Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sewage and sewerage. New media and news

SystemSystem Posts: 11,019
edited June 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sewage and sewerage. New media and news

pic.twitter.com/STCgxGezrQ

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    First.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    If Section 230 is repealed then Twitter should just ban Trump from their platform.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.

    If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.

    The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.

    Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,859
    430th on MH testing scale

    Lies, damn lies & Matt Hancock’s statistics
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,859
    Why havent Government published to public its Covid Alert level? Witty says its 4 Govt said easing was dependent on alert level

    What was decided at meeting to consider Alert Level held Thursday, as indicated by PM on Wednesday and who decided?

    Are “Step 2” easing policy dates (eg Jun 1) no longer conditional on Alert level?
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    My natural thought is that the police are generally good, and there to upload the law and protect people.

    You can't think that's the case in America anymore.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MaxPB said:

    I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.

    If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.

    The problem with "how America goes back to normal" from here is that "normal" is unarmed black men being murdered by the Police and civilians who get away with it.

    When people can lynch Arbery on the streets after chasing him for minutes and nobody gets charged until the video leaks . . .
    When the Police can murder Floyd after kneeling on his neck for eight minutes and nobody gets charged initially then either and still the 3 accomplices to his murder still haven't been charged yet . . .

    America doesn't need a return to normal.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,268
    Good piece. The internet has been the wild west for the last 25 years, pretty lawless and unregulated. This has had many positive aspects to it but many negative ones as well.

    There is really no good reason why the Telegraph or the Times should be held to a higher standard than Facebook or Twitter. If publishing what someone else has said makes a paper vicariously liable it should make the internet giant liable too. But just maybe we should look at the reverse. Would it be better if defamation and libel were simply abolished? I think that there is a lot to be said for freedom of speech and we should not give up the right to say what we want too easily.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    Indeed.

    If 4 gangbangers had murdered someone this way all 4 would be hunted down and charged with Felony Murder at the least.

    Many people here and elsewhere seem to think 4 Police Officers doing this and having 3 fired and one charged with third degree murder is sufficient. All 4 should be charged with murder, including the murderers accomplice colleagues who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,926
    edited June 2020
    I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Four more years.
    What a depressing thought.
    There was hope in the USA , when I was a child , watching the civil rights movement, and Apollo missions.

    Now I watch America and feel a deep sadness that a once great country is descending into chaos.
  • Options
    mr-claypolemr-claypole Posts: 217
    America may be on the wane but it is hard not to see November as pivotal to the future direction of travel for the whole world. I am an optimist- Covid has not gone well for the populists. The microcosm of the labour party under Starmer (membership up headbangers sidelined) may be an indication that people are growing tired of extremes.I do not think despots in Russia and Chine are as secure as people think. Getting Zuckerberg and chums regulated properly probably the long term key.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DavidL said:

    Good piece. The internet has been the wild west for the last 25 years, pretty lawless and unregulated. This has had many positive aspects to it but many negative ones as well.

    There is really no good reason why the Telegraph or the Times should be held to a higher standard than Facebook or Twitter. If publishing what someone else has said makes a paper vicariously liable it should make the internet giant liable too. But just maybe we should look at the reverse. Would it be better if defamation and libel were simply abolished? I think that there is a lot to be said for freedom of speech and we should not give up the right to say what we want too easily.

    Don't forget the US has the First Amendment.

    The New York Times is held to a different standard than the Times because of that. The First Amendment should apply to the internet too.

    Domestically I'd definitely rather see a move towards more freedom of speech than less.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    DavidL said:

    Good piece. The internet has been the wild west for the last 25 years, pretty lawless and unregulated. This has had many positive aspects to it but many negative ones as well.

    There is really no good reason why the Telegraph or the Times should be held to a higher standard than Facebook or Twitter. If publishing what someone else has said makes a paper vicariously liable it should make the internet giant liable too. But just maybe we should look at the reverse. Would it be better if defamation and libel were simply abolished? I think that there is a lot to be said for freedom of speech and we should not give up the right to say what we want too easily.

    Libel tourism made UK known world wide. And not in a good way.

    The problem with the liability argument, is that is guarantees that the smaller the company is, the more vulnerable.yes


    Applied in the UK - It could end up with OGH having to take out liability insurance on PB. Or close the comments.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    Good piece Alastair.

    As has been said many times, the 2020 election is going to be an absolute sh!t-show of negative campaigning, attack ads and fake news - with Facebook, Google and Twitter in the middle of it all, making an offshore fortune from the division.

    Almost the only thing that's going to have bipartisan agreement after the election, is the need to rein in the social media companies.

    S230 protections are just the start of it, but as with most laws changed in haste there will be a lot of unintended consequences. It's certainly clear the law as currently written doesn't work though - Twitter's "fact check" link on Trump's tweet on postal vote fraud was to a CNN opinion piece, rather than an objective source. Twitter wants all the protections of being a conduit, with none of the downsides of being a publisher.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Pulpstar said:

    I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.

    I don't see why the first amendment shouldn't apply to all speech in the US. The distinction between private company and not seems arbitrary.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
  • Options
    Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    We are getting to the point where I find it hard to understand how any decent human being could work for the Trump administration. I know it’s not that simple, but so many republicans must be searching their consciences after last night.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,981
    On PBers' political credo.

