Discussion:
Grenfell model
Add Reply
Sid Nuncius
2018-11-07 07:37:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.

To me it was, without question, a wholly obnoxious, offensive act
without redeeming features of any kind. I can't imagine how *anyone*
would think it in any way acceptable and I hope those involved have to
live in the shame and opprobrium for many years to come. However...

I am slightly uncomfortable that this is being treated as a criminal
matter. It has obviously caused genuine hurt to a lot of people and I'd
be happy to see a civil action launched for redress. But criminal?
Hmmm. Obviously there need to be some limits to freedom of speech; I
think the law should protect people from intimidation and the incitement
to violence, for example, and there are some other instances. Where the
line should be drawn is rightly a matter for continual debate. But is
it really right that even grossly offensive and hurtful things like this
should be treated as criminal matters?

I think I worry that we're starting to believe that people have the
right not to be offended. Personally, I don't think we do and I
certainly wouldn't want to see anything like it incorporated into law.
I don't like being offended, obviously, but I accept that once I start
behaving as though offending me is in some way illegal, surely that will
end with any debate being instantly shut down as soon as someone
declares "I am offended by that." [1]

I repeat, I am disgusted that anyone should have done something so
appallingly, wilfully hurtful and I find it utterly repellent. I think
such behaviour is entirely unacceptable in a civilised society. But,
much as I want to see them brought low, I'm slightly disturbed that
people have been arrested for it.

[1]Yes, I am aware of the term "snowflake" but I try to avoid using it.
I think it's one of those words whose use tends to bring actual thought
and exchange of ideas to an end in any discussion.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Jim Easterbrook
2018-11-07 08:10:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
[snip]

I agree with everything you've written Sid. I suspect this may be being
used to establish precedent on how far this fairly new law goes. They
have been arrested, but it'll be up to the CPS to decide if they'll be
charged. It is, quite properly, not the police's job to decide that.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Chris J Dixon
2018-11-07 08:15:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
[snip]
I agree with everything you've written Sid. I suspect this may be being
used to establish precedent on how far this fairly new law goes. They
have been arrested, but it'll be up to the CPS to decide if they'll be
charged. It is, quite properly, not the police's job to decide that.
+1

I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?

It does feel like a knee-jerk reaction. Reprehensible is not the
same as illegal.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
LFS
2018-11-07 08:37:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
[snip]
I agree with everything you've written Sid. I suspect this may be being
used to establish precedent on how far this fairly new law goes. They
have been arrested, but it'll be up to the CPS to decide if they'll be
charged. It is, quite properly, not the police's job to decide that.
+1
+1
Post by Chris J Dixon
I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?
I think this is an important point. Some reports say that this was a
private event and that the video was not intended to be shared beyond a
limited group. There must be many groups who privately do offensive but
not necessarily illegal things. (I have to say that very occasionally a
BTN gives me pause.) Is it in the public interest to make such things
public?

I find it interesting that the perpetrators handed themselves in. Would
the police have pursued the issue if they hadn't done so? I wonder if
they sought legal advice once they realised that the video was out there.
Post by Chris J Dixon
It does feel like a knee-jerk reaction. Reprehensible is not the
same as illegal.
Indeed.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Nick Odell
2018-11-07 09:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
[snip]
I agree with everything you've written Sid. I suspect this may be being
used to establish precedent on how far this fairly new law goes. They
have been arrested, but it'll be up to the CPS to decide if they'll be
charged. It is, quite properly, not the police's job to decide that.
+1
+1
Post by Chris J Dixon
I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?
I think this is an important point. Some reports say that this was a
private event and that the video was not intended to be shared beyond a
limited group. There must be many groups who privately do offensive but
not necessarily illegal things. (I have to say that very occasionally a
BTN gives me pause.) Is it in the public interest to make such things
public?
I find it interesting that the perpetrators handed themselves in. Would
the police have pursued the issue if they hadn't done so? I wonder if
they sought legal advice once they realised that the video was out there.
Post by Chris J Dixon
It does feel like a knee-jerk reaction. Reprehensible is not the
same as illegal.
Indeed.
I'm in agreement with the general opinion here. I'd like to know on what
basis the magistrate granted a warrant to search the property: that
smells to me like desperately fishing for something unrelated to charge
someone with to justify all the police time spent in the limelight.

Meanwhile, in Lewes, Sussex as in many other places, they were burning
effigies of real people. That makes me uncomfortable too.

Nick
krw
2018-11-07 09:44:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Meanwhile, in Lewes, Sussex as in many other places, they were burning
effigies of real people. That makes me uncomfortable too.
In general terms I agree with Sid's original comments. I do not believe
the perpetrators should gain a criminal record for their poor mental
behaviour.

However there is a need to draw a distinction between political
commentary (burning effigies of politicians from Trump to Putin) on one
side and reminding innocent people of the loss of family members on the
other side (due to a combination of poor political and operational
decisions - a number of which might have ameliorated the loss of life at
Grenfell).

On a completely unrelated topic but perhaps representative of the world
going mad. I was watching Paddington 24/7 (a TV programme about how not
to run railway line out of Paddington).

Sadly an individual had been hit by a train (location unclear but it was
implied on the approaches to Paddington). Emergency services are called
to attend. For reasons unclear platform staff contact the signalling
control at Didcot and demand the overhead power being turned off to
allow safe access to the individual. Quite possibly the emergency
services made this request because they are used to working on
Southern/LU lines which are electrified at ground level and need the
power cutting to ensure safety.

Network Rail route control at Swindon need to keep the train service
running and can use the main lines (the local lines are obviously
blocked by the obstruction) to keep a partial service running and
contact Emergency services control to warn that the overhead power will
be on - but they should not be climbing on trains anyway.

