I'm not sure there's much other way to describe these cretins than "extremists"?
I'm not sure there's much other way to describe these cretins than "extremists"?
What business would that jackass have being at a school in the first place.
"One day, you too could be a professional troll. It's a growth industry!"
You'd be better letting him speak and then getting someone educated to shred him publicly.
I'm not sure what you achieve by no platforming him / banning him, other than allowing certain quarters to wallow in self-righteousness.
No you wouldn't. It's a fucking school.
The only speakers we had in school were those people who come in and tell you a story about a dead junkie that finish with '...and that young lad was my son', so I always lol when I read about politicians going and having stupid debates in schools.
We had this freak come in and sing to us.
Everybody just took the piss out of him after. Who organises these wankers to tour the country?
Which would be fine if the pupils, who we've all supposedly saved from bigotry and exposure to unpleasant opinions (lattes all round to celebrate), couldn't just go and watch everything he's ever said on YouTube. Except now it's without any context and you've turned it into something 'controversial'.Originally Posted by Boydy
Have a panel and let the others shred him instead. Banning him achieves nothing when you have fucking YouTube - it'll have done nothing but heighten interest and thus the number of them who'll go and watch his shite to see what the fuss is about.
You don't just invite random people to schools. It tends to be people with a specific message. Schools aren't Open Mike Night at the Apollo.
I go quite often to schools around Sydney to talk about studying mathematics, and associated applications/job prospects. There's a whole process involved in getting green-lit to talk at schools. It may be a bit more lax in the UK, but I can't imagine that you can simply turn up at the gates and tell them that you've got stuff what you want to say.
It isn't even a "Milo says mean things" objection. There are plenty of people who just have no reason to be at a school, and I can't see any particularly compelling reason why he isn't one of them.
I wouldn't have that weirdo in my house, let alone a school.
At the 2005 election we had a full hustings with all the candidates for the local constituency in our school, which in our case was Twickenham. The Lib Dem candidate was of course 'Dr' Vince Cable, who at that time was a hero of the people. Labour had some useless Asian, the Tories had this bloke called Paul Maynard who I thought at the time was just a retard, though years later I discovered he really was in the sense he has cerebral palsy (he's now MP for Blackpool). The Green bloke was a lunatic, and UKIP at the time were seen as amiable cranks.
As I recall, everyone agreed that Labour were a safe bet on the economy, and the main issue of debate was 'the environment'. What times they were.
My school was pretty religious. We had people come to tell us that if we got within a hundred yards of a joint our brains would liquify, if we kissed someone before marrying them our genitals would explode, and if we even considered touching someone of the same sex we'd die of super-AIDS.
Weirdly, I got a really high quality scientific education there. I think the science teachers were all involved in a large-scale mass coverup to ensure that we did.
What a shit country. Love how Conservatives spent years banging on about the nanny state only to get into power and shove a load of this and surveillance nonsense through.Web users in the UK will be banned from accessing websites portraying a range of non-conventional sexual acts, under a little discussed clause to a government bill currently going through parliament.
The proposal, part of the digital economy bill, would force internet service providers to block sites hosting content that would not be certified for commercial DVD sale by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).
It is contained within provisions of the bill designed to enforce strict age verification checks to stop children accessing adult websites. After pressure from MPs, the culture secretary, Caroline Bradley, announced on Saturday that the government would amend the bill to include powers to block non-compliant websites.
In order to comply with the censorship rules, many mainstream adult websites would have to render whole sections inaccessible to UK audiences. That is despite the acts shown being legal for consenting over-16s to perform and for adults in almost all other liberal countries to film, distribute and watch.
Free speech campaigners labelled the move a “prurient” invasion into people’s sexual lives. “It should not be the business of government to regulate what kinds of consensual adult sex can be viewed by adults,” said Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship.
Pictures and videos that show spanking, whipping or caning that leaves marks, and sex acts involving urination, female ejaculation or menstruation as well as sex in public are likely to be caught by the ban – in effect turning back the clock on Britain’s censorship regime to the pre-internet era.
What constitutes a 'non-conventional sexual act'? Are we now a missionary-only nation?
When they came for the pornography,
I did speak out because I'm a seedy little pervert.
Whoops I didn't quote that bit.
"Pictures and videos that show spanking, whipping or caning that leaves marks, and sex acts involving urination, female ejaculation or menstruation as well as sex in public are likely to be caught by the ban"
Female ejaculation as a 'non-conventional sex act'.
It's Magic I feel sorry for.
Thinly veiled 'I'm great at sex' post.Female ejaculation as a 'non-conventional sex act'.
No sex please, we're British.
Not this time. This time we're doing it for the right reasons.
The censorship regime has led to bizarre understandings between the producers and regulators, Barnett said. One is the “four-finger rule”, which limits the number of digits that can be inserted into an orifice for sexual stimulation.