    My sense is that those of my Six Ells ilk are fewer and farer between these days.

    Leans Left – Lightly Libertarian – Largely Liberal

    We seem to have quite a few socially conservative lefties (some quite disgustingly so) and quite a few socially liberal righties but fewer from my tradition.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    Pulpstar said:

    I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.

    Agreed, and I am completely against people being prosecuted here for simply posting stuff on Twitter (as opposed to Tweets being used as evidence for other actual crimes).
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.

    I don't see why the first amendment shouldn't apply to all speech in the US. The distinction between private company and not seems arbitrary.
    Its not arbitary. The first amendment guarantees that the government won't regulate the free press, not that the press can't make decisions themselves (which would itself be an oppressive regulation and thus violate the first amendment).

    Twitter can carry any voices it wants to. Their business model is to cater for almost anyone, but they are allowed to make their own choices.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.

    I don't see why the first amendment shouldn't apply to all speech in the US. The distinction between private company and not seems arbitrary.
    What you say and do on private property is held to be different to what you can say and do on public property in all systems of law I am familiar with.

    One question is how that maps onto the Internet.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited June 2020
    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Two wrongs dont make a right.

    Rioting is not OK.
    What came before the rioting is not OK either.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187
    edited June 2020
    But it comes from a place of desperation. He knows he's on his way to losing and is casting about for anything which he thinks has even a glimmer of a chance of heading off the inevitable. It won't work. After 4 years in the job you can't get re-elected on a platform of negativity and strife.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,208

    We are getting to the point where I find it hard to understand how any decent human being could work for the Trump administration. I know it’s not that simple, but so many republicans must be searching their consciences after last night.

    Inadvertently, one of the funniest postings in a long time on PB.

    There are a handful I reckon of GOP people who haven't sold themselves to the devil on Trump. Mitt Romney being the leading one.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    I get pretty depressed about some aspects of american society and its future prospects, though I'm also trying not to over egg it as clearly judging a society whilst in the midst of rioting may not be the most effective way. Sometimes it might be but countries do face rioting sometimes without it being a turning point in society. I dont know the place well enough to judge the uglier elements
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.

    The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.

    Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.

    I don't see why the first amendment shouldn't apply to all speech in the US. The distinction between private company and not seems arbitrary.
    What you say and do on private property is held to be different to what you can say and do on public property in all systems of law I am familiar with.

    One question is how that maps onto the Internet.
    I think the issue is when certain companies have a monopoly in their sectors.

    We all might have the right to shout in the town square, but what happens if that town square gets converted into a private mall?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,415

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Two wrongs dont make a right.

    Rioting is not OK.
    What came before the rioting is not OK either.
    There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187
    Pulpstar said:

    I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.

    First sentence works at all times and in all circumstances.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    edited June 2020
    On my journey through past election nights, I've just begun 2010. Within the first half hour both Harman and Mandelson called for electoral reform!

    Oh, and lots of people (cough*Piers Morgan*cough) not believing the exit poll.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    We are getting to the point where I find it hard to understand how any decent human being could work for the Trump administration. I know it’s not that simple, but so many republicans must be searching their consciences after last night.

    I would have thought those who've stuck with him this far are in it till the end now. Already I'd guess plenty of supporters and representatives are accepting things they once thought they never could.
  • Options
    Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    We are getting to the point where I find it hard to understand how any decent human being could work for the Trump administration. I know it’s not that simple, but so many republicans must be searching their consciences after last night.

    Inadvertently, one of the funniest postings in a long time on PB.

    There are a handful I reckon of GOP people who haven't sold themselves to the devil on Trump. Mitt Romney being the leading one.
    You’re right, but it’s so depressing. When the party of George W Bush, including the likes of Dick Cheney, start to look like great statesman by comparison, the Republican Party is broken.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,700

    On PBers' political credo.

    My sense is that those of my Six Ells ilk are fewer and farer between these days.

    Leans Left – Lightly Libertarian – Largely Liberal

    We seem to have quite a few socially conservative lefties (some quite disgustingly so) and quite a few socially liberal righties but fewer from my tradition.

    Seriously - how would you view the SNP on that analysis? Though it does seem to be developing two camps on issues such as gender change rights.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187

    Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.

    The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.

    Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.

    Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,981

    We are getting to the point where I find it hard to understand how any decent human being could work for the Trump administration. I know it’s not that simple, but so many republicans must be searching their consciences after last night.

    Inadvertently, one of the funniest postings in a long time on PB.

    There are a handful I reckon of GOP people who haven't sold themselves to the devil on Trump. Mitt Romney being the leading one.
    I think it's within the realms of possibility that Romney could endorse Biden in November.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.

    I don't see why the first amendment shouldn't apply to all speech in the US. The distinction between private company and not seems arbitrary.
    What you say and do on private property is held to be different to what you can say and do on public property in all systems of law I am familiar with.

    One question is how that maps onto the Internet.
    I think the issue is when certain companies have a monopoly in their sectors.

    We all might have the right to shout in the town square, but what happens if that town square gets converted into a private mall?
    To expand on that, the solution is to make Twitter a protocol, much as usenet was back in the day.

    Anyone can then host a Twitter server, and serve their own ads and censorship rules on it.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Two wrongs dont make a right.

