FlyTheNest

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 7:12 am**

Morning all.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 9:04 am**

I wonder if the League of Nations was involved in the ‘treaties’ referred to below ? —

“” In 1920, following further imported international concern, there was a growing hunger in the media to create outrage and international treaty obligations; Britain passed the Dangerous Drug Act, restricting the supply of opium, cocaine, morphine and heroin without authorisation.

An amendment of this act to include cannabis was spearheaded by Egypt, which at the time relied heavily on cotton trade – which was threatened by hemp. They based their suggestion on claims that the drug resulted in widespread insanity – a claim as inaccurate then as it is now. Britain, however, was ambivalent towards the use of hash because there was little health or social concern regarding cannabis at home at the time. Still, the vote passed in Egypt’s favour (with UK abstaining), leading to the inclusion of cannabis in the amended 1928 Dangerous Drug Act
…
William Randolph Hearst, the media tycoon, who had invested heavily in wood pulp paper (another resource that was threatened by hemp materials), used his media empire to spread further panic amid reports that Mexican immigrants were using the drug and attacking white women.””

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/uk ... 29731.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You still need a special licence to grow Industrial Hemp, and politicians insist that all marijuana is Skunk !

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 9:43 am**

https://www.thelocal.se/20180907/sweden ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sweden's election is being misreported abroad – and this is a problem

Doesn't mention the BBC, but suspect it's one of the media outlets being accused here of poor reporting. This bit of the article particularly caught my eye:

Most importantly, they could be forgiven for not realizing that while there's a chance the next government will do a deal with the Sweden Democrats to get its budget through, it will almost certainly not include Sweden Democrat ministers.

Sounds familiar somehow, reminds me of something, a recent election where a party with some extreme views was used by a traditional ruling party to get a budget through...

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 9:49 am**

The problem is predetermined narratives, most of the media had decided the election would be a SD triumph in advance and don't have the wit or flexibility to change.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 9:56 am**

Good-morning, everyone

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 10:35 am**

This is a good piece on the recent history of the tories.
https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot ... elite.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

while in their weakened state some capital - the most backward and socially useless sections as it happened - stuck with them, the bulk threw their lot in with Blairism. That is until the crash came along. Gordon Brown saved their system, and they demonstrated their gratitude by abandoning him for Dave's shiny, socially liberal Toryism.

with May we see a weird form of Bonapartism in her party. Rather than contending factions cancelling each other out and the administration in the middle rising to power from a position of strength, May's authority - such as it is - derives from the fact none of the competing factions want her job.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 10:55 am**

Phil BC has been on a roll for a while now.

Everybody here should follow his blog.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 11:00 am**

Dr Fox said that fellow Brexiteers needed to beware of succumbing to "irrational positivity"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-ca ... -b22w97jt7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You couldn't make it up.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 11:17 am**

Off topic.

During the final Specsavers Test Match between England and India at the Kia Oval (7-11 September), Jagger has pledged to back the players on both teams to the tune of £20,000 each time one of them scores a hundred or takes five wickets and £10,000 if they score a fifty or take three wickets.

https://www.chancetoshine.org/news/chan ... cket-teams" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 11:31 am**

gilsey wrote:This is a good piece on the recent history of the tories.
https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot ... elite.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
while in their weakened state some capital - the most backward and socially useless sections as it happened - stuck with them, the bulk threw their lot in with Blairism. That is until the crash came along. Gordon Brown saved their system, and they demonstrated their gratitude by abandoning him for Dave's shiny, socially liberal Toryism.

with May we see a weird form of Bonapartism in her party. Rather than contending factions cancelling each other out and the administration in the middle rising to power from a position of strength, May's authority - such as it is - derives from the fact none of the competing factions want her job.

Liked this bit on the "magic hand" --"" During the Dave years the shrivelling of the Tories at the top and the bottom started catching up with it. For all Osborne's talk of the long-term economic plan, Dave's liberal Toryism amounted to a doubling down on the Thatcherite settlement

in the hope that somehow the hidden hand would become a magic hand and allow the country to bounce back from its 2008 cardiac arrest.

In practice we saw more privatisation, a naked assault on the poorest, more tax cuts for the rich, mushrooming foodbank use, more homelessness, a deeply dysfunctional property market and an inauguration of a permanent, highly casualised, low paid, and precarious work force as a significant constituency of workers. Truly a shameful record, even by Tory standards. This was the outcome of the Tories ties to finance as well as the most backward sections of British capital - Osborne's budgets ensured there were plenty of opportunities for profiteering, plenty of opportunities to employ cheap, disorganised labour. This imbalance at the top was matched by imbalance below - ...""