The word comes back that the power has been anyway because of the
request from platform staff and all trains are therefore at a standstill.

Apart from the idiocy of not having route control co-located with the
signalling team which idiot has not trained the platform staff and the
emergency services staff on the differences between ground level and
overhead electrification and indeed how requests for a power turn off
should be applied? The link to Grenfell to my mind is that no-one is
allowed to consider thinking time.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Nick Odell
2018-11-07 11:05:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
[snip]
I agree with everything you've written Sid. I suspect this may be being
used to establish precedent on how far this fairly new law goes. They
have been arrested, but it'll be up to the CPS to decide if they'll be
charged. It is, quite properly, not the police's job to decide that.
+1
+1
Post by Chris J Dixon
I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?
I think this is an important point. Some reports say that this was a
private event and that the video was not intended to be shared beyond
a limited group. There must be many groups who privately do offensive
but not necessarily illegal things. (I have to say that very
occasionally a BTN gives me pause.) Is it in the public interest to
make such things public?
I find it interesting that the perpetrators handed themselves in.
Would the police have pursued the issue if they hadn't done so? I
wonder if they sought legal advice once they realised that the video
was out there.
Post by Chris J Dixon
It does feel like a knee-jerk reaction. Reprehensible is not the
same as illegal.
Indeed.
I'm in agreement with the general opinion here. I'd like to know on what
basis the magistrate granted a warrant to search the property: that
smells to me like desperately fishing for something unrelated to charge
someone with to justify all the police time spent in the limelight.
Meanwhile, in Lewes, Sussex as in many other places, they were burning
effigies of real people. That makes me uncomfortable too.
I've been advised in Another Place that they don't need a warrant to
search premises of an arrested person - Section 18 PACE

The rest of my comments still stand.

Nick
Nick Odell
2018-11-07 11:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Nick Odell
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
[snip]
I agree with everything you've written Sid. I suspect this may be being
used to establish precedent on how far this fairly new law goes. They
have been arrested, but it'll be up to the CPS to decide if they'll be
charged. It is, quite properly, not the police's job to decide that.
+1
+1
Post by Chris J Dixon
I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?
I think this is an important point. Some reports say that this was a
private event and that the video was not intended to be shared beyond
a limited group. There must be many groups who privately do offensive
but not necessarily illegal things. (I have to say that very
occasionally a BTN gives me pause.) Is it in the public interest to
make such things public?
I find it interesting that the perpetrators handed themselves in.
Would the police have pursued the issue if they hadn't done so? I
wonder if they sought legal advice once they realised that the video
was out there.
Post by Chris J Dixon
It does feel like a knee-jerk reaction. Reprehensible is not the
same as illegal.
Indeed.
I'm in agreement with the general opinion here. I'd like to know on
that smells to me like desperately fishing for something unrelated to
charge someone with to justify all the police time spent in the
limelight.
Meanwhile, in Lewes, Sussex as in many other places, they were burning
effigies of real people. That makes me uncomfortable too.
I've been advised in Another Place that they don't need a warrant to
search premises of an arrested person - Section 18 PACE [1]
The rest of my comments still stand.
[1] Or even PACE 32(2)(b) as amended by SOCPA 2005 as someone else put it.

N
Vicky Ayech
2018-11-07 11:51:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 09:20:07 +0000, Nick Odell
Post by Nick Odell
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
[snip]
I agree with everything you've written Sid. I suspect this may be being
used to establish precedent on how far this fairly new law goes. They
have been arrested, but it'll be up to the CPS to decide if they'll be
charged. It is, quite properly, not the police's job to decide that.
+1
+1
Post by Chris J Dixon
I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?
I think this is an important point. Some reports say that this was a
private event and that the video was not intended to be shared beyond a
limited group. There must be many groups who privately do offensive but
not necessarily illegal things. (I have to say that very occasionally a
BTN gives me pause.) Is it in the public interest to make such things
public?
I find it interesting that the perpetrators handed themselves in. Would
the police have pursued the issue if they hadn't done so? I wonder if
they sought legal advice once they realised that the video was out there.
Post by Chris J Dixon
It does feel like a knee-jerk reaction. Reprehensible is not the
same as illegal.
Indeed.
I'm in agreement with the general opinion here. I'd like to know on what
basis the magistrate granted a warrant to search the property: that
smells to me like desperately fishing for something unrelated to charge
someone with to justify all the police time spent in the limelight.
Meanwhile, in Lewes, Sussex as in many other places, they were burning
effigies of real people. That makes me uncomfortable too.
Nick
I pretty much agree too that it was bad taste and offensive but not
criminal. I think they were released and it was being investigated as
to whether to charge them with causing fear and alarm but I can't
recall the working exactly.

We've been enjoying burning Guys for centuries. They are Catholic. Is
it different from Boris etc because they were a long time ago or
because they were convicted criminals?
Penny
2018-11-07 12:44:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Nov 2018 11:51:07 +0000, Vicky Ayech <***@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Vicky Ayech
We've been enjoying burning Guys for centuries. They are Catholic. Is
it different from Boris etc because they were a long time ago or
because they were convicted criminals?
I was surprise to learn the other day (from a London Mudlark post on
instagram) that the celebration of 5th November (and the failure of the
plot) was the result of the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 which was
passed by parliament in January 1606. It remained in force until 1859 and
included services and sermons commemorating the event. Effigies burned were
usually Guy Fawkes (why did they pick on him?) or the Pope.