    Rioting is not OK.
    What came before the rioting is not OK either.
    There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
    When unarmed people are being routinely murdered without justice there already is mob rule. Just the mob are in charge.

    Rioting isn't acceptable but ignoring murder isn't acceptable either. Maybe fewer crocodile tears and actually arresting anyone involved in murder and there'd be less protests resulting in riots. Just an idea.

    When the riots end then the burnt down buildings can be destroyed. George Floyd and Arbery etc will still be dead.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    I don't think there's a simple solution to the question of whether sites such as Twitter should be liable for content published using their platform. They aren't just part of the means of transmission in the way that a mobile phone mast is, but nor are they anything even remotely like a news publisher such as the New York Times, which selects its content.

    One of the pernicious aspects of false news and defamatory or inflammatory material on social media is that the originators are usually anonymous (not Trump, obviously!). That means people are emboldened to post nasty stuff because there is no easy redress. Any updating of the law to take account of the technological changes of the past few years is bound to run up against this problem - and yet, how can the law protect people from vicious trolls without preventing genuine whistleblowers or ordinary people reporting from war zones or repressive regimes?

    There are no easy answers.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    kinabalu said:

    Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.

    The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.

    Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.

    Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
    I don't think it is a good move. Good luck suing Facebook - PB will be much easier.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,361
    edited June 2020
    I expect there will be a future thread or several but this is the most important part imo:
    The next review, due to start in 2021, will have to be completed by the Boundary Commissions by 1 July 2023. It will be based on the number of registered electorates as of 1 December 2020.
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8921/
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896

    I expect there will be a future thread or several but this is the most important part imo:
    The next review, due to start in 2021, will have to be completed by the Boundary Commissions by 1 July 2023. It will be based on the number of registered electorates as of 1 December 2020.
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8921/
    I feel hugely sorry for the boundary commissioners. Three times now, their work has been done then sent straight to the bin!
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187

    On PBers' political credo.

    My sense is that those of my Six Ells ilk are fewer and farer between these days.

    Leans Left – Lightly Libertarian – Largely Liberal

    We seem to have quite a few socially conservative lefties (some quite disgustingly so) and quite a few socially liberal righties but fewer from my tradition.

    I'm broadly with you.

    Main difference is I have a big big belief in the state intervening strongly to redistribute wealth and opportunity.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,415

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Two wrongs dont make a right.

    Rioting is not OK.
    What came before the rioting is not OK either.
    There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
    When unarmed people are being routinely murdered without justice there already is mob rule. Just the mob are in charge.

    Rioting isn't acceptable but ignoring murder isn't acceptable either. Maybe fewer crocodile tears and actually arresting anyone involved in murder and there'd be less protests resulting in riots. Just an idea.

    When the riots end then the burnt down buildings can be destroyed. George Floyd and Arbery etc will still be dead.
    All that is true, but the riots have effectively prevented any further redress being made at this point in time. All that can be done now is to protect lives and property as much as possible and bring the riots to a swift conclusion. Then one hopes that there will be reform of the American police force and some form of redress for the victims of police brutality. But it cannot come whilst buildings are burning.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.
  • Options
    Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    I don't think there's a simple solution to the question of whether sites such as Twitter should be liable for content published using their platform. They aren't just part of the means of transmission in the way that a mobile phone mast is, but nor are they anything even remotely like a news publisher such as the New York Times, which selects its content.

    One of the pernicious aspects of false news and defamatory or inflammatory material on social media is that the originators are usually anonymous (not Trump, obviously!). That means people are emboldened to post nasty stuff because there is no easy redress. Any updating of the law to take account of the technological changes of the past few years is bound to run up against this problem - and yet, how can the law protect people from vicious trolls without preventing genuine whistleblowers or ordinary people reporting from war zones or repressive regimes?

    There are no easy answers.

    I think one of the factors that’s often lost is volume. Part of the appeal of Twitter, Facebook, and the like is the ability of anyone and everyone to find their own audience and post instantly. Almost by definition that makes it impossible to control what is published, and means it will always take time to address it. The “problem” post could come from anywhere. You either allow Web 2.0 or you don’t. As you say, no easy answers.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2020
    On a lighter note, you have to read right down to the very last paragraph of this classic Guardian smear job ("AI firm that worked with Vote Leave wins new coronavirus contract. Deal may allow Faculty, linked to senior Tory figures, to analyse social media data, utility bills and credit ratings.. Faculty, which has links to senior Tory figures in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, declined to say how many contracts it had won in total from the government for work connected to the pandemic, nor how much the contracts were worth.".) to find out that the article could equally have been headed AI firm part-owned by the Guardian group wins new coronovirus contract

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/02/ai-firm-that-worked-with-vote-leave-wins-new-coronavirus-contract
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,361

    I don't think there's a simple solution to the question of whether sites such as Twitter should be liable for content published using their platform. They aren't just part of the means of transmission in the way that a mobile phone mast is, but nor are they anything even remotely like a news publisher such as the New York Times, which selects its content.

    One of the pernicious aspects of false news and defamatory or inflammatory material on social media is that the originators are usually anonymous (not Trump, obviously!). That means people are emboldened to post nasty stuff because there is no easy redress. Any updating of the law to take account of the technological changes of the past few years is bound to run up against this problem - and yet, how can the law protect people from vicious trolls without preventing genuine whistleblowers or ordinary people reporting from war zones or repressive regimes?