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 11:39 am**

gilsey wrote:
Dr Fox said that fellow Brexiteers needed to beware of succumbing to "irrational positivity"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-ca ... -b22w97jt7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You couldn't make it up.

The comments are almost unanimously critical ! My caps-lock --
"“This is a negotiation. We will negotiate this and THEN we will determine whether we think this is a good deal or not a good deal for Britain.”
And THEN ... ?

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 11:55 am**

Painfully accurate and informative one on the state of the Dems in the US-
A new wave of left-leaning Democrats are waging a war on the party’s corporate wing
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ty-america" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It looks more like a hegemony than a 'wing', a very long way to go.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 12:05 pm**

And the "corporate" wing behave very much like the self-styled Labour "moderates" over here.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 12:38 pm**

AK 11.05 -- self-styled indeed, with the full collaboration of the MSM !

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 1:32 pm**

TUC Congress

https://www.tuc.org.uk/tuc-congress-2018" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 1:37 pm**

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... eview-2018" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Boundary Commissions: Boundary Review 2018

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 1:37 pm**

Revised constituency boundary review has been released, only minor changes from previously it appears.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 1:49 pm**

FWIW retained constituency subject to confirmation ,as far as I can work out ,after representations. Very detailed report.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 1:51 pm**

Unfortunately still f''ing Tory.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 1:59 pm**

Didn't agree with my singular house proposal for some reason.Tarquin for MP.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 2:01 pm**

Shoe in for first result

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 2:05 pm**

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ebook-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 2:06 pm**

Thoughts?

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 2:25 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:And the "corporate" wing behave very much like the self-styled Labour "moderates" over here.

These factions
don't they understand without unity, no one gets anything?

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 2:36 pm**

HindleA wrote:Thoughts?

Worryingly, it is on Facebook, which most of us in Britain use...

I don't; but that's an aside

By establishing legal accountability for what’s published in large online forums, I believe we can force those who run these echo chambers to stamp out the evil that is currently so prominent.

Isn't this already the law? Content posted above and below the line on news outlets are the responsibility of the owners of those news vendors. Am I mistaken?

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 2:49 pm**

HindleA wrote:Thoughts?

Given them up.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 2:56 pm**

Run rather than provide the platform? Equally I may be mistaken.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 2:58 pm**

Giving up thoughts is a thought.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 3:33 pm**

HindleA wrote:Run rather than provide the platform? Equally I may be mistaken.

It's my understanding the commenting platforms underneath some articles online are the responsibility of that news website; the news outlet providing that commenting platform is responsible for for the content of people making posts.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 3:34 pm**

Running a platform or providing a platform - what's the difference?

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 3:34 pm**

citizenJA wrote:
HindleA wrote:Thoughts?

Worryingly, it is on Facebook, which most of us in Britain use...
I don't; but that's an aside
By establishing legal accountability for what’s published in large online forums, I believe we can force those who run these echo chambers to stamp out the evil that is currently so prominent.
Isn't this already the law? Content posted above and below the line on news outlets are the responsibility of the owners of those news vendors. Am I mistaken?

Online papers are classed as publishers and thus responsible for everything they print, including letters and comments.
Social media providers aren't classed as publishers - they are "platforms" or so they contend and thus have been able to duck laws designed for the print era.
Given many operate news feeds, an update to the law is long overdue. I haven't read the article your comment responded to yet, I should add, I'm just responding generally to your question. So apologies if what I've just posted isn't relevant.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 3:35 pm**

HindleA wrote:Giving up thoughts is a thought.

excellent point

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 3:37 pm**

'All the words are gonna bleed from me
And I will think no more'

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 4:25 pm**

Willow904 wrote:---
Online papers are classed as publishers and thus responsible for everything they print, including letters and comments.
Social media providers aren't classed as publishers - they are "platforms" or so they contend and thus have been able to duck laws designed for the print era.

Given many operate news feeds, an update to the law is long overdue. I haven't read the article your comment responded to yet, I should add, I'm just responding generally to your question. So apologies if what I've just posted isn't relevant.

