- 29,377
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
At least the BBC have shown balance by not inviting Jean Claude Juncker on to Have I Got News For You, otherwise Farage would be Prime Minister by now.
Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,367 comments
- 617,505 views
- 29,978
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
So far in this section* I’ve been told TV and newspapers don’t influence (or heavily influence) people’s voting and that, of course politicians lie, but obviously no one believes them...
I guess everyone naturally came to the rational consensus that the EU was bad /shrug
*sorry confused this thread with the Brexit thread!
I guess everyone naturally came to the rational consensus that the EU was bad /shrug
*sorry confused this thread with the Brexit thread!
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,603
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
There's quite a difference between you overestimating the effect of TV these days and an assertion that it doesn't influence anybody at all/hardly at all....So far in this section* I’ve been told TV and newspapers don’t influence (or heavily influence) people’s voting and that, of course politicians lie, but obviously no one believes them...
I guess everyone naturally came to the rational consensus that the EU was bad /shrug
*sorry confused this thread with the Brexit thread!
So having Farage on the BBC as much as he was, despite him not being an MP and barely being an MEP of much note did legitimatise him and his party?
All I said was they helped validate him and his cause, hardly a very strong position to take?
Edit: he’s had or will have had as many appearances as Ken Clarke on Question Time, the BBC’s foremost political debate show. A man who isn’t an MP.
Tho at least I guess it’s selection of MEP’s has been consistent...
Last edited:
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,603
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
And was the leader of his party, the only, to this day, member of his party that is recognisable and the comparison with one of a significant number of Conservative politicians?
He got popular first. Then got his time on TV. That's how it works. They didn't make him no matter how you might want it to be so.
Clearly
- 29,377
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Sajid Javid blows his key speech on Windrush with a classic howler:
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Does the data shown seem to be any kind of issue or problem, or is it a good thing?
Figure 1: Regional Short Circuit Levels in Great Britain, 2020, 2025, and 2030. Source: National Grid ESO, System Operability Framework: Impact of Declining Short Circuit Levels(December 2018), p. 2.
Figure 2: Regional Phase Locked Loop (PLL) Risk, 2020, 2025, and 2030. Source: National Grid ESO, System Operability Framework: Impact of Declining Short Circuit Levels(December 2018), p. 3.
Figure 1: Regional Short Circuit Levels in Great Britain, 2020, 2025, and 2030. Source: National Grid ESO, System Operability Framework: Impact of Declining Short Circuit Levels(December 2018), p. 2.
Figure 2: Regional Phase Locked Loop (PLL) Risk, 2020, 2025, and 2030. Source: National Grid ESO, System Operability Framework: Impact of Declining Short Circuit Levels(December 2018), p. 3.
Last edited:
- 12,901
- Cambridge
- Moglet85
- Moglet
If the National Grid ESO weren't already aware of it then yes, but as it stands they are preparing to be fully running on carbon-free energy by 2025 including "installing “smart digital systems” which are capable of managing and controlling the electricity system in real-time in order to cope with the fluctuating electricity from renewables."
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...websites-adult-age-verification-a8874181.html
I was having a conversation with a colleague about this today, explaining how its such an incredibly dangerous and idiotic idea and so the government can't possible actually set a date to enforce it, yet here it is. I ****ing hate what this country has become.
I was having a conversation with a colleague about this today, explaining how its such an incredibly dangerous and idiotic idea and so the government can't possible actually set a date to enforce it, yet here it is. I ****ing hate what this country has become.
- 17,337
- United Kingdom
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,436
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
It's started already...
A database of internet users' porn usage... I'm sure it won't get into the wrong hands and become blackmail material. Or that anyone who objects will also be suspected of being a filthy porn addict themselves.
After the Ashley Madison hack, people killed themselves after being 'outed' for cheating. Some of which where innocent people that AM made fake accounts for to bolster its value. Imagine (for example) a gay porn site gets attacked, peoples personal identifying information will be publicly available and shame them.
It links everyone's deepest desires and sexual preferences with personal identifying information and then forces independent sites to store it, in a way that is 'safe'. It's impossible for multi-billion dollar companies to protect users data, how can relativity small porn sites possibly protect that information?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I'm against it because I don't like the idea that government can force fences in front of data. If a private company wants to do that (for whatever reason) then that's fine. The government can **** off.
Oi. You got a license for that language?
****ing right I have
- 17,337
- United Kingdom
So your issue is actually with data security, and the fact that porn - or sexual preference - is still fairly taboo... rather than the concept of limiting access - I could see it being either, that's why I asked.
I hadn't actually thought it was that much of a problem in terms of risk, personally... I remember when most legit porn on the web was hidden behind paywalls, with any personal transactional details being handled (I assume) by the payment service provider - whose security was probably better than the sites being accessed - and yeah, I did sign up myself at times
, I also walked into a Newsagents and bought a porno mag when I was 14 or 15.. and don't think I've ever felt like a needed more courage than then. 
Last edited:
So you're issue is actually with data security, and the fact that porn - or sexual preference - is still fairly taboo... rather than the concept of limiting access - I could see it being either, that's why I asked.
I hadn't actually thought it was that much of a problem in terms of risk, personally... I remember when most legit porn on the web was hidden behind paywalls, with any personal transactional details being handled (I assume) by the payment service provider - whose security was probably better than the sites being accessed - and yeah, I did sign up myself at times
The moral issue is asinine and basically assumes that parents shouldn't be responsible for what their kids do on their laptop/computer. Thus this is saving children from the horrors of porn. It's a stupid argument based on emotions, so it's pointless.
However this law essentially weaponises your fetish/kink/sexual preference and ties that to you, personally, forever. It makes porn sites massive targets for hackers and identity thieves and criminalises anyone who doesn't want their personal identifying information linked to such content.
- 17,337
- United Kingdom
Ideally we'd just be more sexually open minded as a society so it was possible for parents to have a worthwhile informed chat about sex and sexuality, and so people would be sufficiently comfortable with what they like that they couldn't be blackmailed over it....
Neither of those things will happen of course, but I read articles like this... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36527681 and see/hear some of the actions/conversations of young teen kids in the park I'm about to walk through to go to the pub.. and I have to admit, I think somebody needs to take responsibility for the situation with kids and sex, sexuality and porn.
Somebody, being their parents.
And no, your deeply personal information shouldn’t be out in the public or setup as a nice target for people to go after
- 17,337
- United Kingdom
I mean, the problem is that something is getting done and it’s going to make millions of people vulnerable to blackmail and having their lives ruined while criminalising millions of others...Yeah, I don't disagree with that.
Cheers to nothing getting done then.
- 17,337
- United Kingdom
This is not an insurmountable technical challenge, in much the same was as we have third party payment providers, we could have third party age verification providers. Personal information doesn't need to go anywhere near a porn site, anyone who fears it might can freely elect not to use a site.