    There are no easy answers.

    Not just people. Remember twitterbots? Not just trolls. Remember twitterbots automatically posting and reposting political content in the interests of one party or another, or even one foreign state or another. In unrelated questions, when will Boris publish the report on Russian interference?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    Sandpit said:

    I expect there will be a future thread or several but this is the most important part imo:
    The next review, due to start in 2021, will have to be completed by the Boundary Commissions by 1 July 2023. It will be based on the number of registered electorates as of 1 December 2020.
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8921/
    I feel hugely sorry for the boundary commissioners. Three times now, their work has been done then sent straight to the bin!
    Indeed, and for much of the time they will have known it was going nowhere to boot.

    It needs doing. The government has it's own motivations but so long as the commissioners remain untainted a process where the changes are automatic may be a necessity given parliaments approach for a decade.

    (Coincidentally I was reading Camerons take on this in his autobiography just half an hour ago)
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    I expect there will be a future thread or several but this is the most important part imo:
    The next review, due to start in 2021, will have to be completed by the Boundary Commissions by 1 July 2023. It will be based on the number of registered electorates as of 1 December 2020.
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8921/
    Can someone please explain why the Commission would report every eight years? That seems illogical given a five year cycle in Parliamentary terms.

    Surely a review every five years, ten years or a set time after each General Election would make more sense?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187

    kinabalu said:

    Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.

    The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.

    Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.

    Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
    I don't think it is a good move. Good luck suing Facebook - PB will be much easier.
    I have no strong opinion either way. But Trump is in favour purely for personal reasons (as always) which does little to sell it to me.
  • Options
    Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    Sandpit said:

    I expect there will be a future thread or several but this is the most important part imo:
    The next review, due to start in 2021, will have to be completed by the Boundary Commissions by 1 July 2023. It will be based on the number of registered electorates as of 1 December 2020.
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8921/
    I feel hugely sorry for the boundary commissioners. Three times now, their work has been done then sent straight to the bin!
    I dunno. Change the date, split a few constituencies, invoice again. What’s not to like?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,415
    edited June 2020
    kinabalu said:

    Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.

    The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.

    Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.

    Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
    Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Two wrongs dont make a right.

    Rioting is not OK.
    What came before the rioting is not OK either.
    There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
    When unarmed people are being routinely murdered without justice there already is mob rule. Just the mob are in charge.

    Rioting isn't acceptable but ignoring murder isn't acceptable either. Maybe fewer crocodile tears and actually arresting anyone involved in murder and there'd be less protests resulting in riots. Just an idea.

    When the riots end then the burnt down buildings can be destroyed. George Floyd and Arbery etc will still be dead.
    There's no easy answers, but peeling off the protesters from the rioters and looters must be priority one. The only way to do that is to ram through policing reforms at the house. If the US government can put together a reform package that addresses some of the major issues then the protests stop, it leaves the rioters and looters on the streets which allows the police to swoop with mass arrests and harsh sentencing.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549
    edited June 2020

    We are getting to the point where I find it hard to understand how any decent human being could work for the Trump administration. I know it’s not that simple, but so many republicans must be searching their consciences after last night.

    We are way past that now. I think in the early days some people, like Mattis, thought they would serve their country and moderate Trump's crazier behaviour. Nobody can seriously kid themselves that they are doing that now. If you serve Trump in 2020 you are complicit with his racist, nationalist, idiotic behaviour and you must share some of the blame for the harm it is causing.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,348
    We have the original version of PB.. we also have the smartphone version recently released... Is it possible to have a thread precis version too svp ???
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,582
    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Not happy - but the assumption that automatically equates to a vote for Trump is, as I pointed out in the previous thread, demonstrably wrong.

    Central Camera Company Rebuild
    https://www.gofundme.com/f/central-camera-company-rebuild
    ...On the night of May 30th into early morning May 31st, Central Camera Company, Chicago's oldest camera store, was destroyed and burned. We are still surveying the area to see if we can recover any assets, but at this time it looks like 100% destruction.

    All funds raised on this page will go towards the restoration and reopening of our 121-year-old iconic camera store. We thank you all for your donations and kind messages. As our owner, Don said, “we’re going to rebuild it and make it just as good or better.”

    Although this is a tough time for the store, it doesn’t compare to the loss of George Floyd’s life and the countless other Black lives lost. We stand with the African American community in solidarity....
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    Indeed.

    If 4 gangbangers had murdered someone this way all 4 would be hunted down and charged with Felony Murder at the least.

    Many people here and elsewhere seem to think 4 Police Officers doing this and having 3 fired and one charged with third degree murder is sufficient. All 4 should be charged with murder, including the murderers accomplice colleagues who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing.
    You keep making this statement but can you actually name anyone?
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    Indeed.

    If 4 gangbangers had murdered someone this way all 4 would be hunted down and charged with Felony Murder at the least.

    Many people here and elsewhere seem to think 4 Police Officers doing this and having 3 fired and one charged with third degree murder is sufficient. All 4 should be charged with murder, including the murderers accomplice colleagues who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing.
    You keep making this statement but can you actually name anyone?
    @HYUFD and others have said it here.
  • Options
    Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.

