Will Basschat survive the Online Safety Act?

[SpondonBassed]

Well my brothers and sisters in Basschat...

 

Whatever happens, I have made acquaintance with so many good people.  I have met up in real life with some interesting characters and we've had a good natter and a laugh.  I even regard some of you to be my friends because you have indulged my clumsy attempts at wit, listened to my woes and responded in ways that show me I am not alone after all that's happened in the last few years.

 

NOBODY can break that.

 

Happy Christmas, safe journey and a Happy New year to you all.

 

John

 

 

[Woodinblack]

15 minutes ago, lotte said:

He was standing silently in public.

 

Again: Thought Crime is an actuality in this country.

 

No, this is an agenda that you appear to be pushing,  but it doesn't make it true.

 

I am sure you were equally outraged by just stop oils arrests (oh, you seemed to trim that one)

 

So if he came round your house, stood in your living room silently and refused to move, you would just accept that as he is 'just standing silently'. No. I thought not.

 

15 minutes ago, lotte said:

He said he was there to pray for his aborted son. But, what if he did want the publicity?  

 

You can pray anywhere, god apparently doesn't have a range problem. Yes, he wanted publicity at other peoples expense.

[SpondonBassed]

Welcome to page seven.

[Woodinblack]

20 minutes ago, lotte said:

He was standing silently in public.

 

Again: Thought Crime is an actuality in this country.

 

I'll come back to this, because it occurs to me that this is one of the daftest things I have heard on basschat for a while.

 

if it was a 'thought crime', why did he need to be there? Why wasn't he arrested in his house for thinking about doing this? that would be a thought crime. no, he was arrested when he was doing something, that is not a thought crime, it is a crime of an action, like, pretty well all other crimes.

 

If he had a problem with abortion like he assumably did, he could protest anywhere, which is perfectly legal, but he didn't, he went to the one place where it thankfully has been prevented, amongst a group of people having really bad times with their actual life where he felt his views were so important that he needed to go and try and make their days worse and stick his opinions down their throats.

[tauzero]

26 minutes ago, lotte said:

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. 

 

It's not thought crime. It doesn't matter what was going through his head. There was an order that he could not stand there, and he didn't abide by it. The praying was utterly irrelevant. This is like when people got sent down for crimes on "attack a migrant hostel day" a few weeks ago and others were saying they didn't do anything, disregarding the shoving burning bins at police and things like that that they actually did. And before you tell me that he didn't push a burning bin at anyone, no he didn't. He stood somewhere he had been forbidden to stand because so many people got harrassed when they were going to the clinic and so there was an exclusion zone. He didn't get arrested for praying, he got arrested for not leaving the exclusion zone when it was requested, so it was a physical action (or inaction) that got him arrested, not the praying.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html

[TimR]

1 hour ago, lotte said:

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). 

 

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read for a while.

 

If you have repeated trouble with certain activities then you can apply to the court to have a restriction put on those activities. 

 

The government has no role in that decision. You take your case to the court, present your evidence and the court decides whether or not to grant an injunction. 

 

It would be the same if you had loads of people regularly gathering by your front gate and harassing you so much to the point that you can't carry out your daily lawful business. You'd try and get it stopped. 

[12stringbassist]

Meanwhile, after that protracted detour into outer space, where exactly does all of this planned legislation leave Basschat and other such forums?????

[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.

 

2 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

No, this is an agenda that you appear to be pushing,  but it doesn't make it true.

I am sure you were equally outraged by just stop oils arrests (oh, you seemed to trim that one)

So if he came round your house, stood in your living room silently and refused to move, you would just accept that as he is 'just standing silently'. No. I thought not.

You can pray anywhere, god apparently doesn't have a range problem. Yes, he wanted publicity at other peoples expense.

 

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.

 

 

2 hours ago, tauzero said:

 

It's not thought crime. It doesn't matter what was going through his head. There was an order that he could not stand there, and he didn't abide by it. The praying was utterly irrelevant. This is like when people got sent down for crimes on "attack a migrant hostel day" a few weeks ago and others were saying they didn't do anything, disregarding the shoving burning bins at police and things like that that they actually did. And before you tell me that he didn't push a burning bin at anyone, no he didn't. He stood somewhere he had been forbidden to stand because so many people got harrassed when they were going to the clinic and so there was an exclusion zone. He didn't get arrested for praying, he got arrested for not leaving the exclusion zone when it was requested, so it was a physical action (or inaction) that got him arrested, not the praying.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html

 

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.
 

 

 

2 hours ago, TimR said:

The government has no role in that decision. You take your case to the court, present your evidence and the court decides whether or not to grant an injunction. 

 

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.

[Leonard Smalls]

1 hour ago, lotte said:

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.

To be fair there's whole areas of law that are less well-defined than a goth in a blackout...

Look at the Hunting Act 2004 frinstance. While it specifically bans the use of hunting with dogs, getting a prosecution is incredibly difficult - you virtually have to be there with a camera at the kill - so police forces that are less in the pocket of the landowners are now going for variations on Community Protection Orders; everyone knows the hunt is still hunting, most want it stopped so the only way of attempting to do that is via a seriously around-the-houses sort of way.

