPs, and some of them sometimes talk about things they have no idea about. The website you're citing is little more than propaganda, since it explicitly makes it seem like the MP has any connection to the government.
reply