lotte

Wow made the mistake of leaving the pages up when I went out. It's a lovely day by the way (daan saaf anyway) - perfect for a nice walk with the family. I'm quoting this one partly to respond and partly because it gave me a chuckle that you had an argument with me all by yourself. For the record I got stuck right in the middle of a very long traffic jam caused by a JSO protest and it was as annoying as a big bag of annoying things. I seem to remember the traffic report on the radio saying it was an accident that had taken place and didn't find out until later that it was JSO. They're absolute loons but they have the right to protest. There's a difference between public and private spaces, I would hope you know that really and your example was arrived at in a fit of pique. Again, what if he does want publicity? I'm not as sure of his motives as you are but that's the nature of protest. He's taking a bit of a long shot because he doesn't get that publicity unless the law comes up to him to ask about what his thoughts are. You can go and stand in the exact same spot and sing carols right now. You can stand there and have a fag whilst getting some fresh air etc. etc. If you stand there and admit to praying then you're getting collared. I'm not disputing there's a legal framework that has been erected around doing that. In fact that's the point: Thought Crime is real. It's an absurd notion to most of us but it's a reality. Woodinblack said 'this is an agenda that you appear to be pushing, but it doesn't make it true.' That's correct insofar as me saying or'pushing' anything doesn't make it true but, equally, you saying it's not true doesn't make it untrue. We have to rely on the facts of what actually happened. The government creates the laws. This whole thread is about them introducing a, I would say deliberately, vague framework that they can get to mean whatever they want it to mean.

It actually sounds like we're pretty closely alligned on the subject. Anyway, I'm off for a Christmas walk and doubt I'll be checking back in for a few days at least so I hope you all have a very merry Christmas!

He was standing silently in public. Again: Thought Crime is an actuality in this country. Not 'it's getting like 1984' or 'one day we won't even be able to...'. Now. Right now we have thought crime. If I stood in the exact same position and asked you for directions it would be fine. If he'd lied and said that he was trying to remember the lyrics to the Mr Blobby song, he'd be fine. He said he was there to pray for his aborted son. But, what if he did want the publicity? That's the crux of this thread isn't it? The goverment gets to make this stuff go away much more easily. There is only one allowed narrative on abortion (either/or depending on the whim of whoever's got the biggest clipboard at the time). Apologies if I'm misreading your intention here but isn't that a good thing? Judges applying context. The problem with it boils down to the risk of judges applying context for their own ideology. In my opinion censorship can never be a good thing even if well intentioned.

Is that the law? It was a man standing in silence. If I'm in power and I make all sorts of silly laws, the public can then respond however it needs to (elect somone to reverse/strenghten them) but we need to be able to talk about it. If I'm making silly laws and censor and punish any opposition to it I've become a dictator.

I'm not sure it's quite the same and the original quote references the 'I was just reporting/joking/asking a question'. The shouting of 'fire' in a theatre of course being a famous exception to the first ammendment; I remember seeing Christopher Hitchens demolish this particular judgement and explaining it's very purpose to be the same as what is happening here. The goverment wants to draft you into the military to fight in its war and you don't get to voice opposition to it. A reasonable sounding 'example' offered to the public for imposing censorship.

It seems to me that this is the real purpose here. Don't like one of the biggest shit-stirrers on the planet calling you Two-Tier-Kier then bring in this legislation (although I'm sure its inception predates that particular spat.) Hate - that's what they want included because then everything can be worked into that catch-all and, at the very least, the process can be the punishment. The quote above is an interseting one and Rob (if I may) seems almost proud of the fact that we don't have an equivalent guarantee of free speech in this country. The example of a 'trans left-wing... stabbing... in Stafford... when other people turn up and start rioting' being used to highlight that as a positive. I can't imagine any one of us on this forum, not that I know it that well, would post such a thing and would consider it a pretty vile thing to post. I'm not sure it should have consequences though. To me it smacks of 'Our children, and our sins, lay on the King'. 'Let him have it' also springs to mind and peoples fates are then thrown into the hands of an establishment that I wouldn't trust to run a bath. And, more crucially, an establishment that doesn't want you to know it can't run that bath. We've also had a foreshadowing of this for a few years now with the police (apparently having solved all the crime in their authorities) going after people who dead-name a trans person or say that men don't become women just because they say so. I think it was this year when a man was arrested for silently praying near an abortion clinic. Thought crime is an actuality in this country. This legislation just strengthens their grip.

Why Don't We Do It In The Road? - The Beatles

I remember going into the couple of record shops that were in my town when I was in my late teens and pretty much buying anything that was on the AJ label, confident that I'd almost certainly love it. A couple that jumped into my mind when seeing the thread were The New Jersey Kings (just a rebadged JTQ I think) and Emporers New Clothes:

I'm very much a beginner on bass (not that I play any other instruments) and so maybe come at this from a slightly different angle. I only saw the below video today as it was in Youtube's suggested video list and I think I recognised his name from seeing it as a thread title here. It's clearly not 'music' in the sense that you'd buy it and listen to it in the normal way (on a hifi/in the car/walking the dog) as you might the original track but I found it enjoyable on it's own merits. I can also see seasoned pros being frustrated by the parlour games that are clearly on show earning respect, popularity, and a good few quid from those of us who perhaps don't know any better. However, I would say that I found it inspiring in a way that I'm not sure I can put my finger on. I've no desire to be able to replicate it for its own sake but, watching the 'show' made me think about how the instrument is just a means to an end: there's a fluidity and a naturalness to the playing, switching of styles etc. that opens up the instrument from a machine that I currently try to manipulate to have a reasonable playalong with All My Loving, say, to one where it's just an extension of an idea in my head. I know he probably spent ages comimg up with and rehearsing what he does but the naturalness is what inspires. For all those who have cups of tea that are not him then I have a feeling this might be the worst example I could have picked for a first view:

Ian Brown I'm pretty sure it was his first tour as a solo artist. I think we'd heard that he could be a bit ropey live but wasn't prepared for just how incredibly bad he was. It actually made me wonder if he had really been the singer on the SR album(s).

There have been a number of times when we've been trying to work out what the specific lyrics to a song were but have just not been able to agree by listening alone. No problem: hop onto the internet and look up the lyrics. Trouble is, there occasionally seems to be disagreement between the sites and it seems to be just a consensus formed by the majority of users of each site. I realise that they are probably 99% correct but it occured to me that the lyrics of a song must constitute part of the copyright and so will have to be written down somewhere as official lyrics (actually the official lyrics not just a website claiming them to be official.) I think there must be a few people on this site that have recorded and copyrighted their own material and so will have gone through the process making the lyrics of a song 'legally' their own. My question then is: where do these copyrighted lyrics live? Surely, they have to be public in some sense otherwise there would be a million 'gotcha' lawsuits. If I wake up tomorrow with 'Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away...' in my head and decide to turn it into a song for commercial release, there must be a process I can go through to not end up on the wrong side of McCartney's lawyers.

2 Minutes To Midnight - Iron Maiden

Oh dear! Sorry, I thought I was making a joke. I guess putting the mojo into an instrument is the real fun though and you got to start afresh.

Hi Honey! So glad you're home. You know how, while I'm watching telly, you sit on the sofa and noodle away on your guitar? Well, I've got some terrible news...