Similarly, government are fed up with JSO protestors so they (and councils, companies etc) are taking out injunctions to stop them standing in certain areas on pain of prosecution. And they have been prosecuted, on a number of occasions!

For quite some time, women in this country have had the right to have an abortion and they've been intimidated and harassed by anti-abortion activists. Therefore, in order for these women to go about their perfectly legal business without fear of harassment or even the threat of violence, government has introduced effectively protest exclusion zones. So if matey is protesting outside said clinic, despite him calling it praying, it's still a protest that's not allowed there. He's still standing there in a way that vulnerable women would see as intimidating... It's not really a thought-crime as such because he's allowed to think whatever thoughts he likes, just not to stand there making it obvious he's protesting!

Meanwhile 😁

 

 

 

[Richard R]

4 hours ago, 12stringbassist said:

Meanwhile, after that protracted detour into outer space, where exactly does all of this planned legislation leave Basschat and other such forums?????

BC will remain pretty much unchanged. 

 

We already have a well defined policy which says that religion and politics aren't permitted (so that's the two biggest subjects for argument gone) and that the moderators will deal with any post which is referred to them as being offensive. The moderators' word is final and not negotiable.

This works very well already, posts are sometimes referred, words are had, usually the situation is resolved, very occasionally people are banned. 

 

I see no reason for it to change.

[prowla]

1 hour ago, Richard R said:

BC will remain pretty much unchanged. 

 

We already have a well defined policy which says that religion and politics aren't permitted (so that's the two biggest subjects for argument gone) and that the moderators will deal with any post which is referred to them as being offensive. The moderators' word is final and not negotiable.

This works very well already, posts are sometimes referred, words are had, usually the situation is resolved, very occasionally people are banned. 

 

I see no reason for it to change.

That’s not the point; the issue is that the proposed changes impose workload  and intrusive practices. 

[Richard R]

3 hours ago, prowla said:

That’s not the point; the issue is that the proposed changes impose workload  and intrusive practices. 

The question the OP asked was "Will BassChat survive the Pnline Safety Act".

I believe the answer is yes. 

 

Merry Christmas Everyone!

[NancyJohnson]

There's always a fine buried in the small print, isn't there?  Authority in this country loves the threat of a fine to keep you in line.  Well honestly, f2ck that.  Sick of it.  My wife lives in terror of a fine.  Don't do this, don't do that, fully expecting a brown envelope to drop through the door for the most minor infraction.

 

I am reminded of the scene below.  We need some kind of anarchy in this country.  The French know how to do it.  Forget about peaceful protest.  Direct action.  Start burning stuff.  I really think we are on the cusp of placid Brits actually losing their shit.  Authority hates to lose real estate.

 

 

 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by NancyJohnson
Meh

[tauzero]

10 minutes ago, NancyJohnson said:

I am reminded of the scene below.  We need some kind of anarchy in this country.  The French know how to do it.  Forget about peaceful protest.  Direct action.  Start burning stuff.

 

Surely you haven't already forgotten the recent direct action and burning stuff, where the stuff being burnt was asylum seekers' hostels? Be careful what you wish for.

[prowla]

59 minutes ago, NancyJohnson said:

There's always a fine buried in the small print, isn't there?  Authority in this country loves the threat of a fine to keep you in line.  Well honestly, f2ck that.  Sick of it.  My wife lives in terror of a fine.  Don't do this, don't do that, fully expecting a brown envelope to drop through the door for the most minor infraction.

 

I am reminded of the scene below.  We need some kind of anarchy in this country.  The French know how to do it.  Forget about peaceful protest.  Direct action.  Start burning stuff.  I really think we are on the cusp of placid Brits actually losing their shit.  Authority hates to lose real estate.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just going through the exercise of contesting a TfL fine; they're misquoting the law to demand money.

Believe me - if you give some ill-trained officials some power and then give them some targets, they'll do what they can to screw you over.

[NancyJohnson]

1 hour ago, tauzero said:

 

Surely you haven't already forgotten the recent direct action and burning stuff, where the stuff being burnt was asylum seekers' hostels? Be careful what you wish for.

 

Interesting take, but my ire is more directed to the bloated mis-run local authorities.  I'd sooner we set fire to council and government offices to be honest, because spraying them with poop and paint isn't going to work.

[NancyJohnson]

33 minutes ago, prowla said:

 

I'm just going through the exercise of contesting a TfL fine; they're misquoting the law to demand money.

Believe me - if you give some ill-trained officials some power and then give them some targets, they'll do what they can to screw you over.

 

I got a £90 fine from TfL because I drove my wife's Renault Megane diesel into the ULEZ zone. 

 

Understandably, as the car pays zero road tax because UK Government plc deem the car as clean and thus exempt from road tax, I felt no need to check the tfl website to see whether there was any issues with the car, but TfL obviously trump Government.

 

I also got fined for using the Dartford Crossing after being forced onto it because of road closures in the local vicinity.  

 

Authority loves a fine.