    It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,924
    edited June 2020
    George Floyd's brother calls for a stop to the rioting

    https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1267519992427356162?s=21
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Not happy - but the assumption that automatically equates to a vote for Trump is, as I pointed out in the previous thread, demonstrably wrong.

    Central Camera Company Rebuild
    https://www.gofundme.com/f/central-camera-company-rebuild
    ...On the night of May 30th into early morning May 31st, Central Camera Company, Chicago's oldest camera store, was destroyed and burned. We are still surveying the area to see if we can recover any assets, but at this time it looks like 100% destruction.

    All funds raised on this page will go towards the restoration and reopening of our 121-year-old iconic camera store. We thank you all for your donations and kind messages. As our owner, Don said, “we’re going to rebuild it and make it just as good or better.”

    Although this is a tough time for the store, it doesn’t compare to the loss of George Floyd’s life and the countless other Black lives lost. We stand with the African American community in solidarity....
    I didn't say that it would translate into an increase in support for Trump. And if I was in the position that business is in, I would say much the same thing (even if I had other views).
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    kinabalu said:

    Biden and some of the left want the 230 protection removed as well - they see it as protecting Twitter et al from the consequences of their publishing material.

    The traditional media see removing the protection as levelling the playing field.

    Ironically, because DT has trodden on the issue with his fat feet, everyone else has gone quiet on this.

    Yes. It might be a good move but the fact that Trump is considering it purely because he himself is in a spat with Twitter rather undermines its appeal.
    Well that's utterly stupid isn't it? If something is a positive development, who cares if it happens for negative reasons? It's probably the way things happen more often than not.
    It's not easy to separate motive (or originator) from an idea, but you are right that if something is a good idea it's a good idea. It might mean needing to be wary of what else the terrible or terribly motivated proposer will do, but that's a separate matter
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187

    We are getting to the point where I find it hard to understand how any decent human being could work for the Trump administration. I know it’s not that simple, but so many republicans must be searching their consciences after last night.

    For sure. And tbh the same applies to voting for him in my view. Certainly if I met somebody who intended to do that I would assume they were of poor character and/or very limited intelligence unless and until proved otherwise.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Two wrongs dont make a right.

    Rioting is not OK.
    What came before the rioting is not OK either.
    There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
    When unarmed people are being routinely murdered without justice there already is mob rule. Just the mob are in charge.

    Rioting isn't acceptable but ignoring murder isn't acceptable either. Maybe fewer crocodile tears and actually arresting anyone involved in murder and there'd be less protests resulting in riots. Just an idea.

    When the riots end then the burnt down buildings can be destroyed. George Floyd and Arbery etc will still be dead.
    All that is true, but the riots have effectively prevented any further redress being made at this point in time. All that can be done now is to protect lives and property as much as possible and bring the riots to a swift conclusion. Then one hopes that there will be reform of the American police force and some form of redress for the victims of police brutality. But it cannot come whilst buildings are burning.
    "Protect lives" - funny I seem to recall BLM and others demanding that fruitlessly for years, now you're demanding it but whose lives do you want to protect?

    Do you want to protect the lives of those threatened by the rioters, the lives of those threatened by the Police, or both?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653

    IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.

    That one cuts both ways....$115 oil, anyone?
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Not happy - but the assumption that automatically equates to a vote for Trump is, as I pointed out in the previous thread, demonstrably wrong.

    Central Camera Company Rebuild
    https://www.gofundme.com/f/central-camera-company-rebuild
    ...On the night of May 30th into early morning May 31st, Central Camera Company, Chicago's oldest camera store, was destroyed and burned. We are still surveying the area to see if we can recover any assets, but at this time it looks like 100% destruction.

    All funds raised on this page will go towards the restoration and reopening of our 121-year-old iconic camera store. We thank you all for your donations and kind messages. As our owner, Don said, “we’re going to rebuild it and make it just as good or better.”

    Although this is a tough time for the store, it doesn’t compare to the loss of George Floyd’s life and the countless other Black lives lost. We stand with the African American community in solidarity....
    Great statement. I respect that 100%
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,981
    Carnyx said:

    On PBers' political credo.

    My sense is that those of my Six Ells ilk are fewer and farer between these days.

    Leans Left – Lightly Libertarian – Largely Liberal

    We seem to have quite a few socially conservative lefties (some quite disgustingly so) and quite a few socially liberal righties but fewer from my tradition.

    Seriously - how would you view the SNP on that analysis? Though it does seem to be developing two camps on issues such as gender change rights.
    Funnily enough, I was just thinking this.

    Most the SNPers (you, TUD, Stuart) on here come closest to my credo – I think Malc is more socially conservative however.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,923
    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.

    The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.

    Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
    How can you say riots "are slightly less acceptable", they are totally unacceptable. Rioters and looters should be dealt with harshly.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited June 2020

    On a lighter note, you have to read right down to the very last paragraph of this classic Guardian smear job ("AI firm that worked with Vote Leave wins new coronavirus contract. Deal may allow Faculty, linked to senior Tory figures, to analyse social media data, utility bills and credit ratings.. Faculty, which has links to senior Tory figures in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, declined to say how many contracts it had won in total from the government for work connected to the pandemic, nor how much the contracts were worth.".) to find out that the article could equally have been headed AI firm part-owned by the Guardian group wins new coronovirus contract

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/02/ai-firm-that-worked-with-vote-leave-wins-new-coronavirus-contract

    It is as hypocrital as their obsession with certain individuals tax efficiencies.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,229

    On PBers' political credo.