As the tradition has been kept going for a further 160 years it seems
entirely reasonable that new baddies should be burnt in effigy.

I remember going to watch the Lewis parades once when I was very small and
being amazed and delighted by the costumes. I don't think we stayed for the
fireworks or the bonfires. I was a bit worried for a while by effigies
called Guy as this was my father's name.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Nick Odell
2018-11-07 14:47:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Vicky Ayech
We've been enjoying burning Guys for centuries. They are Catholic. Is
it different from Boris etc because they were a long time ago or
because they were convicted criminals?
I was surprise to learn the other day (from a London Mudlark post on
instagram) that the celebration of 5th November (and the failure of the
plot) was the result of the Observance of 5th November Act 1605 which was
passed by parliament in January 1606. It remained in force until 1859 and
included services and sermons commemorating the event. Effigies burned were
usually Guy Fawkes (why did they pick on him?) or the Pope.
As the tradition has been kept going for a further 160 years it seems
entirely reasonable that new baddies should be burnt in effigy.
I remember going to watch the Lewis parades once when I was very small and
being amazed and delighted by the costumes. I don't think we stayed for the
fireworks or the bonfires. I was a bit worried for a while by effigies
called Guy as this was my father's name.
It would have been my name too[1] if I hadn't hurried up certain
proceedings by about two hours.

Nick
[1]Or so my parents used to tease
Penny
2018-11-07 19:31:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:47:37 +0000, Nick Odell
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Penny
fireworks or the bonfires. I was a bit worried for a while by effigies
called Guy as this was my father's name.
It would have been my name too[1] if I hadn't hurried up certain
proceedings by about two hours.
Nick
[1]Or so my parents used to tease
Ah, my father's first name was Christopher because he was born on 25
December but everyone outside his immediate family knew him as Guy (the
name his own father used, though it was also his middle name).
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-11-07 10:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
[snip]
I agree with everything you've written Sid. I suspect this may be being
used to establish precedent on how far this fairly new law goes. They
have been arrested, but it'll be up to the CPS to decide if they'll be
charged. It is, quite properly, not the police's job to decide that.
+1
+1
Post by Chris J Dixon
I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?
Or the medium? I haven't actually seen any outright suggestion of that,
but I know a lot of people - and some organisations (including _some_ of
the previously-existing media) - have a strong dislike, and distrust, of
social media, and I can't help reading between the lines some glee that
this was promulgated that way, and a small part of the opprobrium might
be from those who'd wish to have more controls on it. (For the record:
although I don't use social media [the modern sense of, i. e. twitter,
Facebook and the like; I use usenet, which I find very social!], I do
_not_ have anything against those who do, and can see that a lot of
people derive much enjoyment from it. I have a similar attitude to
smoking, as long as it doesn't impinge on me: although a lifelong
non-smoker, I feel the way smokers are treated is often excessive. [And
I know that's not _quite_ the same, since smoking is definitely bad for
you, whereas IMO any adverse effects of the use of social media are "not
proven", but it's a close parallel IMO.])
Post by LFS
I think this is an important point. Some reports say that this was a
private event and that the video was not intended to be shared beyond a
limited group. There must be many groups who privately do offensive but
not necessarily illegal things. (I have to say that very occasionally a
Nazi re-enactors, extreme right (or left) groups in general; _anything_
secret (e. g. Masonic activities [I'm not one though was once invited,
many years ago]). That's another thing: the desire for _privacy_ itself
is often regarded as suspicious these days.
Post by LFS
BTN gives me pause.) Is it in the public interest to make such things
public?
IMO, no. As long as no-one is harmed. In this case, I'd say a borderline
question might be whether children were present at the reported event -
though even there I tend to be wary, because "children" tends to be a
word that brings on the red mist in many people and end rational debate.
Post by LFS
I find it interesting that the perpetrators handed themselves in. Would
Yes, fascinating.
Post by LFS
the police have pursued the issue if they hadn't done so? I wonder if
they sought legal advice once they realised that the video was out there.
I suspect they were given the advice.
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
It does feel like a knee-jerk reaction. Reprehensible is not the
same as illegal.
Indeed.
Yes, well put.
4
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)
Fenny
2018-11-08 00:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
[snip]
I agree with everything you've written Sid. I suspect this may be being
used to establish precedent on how far this fairly new law goes. They
have been arrested, but it'll be up to the CPS to decide if they'll be
charged. It is, quite properly, not the police's job to decide that.
+1
+1
+another
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?
I think this is an important point. Some reports say that this was a
private event and that the video was not intended to be shared beyond a
limited group. There must be many groups who privately do offensive but
not necessarily illegal things. (I have to say that very occasionally a
BTN gives me pause.) Is it in the public interest to make such things
public?
To me, this is the problem with modern social media companies. I used
to be a member of a few private groups on FB, in which we posted all
kinds of personal information that we trusted that other members of
the group wouldn't share. However, it is incredibly easy for someone
to make that information public.
Post by LFS
I find it interesting that the perpetrators handed themselves in. Would
the police have pursued the issue if they hadn't done so? I wonder if
they sought legal advice once they realised that the video was out there.
Given what types of actual crimes the police are saying they will no
longer be investigating, if they did spend any time in pursuing the
issue, I think a lot of people would be questioning their priorities.
There are major thefts, assaults, criminal damage and motor crimes
going on which come a lot further up the list for investigation than a
bunch of people being obnoxious gits.
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
It does feel like a knee-jerk reaction. Reprehensible is not the
same as illegal.
Exactly.
--
Fenny
BrritSki
2018-11-08 10:20:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
...
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?
I think this is an important point. Some reports say that this was a
private event and that the video was not intended to be shared beyond a
limited group. There must be many groups who privately do offensive but
not necessarily illegal things. (I have to say that very occasionally a
BTN gives me pause.) Is it in the public interest to make such things
public?
I came close to making a BTN attempt mentioning Grenfell in reply to
Mrs. McToodles "singed" post, but even I did not feel comfortable with it :/

I agree with most of what has been said in this thread. If it had been
kept private it would have still been reprehensible, but nobody would
have known. I know I have done and said things in the past that I would
not like being made public now, although none of them were criminal :/

Same with Sitwell's ill-advised joke about killing vegans. That was a
private email aiui, so not sure about the ethics of it being made public
especially as the addressee claims she was not personally offended by it
iirc. Maybe she saw the context of the whole email and knew it was meant
as a joke, just like our BTNs.

