Spockydog Posted October 17, 2021 Author Share Posted October 17, 2021 Just another fetid right wing rag making shit up to cause trouble. This is still being reported (Express, Mail, Spectator, Telegraph) despite the priest telling everyone he has never spoken to these vultures. He was at the scene, praying the Rosary, and did not attempt to enter the crime scene at any point. He also refused to speak to any press while at the scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted October 17, 2021 Share Posted October 17, 2021 How's that a story even if it was true? We should absolutely stop someone interfering with a crime scene to administer last rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted October 17, 2021 Share Posted October 17, 2021 21 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: How's that a story even if it was true? I would absolutely stop someone interfering with a crime scene to administer last rights. Not to mention efforts were no doubt underway to preserve his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 17, 2021 Share Posted October 17, 2021 Gosh it's easy to buy one's way into sovereign Little England -- Newcastle United supporters wave Saudi flags and don Saudi garb today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted October 17, 2021 Share Posted October 17, 2021 44 minutes ago, Zorral said: Gosh it's easy to buy one's way into sovereign Little England -- Newcastle United supporters wave Saudi flags and don Saudi garb today! For all the good it did them (even with Spurs giving them an own goal to help them along). I suspect doing that may have pissed off Spurs supporters and players and gave them a reason to play better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 17, 2021 Share Posted October 17, 2021 BREXIT surely had put paid to this sort of outsider stuff surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 13 hours ago, BigFatCoward said: How's that a story even if it was true? We should absolutely stop someone interfering with a crime scene to administer last rights. Kinda reminds me of the last scene of God’s not dead. I like to imagine what the reaction would be if it was a rabbi or Muslim cleric who got hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted October 18, 2021 Author Share Posted October 18, 2021 Oh, look. Another 'do as we say, not as we do' shitstorm is incoming. Last year, when the rest of us were prohibited from spending Christmas with our loved ones, guess who broke his own lockdown laws in order to have a friend over for Christmas? You guessed it kids, it was Glorious Leader, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Today, Downing Street has veered from initial outright denial, to barefacedly claiming that Nimco Ali was actually invited to Downing Street in order to provide childcare. What in the actual fuck? Do they think we all have zips up the back our heads? Well, some of us obviously do, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 Given how many people bent the rules over Christmas regarding what exactly is a support bubble, this is probably going to be a storm in a teacup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted October 18, 2021 Author Share Posted October 18, 2021 I agree. The fact that rules which apply to the rest of us do not apply to them has been completely normalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 Interesting article on the problems faced in the agricultural sector. I just finished watching Clarkson's Farm and it was a genuinely mind-boggling exploration of how much work it takes to make a farm in the UK work, and the absolutely ludicrous profit margins they work with. At the end of the series Clarkson tots up his profit for the year and notes it's come to a grand profit of £133, and even that was because he'd massively diversified across many different crop types and ancillary products (only possible because in a fit of madness he decided to buy a 1,000-acre farm, five times the UK average, which gives him the space to do that), and even then notes his income was much better than most farmers because he had 7 million people on Twitter to encourage to visit his farm shop or order from it, and Amazon was kind of bank-rolling the whole thing (he moans a lot about spending his own money on stuff, which is a bit of a stretch, since I doubt he accepted anything less than a seven figure sum from Amazon to do the project). And apart from one genuine mistake that was his own (getting a small flock of sheep which was never going to make any kind of profit), everything else mostly worked out for him, and he had some pretty good people working for him and several dodgy gambles he embarked on actually paid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 When you say profit, does that mean after all expenses including the living expenses of the family, which is usually attributed as a farm expense if you set yourself up right? He made life hard for himself by massively diversifying. If you are going to be a market garden, then yeah grow a variety of stuff, but that is usually on just a few acres. For a 1000 acre farm it's better for focus on a couple of things, or better still just one thing. And don't plan to make a profit for a couple of years, if you are starting from scratch. Average farm size here is 660-ish acres. Farms that size tend to do just one thing and don't attempt to make their main income from direct sales to consumers, and most of their product goes to export. Average farm size of 200 acres isn't brilliant for production efficiency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/18/pm-urged-to-enact-davids-law-against-social-media-abuse-after-amesss-death Discussion going around about bringing in ‘David’s law’ to crack down on online social media abuse, specifically getting rid of anonymity. Obviously quite a few problems with this.. firstly the tragic death of David Amess had nothing to do with online social media abuse and looks to be an act of Islamic terrorism, so it’s unclear what the connection is. Secondly it’s also not clear that stopping people being anonymous online would make the situation better or have the benefits people are looking for. So it’s all a bit odd. Having said that , it’s Mark Francois bringing this up and he is a moron, so there is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 @Heartofice while I fully agree it would have made no difference in this case, surely having people unable to bully and troll and spread misinformation etc is a worthwhile goal moving forward? Linking social media access to a bank account would seem the easiest way. Getting a new bank account is a right pain in the arse and maybe people would then stop being such dicks online if they knew a total ban would be the result. Also criminal offence would be very easy to investigate if linked to a bank account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soylent Brown Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 10 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: surely having people unable to bully and troll and spread misinformation etc is a worthwhile goal moving forward? A number of Tory MPs do this openly anyway, so I'm not sure what difference removing anonymity will make. Just as Priti Patel is happy to bully people in person: some people are just horrible arseholes and they'll behave as such regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted October 19, 2021 Author Share Posted October 19, 2021 Removing people's ability to open an anonymous social media account is a terrible idea. If Twitter and Facebook and Instagram can perform mass take downs of copyrighted material within a matter of minutes, there is no reason why they can't do more to combat hate and misinformation. If they won't do this willingly, then let's put legislation in place, with massive fines for non-compliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 18 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: @Heartofice while I fully agree it would have made no difference in this case, surely having people unable to bully and troll and spread misinformation etc is a worthwhile goal moving forward? Linking social media access to a bank account would seem the easiest way. Getting a new bank account is a right pain in the arse and maybe people would then stop being such dicks online if they knew a total ban would be the result. Also criminal offence would be very easy to investigate if linked to a bank account. Yes I agree something needs to be done about social media and the ability for people to act in the way they do, it’s not clear that removing people’s anonymity is going to do it. There are just too many cases of people who use their own names who still continue to act in abusive ways, and Facebook is an absolute dumpster fire of conversation despite everyone using their own names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 10 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Yes I agree something needs to be done about social media and the ability for people to act in the way they do, it’s not clear that removing people’s anonymity is going to do it. There are just too many cases of people who use their own names who still continue to act in abusive ways, and Facebook is an absolute dumpster fire of conversation despite everyone using their own names. But you can use any photo and any name. I could set up an account in my wife's name and nobody would be any the wiser. If all social media was linked to a bank account that couldn't happen. @Spockydog the benefits of anonymity don't even come close to outweighing the cons of removing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted October 19, 2021 Author Share Posted October 19, 2021 6 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: @Spockydog the benefits of anonymity don't even come close to outweighing the cons of removing it. Well, no. Facebook being a cesspool of lies and hate completely invalidates your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 3 minutes ago, Spockydog said: Well, no. Facebook being a cesspool of lies and hate completely invalidates your argument. But Facebook accounts arent verified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.