    My sense is that those of my Six Ells ilk are fewer and farer between these days.

    Leans Left – Lightly Libertarian – Largely Liberal

    We seem to have quite a few socially conservative lefties (some quite disgustingly so) and quite a few socially liberal righties but fewer from my tradition.

    Making pronouncements about the political beliefs of PBers does not have a good track record.

    I suppose it's a chance for all the cognitive biases to come out to play at once.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,923
    I see Tories have a new saying made up for lying
    When we contacted the Scottish Conservatives about this, they admitted their press office had "used the wrong phrase."
    https://twitter.com/FerretScot/status/1267720296720711680
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.

    It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
    But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.

    I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,229
    Oh.

    Hugely controversial to have this vote if many MPs not able to take part for health reasons.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,415

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Two wrongs dont make a right.

    Rioting is not OK.
    What came before the rioting is not OK either.
    There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
    When unarmed people are being routinely murdered without justice there already is mob rule. Just the mob are in charge.

    Rioting isn't acceptable but ignoring murder isn't acceptable either. Maybe fewer crocodile tears and actually arresting anyone involved in murder and there'd be less protests resulting in riots. Just an idea.

    When the riots end then the burnt down buildings can be destroyed. George Floyd and Arbery etc will still be dead.
    All that is true, but the riots have effectively prevented any further redress being made at this point in time. All that can be done now is to protect lives and property as much as possible and bring the riots to a swift conclusion. Then one hopes that there will be reform of the American police force and some form of redress for the victims of police brutality. But it cannot come whilst buildings are burning.
    "Protect lives" - funny I seem to recall BLM and others demanding that fruitlessly for years, now you're demanding it but whose lives do you want to protect?

    Do you want to protect the lives of those threatened by the rioters, the lives of those threatened by the Police, or both?
    Firstly, please stop being ridiculous. I am not 'demanding' anything - America is a foreign country. It isn't my business to demand anything. A principle I thought you would be familiar with.

    I am *suggesting* that no Government can give in to the demands (if there are any actual demands) of a violent uprising whilst that uprising is on. They have to restore order first. It's a simple concept.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    I'm not saying that people will be ok with the rioting and looting, clearly they aren't. What I'm saying is that casting the protesters in with them isn't going to work so the voters won't turn against the protesters, which is what Trump needs at the moment. The protests are entirely legitimate, the riots slightly less so and the looting absolutely unacceptable.

    The smart play is for Trump to host a roundtable with protest leaders and police commissioners where they get to scream at each other for a couple of hours. He gets to say he's doing something and if there's a compromise found he can sponsor a bill with some federally mandated police training course to not kill unarmed or already subdued suspects with extremely harsh sentencing for those who do.

    Unfortunately Trump isn't that smart.
    How can you say riots "are slightly less acceptable", they are totally unacceptable. Rioters and looters should be dealt with harshly.
    Because life isn't black and white. There are shades of grey everywhere. These riots are making sure voices are being heard that wouldn't otherwise get a hearing.

    Looters, yes, throw the book at them.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,981
    kinabalu said:

    On PBers' political credo.

    My sense is that those of my Six Ells ilk are fewer and farer between these days.

    Leans Left – Lightly Libertarian – Largely Liberal

    We seem to have quite a few socially conservative lefties (some quite disgustingly so) and quite a few socially liberal righties but fewer from my tradition.

    I'm broadly with you.

    Main difference is I have a big big belief in the state intervening strongly to redistribute wealth and opportunity.

    My libertarianism is of the social / civil liberties variety.

    I'm centre-left on the economy – support some intervention as you suggest and would nationalise the railways (for example).
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,913
    MaxPB said:

    I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.

    If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.

    Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,981

    On PBers' political credo.

    My sense is that those of my Six Ells ilk are fewer and farer between these days.

    Leans Left – Lightly Libertarian – Largely Liberal

    We seem to have quite a few socially conservative lefties (some quite disgustingly so) and quite a few socially liberal righties but fewer from my tradition.

    Making pronouncements about the political beliefs of PBers does not have a good track record.

    I suppose it's a chance for all the cognitive biases to come out to play at once.
    Well I'm basing it on their own testimonies of yesterday evening!
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Two wrongs dont make a right.

    Rioting is not OK.
    What came before the rioting is not OK either.
    There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
    When unarmed people are being routinely murdered without justice there already is mob rule. Just the mob are in charge.

    Rioting isn't acceptable but ignoring murder isn't acceptable either. Maybe fewer crocodile tears and actually arresting anyone involved in murder and there'd be less protests resulting in riots. Just an idea.

    When the riots end then the burnt down buildings can be destroyed. George Floyd and Arbery etc will still be dead.
    All that is true, but the riots have effectively prevented any further redress being made at this point in time. All that can be done now is to protect lives and property as much as possible and bring the riots to a swift conclusion. Then one hopes that there will be reform of the American police force and some form of redress for the victims of police brutality. But it cannot come whilst buildings are burning.
    "Protect lives" - funny I seem to recall BLM and others demanding that fruitlessly for years, now you're demanding it but whose lives do you want to protect?