Roger Scruton is also being, erm, scrutonised for things he has said.
The so-called anti-semitic content was taken completely out of context
as was shown on the Order-Order website yesterday, and as Toby Young
said on Toady this morning, even if you disagree with his comments about
say gay adoption, he surely has a right to hold those opinions ? And how
long ago did he say them ? TY used a great phrase "archeological
outrage" to describe this digging through the past and finding things
that were completely the norm back then but are abhorrent today.
Farewell Roald Dahl and all your works.

I have just taken a picture of the geometric tiles in Ceriana post
office that clearly show a swastika in the pattern. I will be starting a
camapign to demolish the building immediately, even though the tiles are
at least a hundred years old :(
John Ashby
2018-11-08 13:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
...
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?
I think this is an important point. Some reports say that this was a
private event and that the video was not intended to be shared beyond
a limited group. There must be many groups who privately do offensive
but not necessarily illegal things. (I have to say that very
occasionally a BTN gives me pause.) Is it in the public interest to
make such things public?
I came close to making a BTN attempt mentioning Grenfell in reply to
Mrs. McToodles "singed" post, but even I did not feel comfortable with it :/
I agree with most of what has been said in this thread. If it had been
kept private it would have still been reprehensible, but nobody would
have known. I know I have done and said things in the past that I would
not like being made public now, although none of them were criminal :/
Same with Sitwell's ill-advised joke about killing vegans. That was a
private email aiui, so not sure about the ethics of it being made public
especially as the addressee claims she was not personally offended by it
iirc. Maybe she saw the context of the whole email and knew it was meant
as a joke, just like our BTNs.
Roger Scruton is also being, erm, scrutonised for things he has said.
The so-called anti-semitic content was taken completely out of context
as was shown on the Order-Order website yesterday,
Yes and no. Overall his comment was about the antisemitism in Hungarian
culture and the justified fear of the Jewish population, but his use of
the phrase "network of the Soros Empire" (or however he worded it) was
unnecessary and too dog-whistlish for comfort.
Post by BrritSki
and as Toby Young
said on Toady this morning, even if you disagree with his comments about
say gay adoption, he surely has a right to hold those opinions ?
That does not confer a right to be given any position unchallenged, of
course.
Post by BrritSki
And how
long ago did he say them ?  TY used a great phrase "archeological
outrage" to describe this digging through the past and finding things
that were completely the norm back then but are abhorrent today.
Farewell Roald Dahl and all your works.
Which can only be a good thing, IMO. But on literary grounds.
Post by BrritSki
I have just taken a picture of the geometric tiles in Ceriana post
office that clearly show a swastika in the pattern. I will be starting a
camapign to demolish the building immediately, even though the tiles are
at least a hundred years old :(
And the works of Rudyard Kipling.

john
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-11-08 14:39:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
Post by John Ashby
Post by BrritSki
I have just taken a picture of the geometric tiles in Ceriana post
office that clearly show a swastika in the pattern. I will be starting
a camapign to demolish the building immediately, even though the
tiles are at least a hundred years old :(
Reclaim the Swastika. It's an ancient symbol - I think it can be seen in
old Greek or Indian (possibly both) architectural decoration; it
certainly predates its use on Hitlerfahnen. (Their innovation perhaps
being to rotate it 45 degrees.) It's not even a German word - I've often
wondered where it _did_ come from; the German for it, at least as used
in that period, is just Hakenkreuz (sp?), which just means hook-cross.

(I remember sometime in the last 20 years or so a prog. about someone
who tried to reclaim what had previously been called the toothbrush
moustache. I don't think he had much luck.)
Post by John Ashby
And the works of Rudyard Kipling.
Not to mention Baden-Powell.
Post by John Ashby
john
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"In the _car_-park? What are you doing there?" "Parking cars, what else does
one
do in a car-park?" (First series, fit the fifth.)
Jenny M Benson
2018-11-08 16:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(I remember sometime in the last 20 years or so a prog. about someone
who tried to reclaim what had previously been called the toothbrush
moustache. I don't think he had much luck.)
That was comedian (1) Richard Herring.