(cJA edit & emphasis)
I agree with your call for an update for social media platforms providing news feeds
Laws have to be consistent
What is considered actionable is from legislation passed in the House, from government
It's private news outlets' responsibility and resources monitoring their content and removing liable contributions
The last two paragraphs in the article

We should educate people to be more resilient and better able to spot fake news and recognise hate, but we must also ensure there are much stronger protections to spread decency and police our online communities. The responsibility to regulate these social media platforms falls on the government. It is past time to act.

That’s why I am introducing a bill in parliament which will do just that. By establishing legal accountability for what’s published in large online forums, I believe we can force those who run these echo chambers to stamp out the evil that is currently so prominent. Social media can be a fantastic way of bringing people together – which is precisely why we need to prevent it being hijacked by those who instead wish to divide.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ebook-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who's going to moderate social media platforms?
Libel laws are different depending on the country

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with some of Powell's article

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 4:27 pm**

HindleA wrote:Unfortunately still f''ing Tory.

oh, damn it!

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 4:36 pm**

Eg.Admin/moderators not whoever sets up the facility?

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 4:36 pm**

citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote:---
Online papers are classed as publishers and thus responsible for everything they print, including letters and comments.
Social media providers aren't classed as publishers - they are "platforms" or so they contend and thus have been able to duck laws designed for the print era.

Given many operate news feeds, an update to the law is long overdue. I haven't read the article your comment responded to yet, I should add, I'm just responding generally to your question. So apologies if what I've just posted isn't relevant.
(cJA edit & emphasis)
I agree with your call for an update for social media platforms providing news feeds
Laws have to be consistent
What is considered actionable is from legislation passed in the House, from government
It's private news outlets' responsibility and resources monitoring their content and removing liable contributions
The last two paragraphs in the article
We should educate people to be more resilient and better able to spot fake news and recognise hate, but we must also ensure there are much stronger protections to spread decency and police our online communities. The responsibility to regulate these social media platforms falls on the government. It is past time to act.

That’s why I am introducing a bill in parliament which will do just that. By establishing legal accountability for what’s published in large online forums, I believe we can force those who run these echo chambers to stamp out the evil that is currently so prominent. Social media can be a fantastic way of bringing people together – which is precisely why we need to prevent it being hijacked by those who instead wish to divide.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ebook-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Who's going to moderate social media platforms?
Libel laws are different depending on the country

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with some of Powell's article

She seems to have left out the whole bit about what her parliamentary bill entails and how it would achieve the end result she seeks. Not exactly the most informative article I've ever read.

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 5:22 pm**

Online Forums: Ten Minute Rule Motion
Lucy Powell

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make administrators and moderators of certain online forums responsible for content published on those forums; to require such administrators and moderators to remove certain content; to require platforms to publish information about such forums; and for connected purposes."

TUESDAY 11 SEPTEMBER

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 180905.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 5:54 pm**

HindleA wrote:Eg.Admin/moderators not whoever sets up the facility?

Whoever sets up the facility is responsible for content

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 8:08 pm**

citizenJA wrote:
Online Forums: Ten Minute Rule Motion
Lucy Powell

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make administrators and moderators of certain online forums responsible for content published on those forums; to require such administrators and moderators to remove certain content; to require platforms to publish information about such forums; and for connected purposes."

TUESDAY 11 SEPTEMBER

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 180905.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not really detailed enough to grasp exactly what this bill is proposing, but "to require platforms to publish information about such forums" sounds interesting. It seems to imply the likes of Facebook, while not responsible for what individuals post, would be at least responsible for knowing who has set up and runs groups on their platform

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 8:09 pm**

Most odd, does DJT really draft his tweets ?

“” “He drafts a tweet saying ‘We are going to pull our dependents from South Korea – family members of the 28,000 people there,’” Woodward said, referring to families of US troops stationed on the Korean peninsula.

The tweet was never sent because of a back-channel message from the North Koreans that they would view it as a sign the US was preparing to attack, according to CBS.

“At that moment there was a sense of profound alarm in the Pentagon leadership that, ‘My God, one tweet and we have reliable information that the North Koreans are going to read this as ‘an attack is imminent.’” “”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... presidency" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A nice LOLOLOL coming back from the beach and imagining DJT ""writing a book "" .

All by himself

Posted: **Mon 10 Sep, 2018 9:21 pm**

goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

FlyTheNest

Monday 10th September 2018

Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018

Re: Monday 10th September 2018