    Do you want to protect the lives of those threatened by the rioters, the lives of those threatened by the Police, or both?
    Firstly, please stop being ridiculous. I am not 'demanding' anything - America is a foreign country. It isn't my business to demand anything. A principle I thought you would be familiar with.

    I am *suggesting* that no Government can give in to the demands (if there are any actual demands) of a violent uprising whilst that uprising is on. They have to restore order first. It's a simple concept.
    That is patently absurd.

    If there is an uprising to demand an end to state-sponsored violence then yes the Government can and should give in to that demand. Which isn't to say that an uprising or violence is a good idea, but many Governments down the years and across the globe have done just that.
  • Options
    Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    edited June 2020
    kle4 said:

    IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.

    It would be nice to think we could have an actual debate between those Scots with an understandable wish to be independent and those Scots who wish to be in the Union; and that the rest of the U.K. would stay out of it.
    But while the decision is only between those two groups (and those who dont care) the rest of the UK is a legitimately interested party, affected by the outcome, with many for and many against, and how the rest of the UK might react to plans of an indy Scotland or plans for a continuing Union might be of some relevance to those actually making the decision in Scotland, particularly those on the fence.

    I don't think it can be as simple as non Scots staying out of it. Which is not to say that the wishes of Scots should not predominate.
    I think our only contribution should be to be clear on what we would do/not do in response. But the basic line should be that we’d do what we could to make it as painless and easy as possible. Of course if the Scots really wanted independence I think the quickest way is to support a vote on it in ONLY the rest of the U.K....
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,229
    kinabalu said:

    But it comes from a place of desperation. He knows he's on his way to losing and is casting about for anything which he thinks has even a glimmer of a chance of heading off the inevitable. It won't work. After 4 years in the job you can't get re-elected on a platform of negativity and strife.
    Sure you can. Mugabe did. You can use the violence to stop your opponents voting. I strongly suspect the armed end lockdown protests were in part a dry run for protests against "voter fraud" that would see armed protestors stopping voting in Democrat areas.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    The Royal Shakespeare Company has postponed or cancelled all performances and events until at least the end of year due to the coronavirus crisis.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,923

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    Indeed.

    If 4 gangbangers had murdered someone this way all 4 would be hunted down and charged with Felony Murder at the least.

    Many people here and elsewhere seem to think 4 Police Officers doing this and having 3 fired and one charged with third degree murder is sufficient. All 4 should be charged with murder, including the murderers accomplice colleagues who stood by listening to a dying man say "I can't breath" and did nothing.
    You keep making this statement but can you actually name anyone?
    @HYUFD and others have said it here.
    That will make it real right enough, have his shock troops reached the Scottish border yet, Cuckoo.
  • Options
    SurreySurrey Posts: 190
    FPT
    Carnyx said:

    Surrey said:

    Carnyx said:

    I see as in Glasgow, there are big fans of File Transfer Protocol in Washington.

    https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1267645860520898566?s=20

    Oh dear. Though I wonder how many PBers this will go over the heads of. My experience is that English incomers to Scotland find it very slow to even appreciate the existence of such, erm, narratives that my Belfast-born friend or any Scot at all familiar with the West Central Belt will instantly detect.
    Talking of Scotland, has he lost the bible he brandished before that his mother gave him?
    Wrong part of Scotland. No, seriously.

    Mr Trump's mum was from the orthern part of the Long Isle IIRC - almost wall to wall Free Kirks (exactly which one would depend on time and place, and their splits and mergers with the United Presbyterians and latterly with the C of S). Unless you were the laird or a servant thereof in which case you might go to the Episcopalian place in Stornoway/Steòrnabhagh.
    Yes, she was from Lewis.

    The WCB has no monopoly on bigotry. It's still strong on Lewis even if it doesn't take the form of Orange walks or scrawling the praises of file transfer protocol on walls. Stornoway is claimed to have the biggest Rangers supporters' club in the world. I was on Lewis the day Boris Johnson became prime minister, when a guy in his 70s informed me sagely in a conversation that lasted all of about one minute that Johnson had been baptised Roman Catholic and therefore couldn't be trusted on Ireland.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.

    I don't see why the first amendment shouldn't apply to all speech in the US. The distinction between private company and not seems arbitrary.
    That makes zero sense.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    OllyT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.

    If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.

    Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
    George Miller and Byron Kennedy might have imagined it . . .
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,700

    IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.

    That one cuts both ways....$115 oil, anyone?
    The world has moved on - renewable is where it's at.

    And I well remember being lectured on how the only way to stay in the EU was to remain in the UK - and that message being targeted particularly at citizens from the rest of the EU who were then resident in Scotland.

    Either that was a good faith promise, now broken, inm which case a replay is needed, given the high level of EU support in Scotland far beyond the SNP. Or "we didn't mean it really and any fool could see that Brexit was inevitable" - which makes it an outright and delibrate lie (which, in fact, was what I strongly suspected at the time).

    Anyway, I onloy mention this as someone brought it up yesterday. I'm quite happy to save the rest of it till indyref 2!
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,913

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Two wrongs dont make a right.