I'd never considered the BBFC as regulating porn releases, but I suppose it's obvious once you think about it. What a strange, demoralising job that must be. I wonder if they write those incredibly dry content guides they do for theatrical releases.
The news is contrasting the 'bravery' of Jo Cox and the 'cowardice' of her killer. Is that fair? You've got to have some balls to take things that far (same with suicide bombers).
How the fuck are they going to enforce those porn rules and why on earth are they bothering?
Can't remotely see it happening.
A pair of meaningless words now thanks to Blair. And when you call out actual cowards as being so, you get called harsh.
Poor woman and everything, but you would think it was Abraham Lincoln.
Brillo at it again.
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/commen...e_banned_from/
Top comment:
It's bang on, isn't it?Porn is the scapegoat. When infrastructure is set they can start blocking whatever the want.
Really, really easily. See the Internet in China. Considering a surveillance bill was passed similar to there just a few days ago, get used to it.
Haven't been to China, but I have been to Thailand and their efforts to block websites or articles that painted them in a bad light were an absolute piece of piss to navigate.
Ok, China might be stricter, but presumably that's also why it's much easier to enforce there. Magic's hardly going to be sent to prison for viewing some of the shit he's referenced on here, for example.
We're just a far too liberal country and population for this to be enforced properly.
It's a piece of piss to get around in China, and then the government use state surveillance to work out who's accessing VPNs and trace it back. It's just the first step towards a Police State. They don't care that Magic is watching porn, they do care if he's organising anti-establishment protest AND watching dodgy porn.
P.S. I love that you say "We're just a far too liberal country" after voting Brexit and being a-okay with unelected, absolute nutter, Theresa May as PM for the duration.
Since when does voting for/against Brexit have anything to do with how liberal one is?
I've stated several times that in my opinion, no matter what GS says, Brexit wasn't a libertarian movement. You can disagree with it, but that's my belief.
You've stated several times that you think the Trump vote and the Brexit vote are linked due to anti-globalism. Was the Trump movement a liberal movement?
Labour need to stop trying to appease deficit fetishists. All of this "balancing the books" stuff is nonsense. There's no need to balance the books as long as long-term borrowing is at a lower rate than long-term growth.
This Autumn statement earlier was pretty lol-tastic. Kudos for fisting estate agents on their made-up fees, but the rest of it is a giant #holyfuckthisbrexitthingisseriouslygoingtofuckussi deways-fest/gate
What they really need to do is get better people. That Woman is paid to do that job, full time and hadn't got a fucking clue. What's she doing all day?
Phonics should also put his tin hat away.
Tin foil hat donned. Thanks.
edit: By the way that word 'illegally' in the headline was just made legal by the bill passed earlier this week.
By the by, this is hilarious
Is that real?
Also, @phonics, you're nifty with Photoshop, can you mock me up a 'ceiling cat is watching you masturbate' picture but with Theresa May looking out of the hole? Thanks.
Yes and the fact they couldn't even get a high enough resolution image of Hammond for the web speaks volumes about the backbench cretins that are in charge.
Bring on Jez, at least their incompetence is obvious rather than insidious.
Sixty billion quid to blow the European Union out (or even apart) is the bargain of the century.
I'm not sure 'movement' is the right word for Brexit, polls have suggested that such a result was possible/likely for many years. And my point was that Yev as an individual having voted to Leave is not a pointer for how liberal or not he is, even if many of the leading 'Leave' and Trump figures were not liberal (although it must be said many, not least Boris and Gove, were).
I personally voted Leave because long term I think the only two options are full integration or leaving, and the former is a dreadful idea. Short term worries about money here and immigration there are pretty irrelevant. Now that opinion doesn't get invalidated because Farage is a twat.
The vast majority of leavers are peaceful, law-abiding...
1) Yev doesn't represent the country, his liberalism or lack of it literally doesn't matter.
2) Doesn't that Brexit book that everyone praises, Paul Simon(?), have both Johnson and Gove thinking that it would never actually happen but it was politically the smart side of the fence to stand on?
3) See 1. I literally do not give a single shit about why or how you voted when referencing the context of the vote at large.
I also didn't vote leave.
You need choose your words more carefully. Your original post implied that you were referencing Yev's specific 'Leave' vote, not the overall result.
Paul Simon.
'The context of the vote at large' is just whatever narrative you choose to paint onto the question 'Should the UK remain a member of the European Union?', it probably obscures more things than it explains. My anti-globalist explanation is also going to be imperfect because there is a whole patchwork of reasons why people voted it through.
The fact of us being a liberal country hasn't changed, because liberalism is a necessary result of globalisation (which itself is an inevitability), and it won't change until we do something mental and world-breaking like nationalising land or opening up concentration camps for gays.
Definitely not. You can clearly read it about three ways if you so wish. This was @John btw, I'm battling a bug in Google Chrome with quotes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote