Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Online Safety Bill Etc (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33711643)

Russ 20-05-2024 18:43

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36175370)
are you half Palestinian?

Nope. How about you?

Paul 20-05-2024 18:49

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36175370)
are you half Palestinian?

Since I'm quite sure you know the anser to that would be 'No', what exactly is the point of the question ?

Pierre 20-05-2024 20:51

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36175378)
Since I'm quite sure you know the anser to that would be 'No', what exactly is the point of the question ?

No problem:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36175357)
I’m not condoning such attacks on politicians []israel[] But the hatred is understandable when the member (or party) []country[]in question has a rich (no pun) history of treating the common man []Palestinians[]with contempt whilst lining the pockets of their wealthy benefactors.[]colonising their land[]

Point being it’s the same argument used to justify the Oct 7th attacks being used to try to legitimise attacks on Tory MPs.

Literally straight out the playbook.

In either case, there is no excuse.

Russ 20-05-2024 21:12

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Oh right.

Guess you missed the part where I said I don’t condone attacks on anyone?

Congratulations on the effort at drama but at no time have I justified, or tried to justify, an attack.

In the words of Joey Swole, you need to do better.

Pierre 20-05-2024 22:14

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36175382)

Guess you missed the part where I said I don’t condone attacks on anyone?
.

No I didn’t miss it, it was there front and centre.


“I don’t condone”……god forbid. But I fully understand…………I mean who wouldn’t under the circumstances?

Just rhymes with, I’m not racist but………….just a little bit.

So no, I didn’t miss it, I ignored it because it’s not what you really think.

I’d have respected you more if you said you did condone it, as that’s what you really think, you know for members of the tory party.

---------- Post added at 22:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36175382)
at no time have I justified, or tried to justify, an attack.
.

???????

If you are not trying to justify or explain away an attack

Then what is the point of this statement?

Quote:

I’m not condoning such attacks on politicians. But the hatred is understandable when the member (or party) in question has a rich (no pun) history of treating the common man with contempt whilst lining the pockets of their wealthy benefactors.
Not condoning…………..but it’s “understandable”

Russ 20-05-2024 22:22

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
In the past 21 years you’ve come out with some absolute weapons-grade dogshit on here but you’ve truly peaked now.

Adding words I did not say to twist my post to suit your own agenda? Truly nothing is beyond you.

And you’d have respected me more? To be honest I’m more offended that you assume I care whether you respect me or not.

Take your word twisting agenda elsewhere and stop pretending to know someone you genuinely know nothing about.

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36175383)

Then what is the point of this statement?


Are you truly this dense?

Let me use smaller and simpler words for you.

I don’t agree with, advise or condone (apologies if that’s bit too big for you) physical attacks on any person or country. If I knew it was going to happen and I had a way of stopping it from occurring then I absolutely would.

However I understand the anger. Before you quote-edit this post too, let me qualify that but. Understanding anger, and condoning attacks are a world apart (perhaps not in yours but definitely in the minds of rational people).

I make no attempt to hide my disgust of the Tory Party. Doesn’t mean I want to see any of them harmed.

That clear enough for you?

RichardCoulter 20-05-2024 22:41

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36175373)
Stop being a snowflake, words are not going to cut you , bash you over the head , or any other physical injury doubt they on there own will even steal your money :shocked:

The words that we use are very important. Care must be taken because they can lead to self harm or suicide as has been pointed out many times along with the tragedies that resulted.

Pierre 20-05-2024 22:51

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36175385)
In the past 21 years you’ve come out with some absolute weapons-grade dogshit on here but you’ve truly peaked now.

I think I’ve got a few more years in me.

I think I’ve called it right. You can protest all you want, that’s how I see it. You’ve said your bit and I’ve said my bit.

Paul 20-05-2024 23:09

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
That enough of this utter nonsense, back to the topic.

RichardCoulter 22-05-2024 11:49

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
St Albans is the latest place to want to ban smartphones for children (under 14 in this case):
.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s%20for%20them.

mrmistoffelees 22-05-2024 12:17

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36175471)
St Albans is the latest place to want to ban smartphones for children (under 14 in this case):
.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s%20for%20them.

You can keep posting stuff like this. But, take a breath, sit down somewhere nice and comfy and really take in and understand the following.

It’s. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Thanks for your time.

Paul 22-05-2024 21:53

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36175471)
St Albans is the latest place to want to ban smartphones for children (under 14 in this case)

I want to ban tractors from the road between 6am and 8pm, I suspect I have about the same chance of it happening. ;)

RichardCoulter 23-05-2024 05:26

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n%20the%20idea.

Schools seem to be on a roll with wanting to ban things. A primary school wants to ban it's 7-11 year old girls from wearing skirts as they are wearing them too short:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n%20the%20idea.

Is this innapropriately sexualising children or a good idea to deter paedophiles from taking an interest in them?

Sirius 23-05-2024 06:11

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36175576)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n%20the%20idea.

Schools seem to be on a roll with wanting to ban things. A primary school wants to ban it's 7-11 year old girls from wearing skirts as they are wearing them too short:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n%20the%20idea.

Is this innapropriately sexualising children or a good idea to deter paedophiles from taking an interest in them?

I take anything printed in the mail with a pinch of salt.

Russ 23-05-2024 06:12

Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36175576)

Is this innapropriately sexualising children or a good idea to deter paedophiles from taking an interest in them?

Nothing will do that.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:32.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum