• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Gutter Boy said:
You never need to shout at junior staff in the modern workplace. Shouting at people is for the sports field and the battlefield only really
Click to expand...

One was in his 60s was he not?

I think there is an element of weakness in some of this, I have worked in many an environment in offices where arguments have taken place in meetings and boardrooms and the office was better for having it out in the open in the long run.
 
Baleforce said:
Doesn't make what we went through right though.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, but it is heading to far in the other direction.
They are introducing a law in Scotland that when in your own home you say something a visitor finds offensive you can be prosecuted and jailed for two years.
People should learn to read the room and moderate their views, and that should go both ways.
 
JerusalemMan said:
Did you meet him at an Arsenal-Spurs game?
Click to expand...
42079148-0-image-a-2_1619093379890.jpg
 
glasgowspur said:
No it doesn't, but it is heading to far in the other direction.
They are introducing a law in Scotland that when in your own home you say something a visitor finds offensive you can be prosecuted and jailed for two years.
People should learn to read the room and moderate their views, and that should go both ways.
Click to expand...

Can you provide any info on the law you mentioned? Don’t want to patronise you but your summary sounds a bit of a sensationalist reaction but I could be way off.

It’s maybe taking the example to a different direction, but that sounds a bit like looking both directions before telling a joke, if you have to do that to scan for minorities you probably shouldn’t say the joke.

Reminds me of when I called out a “friend” on his use of the p word, his defence was “Well I wouldn’t use it if there were any Asian people around” was eye opening.

I’ve said it a few times (without being arsed enough to do it myself) but there should be a thread on this idea of being offended and whether we have a right to be and the ideas of cancel culture and “wokeness” will inevitably be in the mix.
 
spurspinter1 said:
Can you provide any info on the law you mentioned? Don’t want to patronise you but your summary sounds a bit of a sensationalist reaction but I could be way off.

It’s maybe taking the example to a different direction, but that sounds a bit like looking both directions before telling a joke, if you have to do that to scan for minorities you probably shouldn’t say the joke.

Reminds me of when I called out a “friend” on his use of the p word, his defence was “Well I wouldn’t use it if there were any Asian people around” was eye opening.

I’ve said it a few times (without being arsed enough to do it myself) but there should be a thread on this idea of being offended and whether we have a right to be and the ideas of cancel culture and “wokeness” will inevitably be in the mix.
Click to expand...


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821.amp

There’s been a few minor changes, in both directions, and I'm not now that up to date on it, but it is still very controversial, and to best of my knowledge the private meeting/home clause is still in it.
Many have compared it to stasi tactics of child spies, turning them against their parents through the education system.
Although the media have tried very hard to ignore it.

I don't want to patronise you either, but you can tell jokes/have a discussion that aren't discriminatory that some would find offensive.
There are only two genders, evolution , both acceptable science, but there are some who would take offence.
 
glasgowspur said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821.amp

There’s been a few minor changes, in both directions, and I'm not now that up to date on it, but it is still very controversial, and to best of my knowledge the private meeting/home clause is still in it.
Many have compared it to stasi tactics of child spies, turning them against their parents through the education system.
Although the media have tried very hard to ignore it.

I don't want to patronise you either, but you can tell jokes/have a discussion that aren't discriminatory that some would find offensive.
There are only two genders, evolution , both acceptable science, but there are some who would take offence.
Click to expand...

It does seem ambiguous in terms of how it would be applied and when but that could be my lack of understanding. Going on the “You could get two years for offending your house guests!!!!?!!!?!!!” road does still seem overly zealous as when it comes to the courts it’s one person’s word against another unless there’s a recording, unless that recording was released too early for it to have an influence on the jury regardless of whether it was genuine or not. This paragraph is more about my doubts about the justice system than anything, having been on jury service 3/4 months ago it only served to worsen those doubts.

It’ll come down to a free speech debate as I see it which gets bogged down very quickly, whether that’s due to people believing they can say the first thing that comes to mind or those who feel that those words are ill intentioned whether intentionally or not, it’s a minefield.

I wonder if some people (myself included) would have been arrested under the law in questioning it were applied to the net. Some folks think it’s okay to say absolutely anything if it’s under the guise of the internet despite it being human interaction (with a degree of added anonymity).
 
spurspinter1 said:
It does seem ambiguous in terms of how it would be applied and when but that could be my lack of understanding. Going on the “You could get two years for offending your house guests!!!!?!!!?!!!” road does still seem overly zealous as when it comes to the courts it’s one person’s word against another unless there’s a recording, unless that recording was released too early for it to have an influence on the jury regardless of whether it was genuine or not. This paragraph is more about my doubts about the justice system than anything, having been on jury service 3/4 months ago it only served to worsen those doubts.

It’ll come down to a free speech debate as I see it which gets bogged down very quickly, whether that’s due to people believing they can say the first thing that comes to mind or those who feel that those words are ill intentioned whether intentionally or not, it’s a minefield.

I wonder if some people (myself included) would have been arrested under the law in questioning it were applied to the net. Some folks think it’s okay to say absolutely anything if it’s under the guise of the internet despite it being human interaction (with a degree of added anonymity).
Click to expand...


Its not ambiguous, that's just way it's being reported.
It will be an offence to cause offence with comments that can be considered as, racist, homophobic, transphobic, sectarian and a whole other list.
The only one the Scottish government has refused to put on it is misogynistic.
But worse still is that this isn't a stand alone bill, it goes hand in hand with several others, the GRA, which is tearing their party apart, the name person act, which they had to drop after a court action.
There is a considerable backlash, mainly by women, and lesbian women in particular, over it.
 
glasgowspur said:
Its not ambiguous, that's just way it's being reported.
It will be an offence to cause offence with comments that can be considered as, racist, homophobic, transphobic, sectarian and a whole other list.
The only one the Scottish government has refused to put on it is misogynistic.
But worse still is that this isn't a stand alone bill, it goes hand in hand with several others, the GRA, which is tearing their party apart, the name person act, which they had to drop after a court action.
There is a considerable backlash, mainly by women, and lesbian women in particular, over it.
Click to expand...

It seemed ambiguous from the link you posted but I’m aware that it’d take more than a solitary article for me to fully understand the nuances of a law being introduced. Much more effort than it would be to willingly misunderstand it, that’s for sure!

In England we’re still mourning the victims of misogyny regardless of gender (that’s a joke about Raab not knowing the term specifically relates to discrimination against females in n case that wasn’t clear!).
 
spurspinter1 said:
It seemed ambiguous from the link you posted but I’m aware that it’d take more than a solitary article for me to fully understand the nuances of a law being introduced. Much more effort than it would be to willingly misunderstand it, that’s for sure!

In England we’re still mourning the victims of misogyny regardless of gender (that’s a joke about Raab not knowing the term specifically relates to discrimination against females in n case that wasn’t clear!).
Click to expand...

As i said the press seem unwilling to draw lines connecting all the law bills going through the Scottish Parliament.
Individually they are all contentious, when you start to add them together they become downright scary.
 
scaramanga said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/03/10/ed-miliband-should-hang-head-shame-should/

A very honest and pertinent article. Those in parliament calling for us to cower behind our benches and pompously celebrate our half-arsed sanctions should take note,
Click to expand...


Paywalled. Anyway, Syria was Syria. Ukraine is Ukraine. Completely different situations, so a pop at Miliband minor is pointless. I say that despite being entirely with you on stepping up the UK response, short of triggering instant sunshine: we could at least do whatever mad deal the Polish air force want with migs and our bases and US replacement planes, and every effort should be made to get novichok into Vlad’s cornflakes.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
Paywalled. Anyway, Syria was Syria. Ukraine is Ukraine. Completely different situations, so a pop at Miliband minor is pointless. I say that despite being entirely with you on stepping up the UK response, short of triggering instant sunshine: we could at least do whatever mad deal the Polish air force want with migs and our bases and US replacement planes, and every effort should be made to get novichok into Vlad’s cornflakes.
Click to expand...
His gist was that he voted with Milliband to not take action in Syria - doing so has probably emboldened Russia's Horsefudger-in-Chief to do what he's doing now.
 
scaramanga said:
His gist was that he voted with Milliband to not take action in Syria - doing so has probably emboldened Russia's Horsefudger-in-Chief to do what he's doing now.
Click to expand...

I doubt that Vlad notices anything that happens in Westminster. NATO is a US-led entity bent on encroaching on Russian territories like Ukraine, Finland and Kensington. Debates in Washington’s minor satrapies are irrelevant.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
I doubt that Vlad notices anything that happens in Westminster. NATO is a US-led entity bent on encroaching on Russian territories like Ukraine, Finland and Kensington. Debates in Washington’s minor satrapies are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Having to choose whether to duck out of the conflict or engage a NATO member's troops might have been a little problematic for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back