(1) Depending on your understanding of "comedy".
--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/
Nick Odell
2018-11-08 14:54:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Ashby
Post by BrritSki
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
...
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?
I think this is an important point. Some reports say that this was a
private event and that the video was not intended to be shared beyond
a limited group. There must be many groups who privately do offensive
but not necessarily illegal things. (I have to say that very
occasionally a BTN gives me pause.) Is it in the public interest to
make such things public?
I came close to making a BTN attempt mentioning Grenfell in reply to
Mrs. McToodles "singed" post, but even I did not feel comfortable with it :/
I agree with most of what has been said in this thread. If it had been
kept private it would have still been reprehensible, but nobody would
have known. I know I have done and said things in the past that I
would not like being made public now, although none of them were
criminal :/
Same with Sitwell's ill-advised joke about killing vegans. That was a
private email aiui, so not sure about the ethics of it being made
public especially as the addressee claims she was not personally
offended by it iirc. Maybe she saw the context of the whole email and
knew it was meant as a joke, just like our BTNs.
Roger Scruton is also being, erm, scrutonised for things he has said.
The so-called anti-semitic content was taken completely out of context
as was shown on the Order-Order website yesterday,
Yes and no. Overall his comment was about the antisemitism in Hungarian
culture and the justified fear  of the Jewish population, but his use of
the phrase "network of the Soros Empire" (or however he worded it) was
unnecessary and too dog-whistlish for comfort.
Post by BrritSki
and as Toby Young said on Toady this morning, even if you disagree
with his comments about say gay adoption, he surely has a right to
hold those opinions ?
That does not confer a right to be given any position unchallenged, of
course.
Post by BrritSki
And how long ago did he say them ?  TY used a great phrase
"archeological outrage" to describe this digging through the past and
finding things that were completely the norm back then but are
abhorrent today. Farewell Roald Dahl and all your works.
Which can only be a good thing, IMO. But on literary grounds.
Post by BrritSki
I have just taken a picture of the geometric tiles in Ceriana post
office that clearly show a swastika in the pattern. I will be starting
a camapign to demolish the building immediately, even though the tiles
are at least a hundred years old :(
And the works of Rudyard Kipling.
While we are at it, we'd better ban that novella by Joseph Conrad.
Perhaps we ought to ban all his books - just in case.

Nick
BrritSki
2018-11-08 17:16:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Ashby
Post by BrritSki
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
...
Post by LFS
Post by Chris J Dixon
I wonder if the fact that it was publicised on social media is
what may be significant. Do you finger the perpetrators or the
poster?
I think this is an important point. Some reports say that this was a
private event and that the video was not intended to be shared beyond
a limited group. There must be many groups who privately do offensive
but not necessarily illegal things. (I have to say that very
occasionally a BTN gives me pause.) Is it in the public interest to
make such things public?
I came close to making a BTN attempt mentioning Grenfell in reply to
Mrs. McToodles "singed" post, but even I did not feel comfortable with it :/
I agree with most of what has been said in this thread. If it had been
kept private it would have still been reprehensible, but nobody would
have known. I know I have done and said things in the past that I
would not like being made public now, although none of them were
criminal :/
Same with Sitwell's ill-advised joke about killing vegans. That was a
private email aiui, so not sure about the ethics of it being made
public especially as the addressee claims she was not personally
offended by it iirc. Maybe she saw the context of the whole email and
knew it was meant as a joke, just like our BTNs.
Roger Scruton is also being, erm, scrutonised for things he has said.
The so-called anti-semitic content was taken completely out of context
as was shown on the Order-Order website yesterday,
Yes and no. Overall his comment was about the antisemitism in Hungarian
culture and the justified fear  of the Jewish population, but his use of
the phrase "network of the Soros Empire" (or however he worded it) was
unnecessary and too dog-whistlish for comfort.
This article explains why it was used:
<https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/in-defence-of-roger-scruton/> [1]

I am unable to find the full text of the original, but this seems to be
reasonable. I am completely against anti-semitism and people who are
that way disposed, but I am also against people being damned by
out-of-context quotes. I believe that Jeremy Corbyn falls into both
these groups :/

[1] and a related interesting article here:
<https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/opinion-rod-liddles-journey-im-woke-to-the-new-antisemitism/>
Penny
2018-11-07 12:24:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 7 Nov 2018 08:10:40 GMT, Jim Easterbrook <***@jim-easterbrook.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
[snip]
I agree with everything you've written Sid. I suspect this may be being
used to establish precedent on how far this fairly new law goes. They
have been arrested, but it'll be up to the CPS to decide if they'll be
charged. It is, quite properly, not the police's job to decide that.
+1
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
krw
2018-11-08 10:40:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Easterbrook
but it'll be up to the CPS to decide if they'll be
charged. It is, quite properly, not the police's job to decide that.
Agreed but judging by some high profile "non" cases of recent years I do
wonder if the CPS are being influenced by either political beliefs or
possible public witch hunts over which cases to pursue rather than
ensuring the facts justify a charge being made?

The last two Directors of Public Prosecution both seem to have widely
stated views on certain matters and I wonder if such high profile
screaming from the rooftops is entirely consistent with the independence
needed of the judiciary system.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Serena Blanchflower
2018-11-07 09:44:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people burning a
model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on social media.
To me it was, without question, a wholly obnoxious, offensive act
without redeeming features of any kind.  I can't imagine how *anyone*
would think it in any way acceptable and I hope those involved have to
live in the shame and opprobrium for many years to come.  However...
I am slightly uncomfortable that this is being treated as a criminal
matter.  It has obviously caused genuine hurt to a lot of people and I'd
be happy to see a civil action launched for redress.  But criminal?
Hmmm.  Obviously there need to be some limits to freedom of speech; I
think the law should protect people from intimidation and the incitement
to violence, for example, and there are some other instances.  Where the
line should be drawn is rightly a matter for continual debate.  But is
it really right that even grossly offensive and hurtful things like this
should be treated as criminal matters?
I think I worry that we're starting to believe that people have the
right not to be offended.  Personally, I don't think we do and I
certainly wouldn't want to see anything like it incorporated into law. I
don't like being offended, obviously, but I accept that once I start
behaving as though offending me is in some way illegal, surely that will
end with any debate being instantly shut down as soon as someone
declares "I am offended by that." [1]
I repeat, I am disgusted that anyone should have done something so
appallingly, wilfully hurtful and I find it utterly repellent. I think
such behaviour is entirely unacceptable in a civilised society.  But,
much as I want to see them brought low, I'm slightly disturbed that
people have been arrested for it.
[1]Yes, I am aware of the term "snowflake" but I try to avoid using it.
I think it's one of those words whose use tends to bring actual thought
and exchange of ideas to an end in any discussion.
<languid wave>