    Rioting is not OK.
    What came before the rioting is not OK either.
    There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
    I'm not advocating rioting my any stretch of the imagination but this stuff has been going on since the civil rights movement in the 60's and when the anger dies down the "reforms and redress" never happen.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,229
    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I think Trump is wrong on this, I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment. Twitter is a private company - it's not the state. If Trump wanted to he could put out unfettered messages on DonaldTrump.com but he knows it doesn't have the reach of twitter.

    I don't see why the first amendment shouldn't apply to all speech in the US. The distinction between private company and not seems arbitrary.
    What you say and do on private property is held to be different to what you can say and do on public property in all systems of law I am familiar with.

    One question is how that maps onto the Internet.
    I think the issue is when certain companies have a monopoly in their sectors.

    We all might have the right to shout in the town square, but what happens if that town square gets converted into a private mall?
    Right, so there are alternatives to Facebook which are operated on an open-source model, but nobody uses them because no-one else is using them.

    Perhaps there's a justification for anti-trust action on Facebook to force conversion to an open model, but it doesn't really solve the problem - which is that people are generally really bad at critical thinking because of cognitive biases. Fake news just feels so much more true.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,173
    edited June 2020

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One reason this won't work to Trump's favour even with all of the looting and rioting is that there is a legitimate grievance this time. It's not some police officer gunning down a black gang member running away from a crime scene or a suspected drug dealer with a huge rap sheet. This was a tax payer being murdered in cold blood by a racist copper, there is unsurprisingly and justifiably a lot of anger at this. It's not just going to go away either, the rioting will die down in a couple of weeks but the problem won't go away.

    I'm not sure all of that's true - but even if it were, I'm not sure looting or rioting is ever legitimate. Ask yourself, would you be content if they were trashing your property?
    Two wrongs dont make a right.

    Rioting is not OK.
    What came before the rioting is not OK either.
    There is really only one way for rioting to go, and that is to be put down. Reforms and redress sometimes follow, but not when the riots are actually on. Otherwise it is rule by the mob.
    When unarmed people are being routinely murdered without justice there already is mob rule. Just the mob are in charge.

    Rioting isn't acceptable but ignoring murder isn't acceptable either. Maybe fewer crocodile tears and actually arresting anyone involved in murder and there'd be less protests resulting in riots. Just an idea.

    When the riots end then the burnt down buildings can be destroyed. George Floyd and Arbery etc will still be dead.
    All that is true, but the riots have effectively prevented any further redress being made at this point in time. All that can be done now is to protect lives and property as much as possible and bring the riots to a swift conclusion. Then one hopes that there will be reform of the American police force and some form of redress for the victims of police brutality. But it cannot come whilst buildings are burning.
    "Protect lives" - funny I seem to recall BLM and others demanding that fruitlessly for years, now you're demanding it but whose lives do you want to protect?

    Do you want to protect the lives of those threatened by the rioters, the lives of those threatened by the Police, or both?
    Firstly, please stop being ridiculous. I am not 'demanding' anything - America is a foreign country. It isn't my business to demand anything. A principle I thought you would be familiar with.

    I am *suggesting* that no Government can give in to the demands (if there are any actual demands) of a violent uprising whilst that uprising is on. They have to restore order first. It's a simple concept.
    Like Dubcez in 1968 and the Chinese Revolutionary Communist Party in Tiananmen Square?

    Sometimes black and white, and simple concepts don't work.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653
    Carnyx said:

    IndyRef2 is going to be fun if media starts actually fact-checking the BritNat guff.

    That one cuts both ways....$115 oil, anyone?
    The world has moved on - renewable is where it's at.

    And I well remember being lectured on how the only way to stay in the EU was to remain in the UK - and that message being targeted particularly at citizens from the rest of the EU who were then resident in Scotland.

    Either that was a good faith promise, now broken, inm which case a replay is needed, given the high level of EU support in Scotland far beyond the SNP. Or "we didn't mean it really and any fool could see that Brexit was inevitable" - which makes it an outright and delibrate lie (which, in fact, was what I strongly suspected at the time).

    Anyway, I onloy mention this as someone brought it up yesterday. I'm quite happy to save the rest of it till indyref 2!
    Or it was subject to a referendum, the result of which has been respected.

    Unlike the outcome of the "once in a generation" referendum two years earlier.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    OllyT said:

    MaxPB said:

    I'm honestly not sure how America goes back to normal from here.

    If there was someone other than president dickbag in charge there would be plenty of ways to get this settled but there just seems to be no way out other than letting the riots burn out over the next couple of weeks and hoping some other racist cop doesn't step up and gun down an innocent black person.

    Can anyone imagine what America is going to look like after another 4 years of Trump?
    This is the first time I think Trump is losing the election. Loads of moderate voters who don't agree with the riots do agree with the protests. They can see the murder of a tax payer by a racist copper is just wrong and by not recognising that the president is throwing their votes away.

    He needs to find a way to address the protesters and their real issues. Engage with them and put forwards reforms and harsh sentencing for officers who kill unarmed suspects or who's actions result in the death of suspects who are already subdued. In this instance the officer just needed to cuff the suspect, book him and then he'd be out in a few hours. Ideally th police would have enough training not to even bother this person and there would be sanctions for police who do the above.
This discussion has been closed.