Slapping back at the bullies

Not those dogs in this case.  Upfront, this blog’s chief admin, the boss, the numero uno, is Julia, with myself and Mike after that. She is the chief regulator but if different authors have different blacklists, that’s a fluid thing. However, the site is technically on my account but that can change at any moment, should Julia feel it necessary.

Having said that, this first post at N.O. today (reprinted below) might be worth your while glancing over. References in the text to different versions of N.O. have no application at OoL but the legalese does, the references to lawfare going on out there. Might just be worth a few minutes.

By the way, I was ill on Thursday.

(0634)(0726)

Slapping them right back

The Barrister we sometimes watch has two channels and this below is his second.  He explains, which can be construed by nasty people as leaving himself open, and this is because:

a.  There are different applicable laws in the UK:

(i) Home country, e.g. Eng & Wales, Scotland

(ii) Historic versus revised, esp. if now a different national entity

(iii) Local by-laws

(iv) Those governing the international net/web, again which revision (?)

(v) Regulations by those providers and platforms, each with its own

(vi) EU, UN, WEF.

Until now … and in fact continuing on … we at N.O. (both versions, which is an interesting legal issue in itself) adhere to what is now a very old regulation, which is unstated at ONO and yet was laid out at NOdotOrg (now thrice deceased), which was based on Pig Boy Dave’s early rule.

Where does that leave the Barrister? It leaves him trying to explain according to very wonky law as it stands this day, dynamically changing according to the latest relationship between Eng&W, the EU, the WEF, UN, Ggl, Blgr, WP, BT in Eng&W … and so on.

Making it clear that of course I’m onside with our Barrister’s intent so far, despite my raised eyebrow on the laws themselves and his contention is that this “lawfare” is for various intents, which I summarise as:

(i) To stop something getting out

(ii) To make moolah either for client and/or self or for a higher body

(iii) To tie people up in proceedings, e.g. DJT, to drag out, so as to kill off

(iv) Sheer malevolence, mischief and strategy.

b.  So the Barrister’s assured and reassuring “this is the law” manner I watch and occasionally raise an eyebrow at (sometimes two eyebrows) from my differing experience.  

One thing I quite agree with at 04:38 in his video:

https://youtu.be/V1Tmd6ZR9WY?si=ZEkDX4G6_dCuuFvL

… is that, as he practices law in this area in Eng and Wales:

(i) The litigant inevitably, eventually, has no leg to stand on, on this matter but

(ii) That can cause all sorts of troubles which put people off who would otherwise speak out.

We saw last night the nurse who spoke out and what happened to her and there’s no doubt that this is the intention of miscreants doing wrong above her, plus we’re hardly versed in law though we know enough to keep out of mischief … but where I disagree with him is he says it’s only the owner/admin who can be litigated.

Legally maybe but that is not what platform regs say, esp. platforms outside of the country who do rule their platforms in real terms and who can protect or leave vulnerable as they wish.

He made the point that you, the reader/commenter, cannot be litigated. Yes you can, in real time, even if spuriously … which is why my job as immediate manager, with the providers above me again, must be ultra careful, which I am … moderation here, first time moderation across the way, plus sometimes the need to delete.

One strategy has been to block out Wokery:

https://nourishingobscurity.blogspot.com/p/our-position-on-wokery-at-no.html

… plus other “defusing” strategies to protect everyone associated with us. I do say “the buck stops with me” in terms of protecting you, the commenter but though that’s fine for you and me, it does not stop someone really gunning for you, the commenter, and yes, you are included in the Big Collect in the miscreants’ eyes.

That’s why we are pretty much regulars here, patrons of a tavern. The relationship between landlord and patrons is complex but obviously harmonious for the most part … they’re his livelihood in RL, therefore he’ll do what’s necessary.  But unless it’s a freehouse, he is still beholden to the owners … to a minimised point.

And it’s in that nebular state, using that tavern analogy, rather than the 1, 2, 3 legalese of the Barrister, that we operate in all forms of N.O.

…

Back to OoL again, having re-read the above … hmmmm, OoL does operate differently, OoL being Julia’s, my and Grandpa’s second sites, though we feel deeply connected to, the custodians of, the 2011 Orphans project and a good little blog in itself at a crossroads … well worth the upkeep of.