Well said Sid!
--
Best wishes, Serena
I love people who make me laugh. I honestly think it's the thing I like
most, to laugh. It cures a multitude of ills. It's probably the most
important thing in a person. (Audrey Hepburn)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-11-07 10:07:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by Sid Nuncius
I wondered what otherrats think of this business of the people
burning a model of Grenfell Tower and the footage being posted on
social media.
To me it was, without question, a wholly obnoxious, offensive act
without redeeming features of any kind.  I can't imagine how *anyone*
would think it in any way acceptable and I hope those involved have to
live in the shame and opprobrium for many years to come.  However...
I am slightly uncomfortable that this is being treated as a criminal
matter.  It has obviously caused genuine hurt to a lot of people and
I'd be happy to see a civil action launched for redress.  But
criminal? Hmmm.  Obviously there need to be some limits to freedom of
speech; I think the law should protect people from intimidation and
the incitement to violence, for example, and there are some other
instances.  Where the line should be drawn is rightly a matter for
continual debate.  But is it really right that even grossly offensive
and hurtful things like this should be treated as criminal matters?
I think I worry that we're starting to believe that people have the
right not to be offended.  Personally, I don't think we do and I
certainly wouldn't want to see anything like it incorporated into law.
I don't like being offended, obviously, but I accept that once I
start behaving as though offending me is in some way illegal, surely
that will end with any debate being instantly shut down as soon as
someone declares "I am offended by that." [1]
I repeat, I am disgusted that anyone should have done something so
appallingly, wilfully hurtful and I find it utterly repellent. I think
such behaviour is entirely unacceptable in a civilised society.  But,
much as I want to see them brought low, I'm slightly disturbed that
people have been arrested for it.
[1]Yes, I am aware of the term "snowflake" but I try to avoid using
it. I think it's one of those words whose use tends to bring actual
thought and exchange of ideas to an end in any discussion.
<languid wave>
Well said Sid!
+1: Very well put. I'm breaking with my usual interposting (replying
after each paragraph or so0 as I didn't want to break up the original.
Yes, I agree, it was rather reprehensible, but I too feel _very_ uneasy
about criminal action being taken over it - and any suggestion that the
right not to be offended be incorporated into any law - and I'd include
the possibility of civil redress as something that would make me uneasy,
_if_ such redress were to be in financial form (mainly, I think, because
I see that as a feeding fest possibility for the worse parts of the
legal profession). I am not sure what sort of "punishment" _is_
appropriate: I _think_ I'd prefer just the level of public hatred,
without any actual penalty - not a perfect solution, but the price to
pay for freedom of speech. (Remember we already do have the libel and
slander laws.)
I agree about the term "snowflake" - and almost any other label.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)
Sid Nuncius
2018-11-07 10:42:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
+1: Very well put. I'm breaking with my usual interposting (replying
after each paragraph or so0 as I didn't want to break up the original.
Thank you, John. And for the record, I'm glad because I very often find
your interposting almost impossible to read. Scrolling through what is
often several layers of quotes to try to pick out your most recent
comments is very difficult and the resulting fragmentation is very
off-putting for me. I much prefer it when you and others consider what
has been said, trim the original of any superfluity and respond in a
single, cohesive post.

I don't mean to moan, I just thought I'd let you know my experience.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-11-07 11:06:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
+1: Very well put. I'm breaking with my usual interposting (replying
after each paragraph or so0 as I didn't want to break up the original.
Thank you, John. And for the record, I'm glad because I very often
find your interposting almost impossible to read. Scrolling through
what is often several layers of quotes to try to pick out your most
recent comments is very difficult and the resulting fragmentation is
very off-putting for me. I much prefer it when you and others consider
what has been said, trim the original of any superfluity and respond in
a single, cohesive post.
I don't mean to moan, I just thought I'd let you know my experience.
Taken without offence. Although you should always be able to tell my
additions by the absence of ">"s, I'll try to avoid getting into deep
nests.

(Conversely, _I_ find posts which try to answer multiple points, but do
so all in one block at the end [let alone the beginning - fortunately
UMRA doesn't do _that_ very often], hard to follow - I find I'm
scrolling back and forth to see what the poster is responding to; so I'm
not going to stop interposting. But maybe I'll try to separate my bits
out more.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

31.69 nHz = once a year. (Julian Thomas)
Chris J Dixon
2018-11-07 12:12:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
so I'm
not going to stop interposting. But maybe I'll try to separate my bits
out more.)
Just watch the manspreading. ;-)

