SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
Yep, just like Mason Greenwood and OJ Simpson, all absolutely fine.
More Kevin Spacy, Thomas Party. You think Brand murdered his wife? Okay then. Wasn't all that long ago some fans were upset we were signing Bissouma.
Yep, just like Mason Greenwood and OJ Simpson, all absolutely fine.
Nobody has censored any content. No government organisation has forced anyone to do anything.The premise of censorship is obviously not something you’re aware of. Or how totalitarian regimes control the media. There is nothing libertarian about censoring content. The idea that we should censor content that incites anger, crowds or mobs is straight out of Russia. Crazy to think that is occurring and advocated here.
Nobody has censored any content. No government organisation has forced anyone to do anything.
Youtube has been lobbied by, I suspect, thousands of people in the last few days to stop publishing Brand's videos. They are free to do that, as is everyone who has contacted Youtube in support of him. Youtube, owned by a private entity, has acted in the way it deems fit.
Nobody here has had their rights trampled on, nobody has forced anyone to do anything (except Brand, allegedly), and nobody is closing off anyone's free speech.
Employers owe a duty of care. As I said in the Goon thread, any players that have invited girls to their Partey who didn't want to go, should be kept away from the club until the club's knows they're not a risk.Imagined you were acused of something. Imagine a member of our parliament then wrote to your employer or key business partner, asking them to cancel you. That was my initial point, and backing of Rumble. The censorship thing was posters on here believing shutting people off was the way to go. 'Inciting mobs' should result in censorship etc. Ironically, there is a mainstream 'mob-like' reaction whenever these stories hit. Which is probably justified. The media love it, it drives sales and hits, and we all lap it up. I find that distasteful, and I find parliament acting before our legal systems trying to cancel people concerning, and probably illegal.
Employers owe a duty of care. As I said in the Goon thread, any players that have invited girls to their Partey who didn't want to go, should be kept away from the club until the club's knows they're not a risk.
Employers owe a duty of care. As I said in the Goon thread, any players that have invited girls to their Partey who didn't want to go, should be kept away from the club until the club's knows they're not a risk.
It's what the employer should be doing anyway.A tangential discussion. What has that to do with parliament?
It's what the employer should be doing anyway.
An MP has the right to lobby them to do the right thing just as much as anyone else has.
Lobbying is not the same as commanding. Google are not only free to do what they want but they're out of the jurisdiction of UK parliament anyway.Interests lobby parliament. Parliament doesn’t ‘lobby’ businesses. In certain countries governments do very similar things and ‘lobby’ media. It results in media that is controlled in line with government desires. No one thinks that is a good idea obviously, unless you’ve gone full commie.
In an absolutely unrelated story that has nothing whatsoever to do with Brand's behaviour towards women....
The oppressed far right sticking together.
Well to be pedantic about it, the UK is still in Europe and the data protection rules are still aligned with the EU (or were). Anyway, I'm not in the UK so twitter's demise might mean I read some of those books I keep buying.Alas, we are no longer in Europe.