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Mike
2018-11-07 11:40:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
+1: Very well put. I'm breaking with my usual interposting (replying
after each paragraph or so0 as I didn't want to break up the original.
Thank you, John. And for the record, I'm glad because I very often find
your interposting almost impossible to read. Scrolling through what is
often several layers of quotes to try to pick out your most recent
comments is very difficult and the resulting fragmentation is very
off-putting for me. I much prefer it when you and others consider what
has been said, trim the original of any superfluity and respond in a
single, cohesive post.
I don't mean to moan, I just thought I'd let you know my experience.
Not just me then! Sorry Jpeg but, yes I find the interwoven comments very
difficult to manage and nearly give up the will to live - I don’t though,
as I don’t want to miss out on your contributions! Style difficult -
content good!
--
Toodle Pip
Penny
2018-11-07 12:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Nov 2018 11:40:34 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com> scrawled
in the dust...
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
+1: Very well put. I'm breaking with my usual interposting (replying
after each paragraph or so0 as I didn't want to break up the original.
Thank you, John. And for the record, I'm glad because I very often find
your interposting almost impossible to read. Scrolling through what is
often several layers of quotes to try to pick out your most recent
comments is very difficult and the resulting fragmentation is very
off-putting for me. I much prefer it when you and others consider what
has been said, trim the original of any superfluity and respond in a
single, cohesive post.
I don't mean to moan, I just thought I'd let you know my experience.
Not just me then! Sorry Jpeg but, yes I find the interwoven comments very
difficult to manage and nearly give up the will to live - I don’t though,
as I don’t want to miss out on your contributions! Style difficult -
content good!
Whereas I'm quite happy with it (and probably do it too) but on my reader
the old comments are all in green and the new stuff in purple (as long as
the last poster hasn't tagged onto the end of a line which starts with a
Post by Mike
).
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-11-07 14:27:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
in the dust...
[]
Post by Penny
Post by Mike
Not just me then! Sorry Jpeg but, yes I find the interwoven comments very
difficult to manage and nearly give up the will to live - I don’t though,
as I don’t want to miss out on your contributions! Style difficult -
content good!
I'm glad you like what I write, anyway!
Post by Penny
Whereas I'm quite happy with it (and probably do it too) but on my reader
the old comments are all in green and the new stuff in purple (as long as
the last poster hasn't tagged onto the end of a line which starts with a
Post by Mike
).
That can be achieved with an add-on in Thunderbird (I can dig out the
notes if anyone's interested); it's done automatically in Turnpike
(default is what I'm typing in black, previous poster in bright red, >>
poster in dark red, and other colours for earlier posters).

I hope people find this post follow-able.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The average age at which a woman has her first child has passed 30.
Jason Cowley, RT 2016/6/11-17
steveski
2018-11-07 15:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
Whereas I'm quite happy with it (and probably do it too) but on my
reader the old comments are all in green and the new stuff in purple (as
long as the last poster hasn't tagged onto the end of a line which
starts with a
).
That can be achieved with an add-on in Thunderbird (I can dig out the
notes if anyone's interested); it's done automatically in Turnpike
And Pan as well.
--
Steveski
LFS
2018-11-07 22:37:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
in the dust...
[]
Post by Penny
Post by Mike
Not just me then! Sorry Jpeg but, yes I find the interwoven comments very
difficult to manage and nearly give up the will to live - I don’t though,
as I don’t want to miss out on your contributions! Style difficult -
content good!
I'm glad you like what I write, anyway!
Post by Penny
Whereas I'm quite happy with it (and probably do it too) but on my reader
the old comments are all in green and the new stuff in purple (as long as
the last poster hasn't tagged onto the end of a line which starts with a
Post by Mike
).
That can be achieved with an add-on in Thunderbird (I can dig out the
notes if anyone's interested);
I get the green and purple in Thunderbird but don't have any add-ons.

it's done automatically in Turnpike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(default is what I'm typing in black, previous poster in bright red, >>
poster in dark red, and other colours for earlier posters).
I hope people find this post follow-able.
I like your interleaving.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-11-07 22:59:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
Post by LFS
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
Whereas I'm quite happy with it (and probably do it too) but on my reader
the old comments are all in green and the new stuff in purple (as long as
the last poster hasn't tagged onto the end of a line which starts with a
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
).
That can be achieved with an add-on in Thunderbird (I can dig out
the notes if anyone's interested);
I get the green and purple in Thunderbird but don't have any add-ons.
Ah, I didn't know that. Maybe the add-on just adds more colours, or
reverts to the ">"s rather than coloured lines.
Post by LFS
it's done automatically in Turnpike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(default is what I'm typing in black, previous poster in bright red,
Post by Penny
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
poster in dark red, and other colours for earlier posters).
I hope people find this post follow-able.
I like your interleaving.
Thanks! Nice to know it's not everyrat that doesn't. But I will try to
add more lines etc. to make it clear(er).

With apologies for thread drift - I wouldn't normally worry in UMRA, but
Sid's is a serious subject.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If vegetarians eat vegetables,..beware of humanitarians!
Serena Blanchflower
2018-11-08 09:39:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by LFS
Post by Penny
Whereas I'm quite happy with it (and probably do it too) but on my reader
the old comments are all in green and the new stuff in purple (as long as
the last poster hasn't tagged onto the end of a line which starts with a
).
 That can be achieved with an add-on in Thunderbird (I can dig out
the  notes if anyone's interested);
I get the green and purple in Thunderbird but don't have any add-ons.
Ah, I didn't know that. Maybe the add-on just adds more colours, or
reverts to the ">"s rather than coloured lines.
I think it's something which used to require an add-on but which has now
been incorporated into the basic system.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by LFS
it's done automatically in Turnpike
(default is what I'm typing in black, previous poster in bright red,
Post by Penny
 poster in dark red, and other colours for earlier posters).
 I hope people find this post follow-able.
I like your interleaving.
Thanks! Nice to know it's not everyrat that doesn't. But I will try to
add more lines etc. to make it clear(er).
On the whole, I'm another fan of interleaving but having plenty of white
space does help to differentiate the new text from the quoted bits.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
With apologies for thread drift - I wouldn't normally worry in UMRA, but Sid's is a serious subject.
I've adjusted the subject line, for that reason.
--
Best wishes, Serena
A man who trusts nobody is apt to be the kind of man nobody trusts
(Harold MacMillan)
Sally Thompson
2018-11-07 12:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
+1: Very well put. I'm breaking with my usual interposting (replying
after each paragraph or so0 as I didn't want to break up the original.
Thank you, John. And for the record, I'm glad because I very often find
your interposting almost impossible to read. Scrolling through what is
often several layers of quotes to try to pick out your most recent
comments is very difficult and the resulting fragmentation is very
off-putting for me. I much prefer it when you and others consider what
has been said, trim the original of any superfluity and respond in a
single, cohesive post.
I don't mean to moan, I just thought I'd let you know my experience.
Not just me then! Sorry Jpeg but, yes I find the interwoven comments very
difficult to manage and nearly give up the will to live - I don’t though,
as I don’t want to miss out on your contributions! Style difficult -
content good!
I can cope with the interweaving - it's the symbols for emphasis I find
particularly difficult, as in /this/ or _that_. I agree with the others
that I do plough through because I like what you write. Sorry!
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Penny
2018-11-07 12:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 7 Nov 2018 12:34:23 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
I can cope with the interweaving - it's the symbols for emphasis I find
particularly difficult, as in /this/ or _that_. I agree with the others
that I do plough through because I like what you write. Sorry!
Some usenet readers actually render /this/ in italic, *that* in bold and
_the other_ underlined (without the symbols).
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-11-07 14:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
On 7 Nov 2018 12:34:23 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
I can cope with the interweaving - it's the symbols for emphasis I find
particularly difficult, as in /this/ or _that_. I agree with the others
that I do plough through because I like what you write. Sorry!
Some usenet readers actually render /this/ in italic, *that* in bold and
_the other_ underlined (without the symbols).
And in some (I think including Thunderbird) that interpretation is an
option that can be turned on and off. (FWIW, I rarely use other than the
_underline_.)

Would you (Sally) prefer some other means of emphasis - if so what? (I
don't like SHOUTING.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The average age at which a woman has her first child has passed 30.
Jason Cowley, RT 2016/6/11-17
Nick Odell
2018-11-07 14:42:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
On 7 Nov 2018 12:34:23 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
I can cope with the interweaving - it's the symbols for emphasis I find
particularly difficult, as in /this/ or _that_. I agree with the others
that I do plough through because I like what you write. Sorry!
Some usenet readers actually render /this/ in italic, *that* in bold and
_the other_ underlined (without the symbols).
Thunderbird is rendering them and showing me the symbols which seems
like too much of a good thing.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
And in some (I think including Thunderbird) that interpretation is an
option that can be turned on and off.
If anyrat knows how to do that, I'd love to give it a try. Nothing in
the menu looks as though that was what it was intended to do and from
past experience I no longer meddle with the settings unless I know what
they are supposed to do and how to unmeddle them.
<snip>

Nick
Sally Thompson
2018-11-07 16:10:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
On 7 Nov 2018 12:34:23 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
I can cope with the interweaving - it's the symbols for emphasis I find
particularly difficult, as in /this/ or _that_. I agree with the others
that I do plough through because I like what you write. Sorry!
Some usenet readers actually render /this/ in italic, *that* in bold and
_the other_ underlined (without the symbols).
Yes, but if they don't it's hard to read, and the emphasis is rarely
necessary.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Fenny
2018-11-08 00:20:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 7 Nov 2018 16:10:06 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by Penny
On 7 Nov 2018 12:34:23 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
I can cope with the interweaving - it's the symbols for emphasis I find
particularly difficult, as in /this/ or _that_. I agree with the others
that I do plough through because I like what you write. Sorry!
Some usenet readers actually render /this/ in italic, *that* in bold and
_the other_ underlined (without the symbols).
Yes, but if they don't it's hard to read, and the emphasis is rarely
necessary.
I agree.
--
Fenny
Derek Turner
2018-11-07 13:05:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
I am slightly uncomfortable that this is being treated as a criminal
matter. It has obviously caused genuine hurt to a lot of people and I'd
be happy to see a civil action launched for redress. But criminal?
Hmmm.
If it had just happened in a private garden then I'd agree with you, Sid.
To my mind it became a criminal offence when the video was uploaded ,
which made it very public.
Sid Nuncius
2018-11-07 18:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Derek Turner
Post by Sid Nuncius
I am slightly uncomfortable that this is being treated as a criminal
matter. It has obviously caused genuine hurt to a lot of people and I'd
be happy to see a civil action launched for redress. But criminal?
Hmmm.
If it had just happened in a private garden then I'd agree with you, Sid.
To my mind it became a criminal offence when the video was uploaded ,
which made it very public.
I'm still not sure that should make it criminal.

I have since learned that the model was adorned (apparently gleefully,
but I suppose that's debatable) with pictures of people with dark skins
at the windows. This does give it a much more sinister edge than I at
first thought, and moves it beyond the merely tasteless and offensive.
I still baulk a little at the idea that it should be criminal, though.
Actually inciting the deaths of certain groups is against the law _
quite rightly, IMO. Expressing pleasure at their deaths in these
circumstances (which is, at least, what appears to have happened) is
revolting and something to which I am utterly opposed - but I don't know
that it should be criminal.

As I said before, these are difficult lines to draw and the lines may
move as circumstances change. Personally I'm not much for banning
things. I'm generally in favour of allowing as much freedom of
expression as possible and arguing against what I find unacceptable.
This is one of those tricky ones where I don't feel wholly comfortable
on either side of the line, but I think I feel less uncomfortable on the
not-making-it-criminal side.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Loading...