Discussing this Act with a retired solicitor, someone who, when I was a Police officer, and he was a defence solicitor, we often faced each other across the courtroom, and became friends, suggested that posting a comment as a question may negate any offence. Instead of saying, ".................... is a numpty", post it as " Is .............. a numpty? " this leaving it up to others to form an opinion. He also added that he had made a very good living out of the word "allegedly". May be of interest.
Right, we have a situation again. I did ask commenters to use a moniker in posts, for legal obligations now since the OSA.
That moniker need not be the name you type at the top. You can still post Anon or Unknown name there. However, you do then need to put in some sort of self-identification nickname or moniker of your own choosing somewhere in your text, out of courtesy.
For example, someone dropped a comment on this post:
"I follow a blog by a certain Dr (of food safety) living Oop North. He is so fanatically Far Right as to sometimes even criticise the current government. All entries since the 25th are now unavailable to anyone with a UK ip, but freely available when accessed with amVPN. (Previous entries seem still freely available.) It looks like someone said "Will no-one rid me of that turbulent blog?" Very worrying."
Comment fine, except no moniker anywhere. Even if he'd put Joe Bloggs near the end, that then satisfies ggl, plus our Beloved Sausage. But he put in none.
Now, for comments under my posts, you really do need to do this. For comments under Julia's ... well that's going to be her call ... she might not yet be aware of the new UK guidelines.
Sadly I predicted this when we had the violent porn laws under the previous Labour government. The law being so vague that the government could class any publication as illegal. The same bad lawmaking applies to the Online Safety Act. Rather than define every instance they want to curtail, they made very vague definitions that can catch virtually anything in it's net. In the past we had Judges in the Lords that scrutinised new laws and pointed out the bad law. Now everything gets through and if there's any issues caused, it's down to the Supreme Court to sort it out after the fact. It's a shit system open to massive abuse of power. And don't for a second think the Police won't use the vagueness for their own ends. When Journalists are arrested under prevention of terrorism legislation, you know the Police are overreaching and abusing the power of the law.
Discussing this Act with a retired solicitor, someone who, when I was a Police officer, and he was a defence solicitor, we often faced each other across the courtroom, and became friends, suggested that posting a comment as a question may negate any offence. Instead of saying, ".................... is a numpty", post it as " Is .............. a numpty? " this leaving it up to others to form an opinion. He also added that he had made a very good living out of the word "allegedly". May be of interest.
ReplyDeleteRight, we have a situation again. I did ask commenters to use a moniker in posts, for legal obligations now since the OSA.
ReplyDeleteThat moniker need not be the name you type at the top. You can still post Anon or Unknown name there. However, you do then need to put in some sort of self-identification nickname or moniker of your own choosing somewhere in your text, out of courtesy.
For example, someone dropped a comment on this post:
"I follow a blog by a certain Dr (of food safety) living Oop North. He is so fanatically Far Right as to sometimes even criticise the current government. All entries since the 25th are now unavailable to anyone with a UK ip, but freely available when accessed with amVPN. (Previous entries seem still freely available.) It looks like someone said "Will no-one rid me of that turbulent blog?" Very worrying."
Comment fine, except no moniker anywhere. Even if he'd put Joe Bloggs near the end, that then satisfies ggl, plus our Beloved Sausage. But he put in none.
Now, for comments under my posts, you really do need to do this. For comments under Julia's ... well that's going to be her call ... she might not yet be aware of the new UK guidelines.
Mea Culpa. Sorry!
ReplyDeleteSadOldMan.
Sadly I predicted this when we had the violent porn laws under the previous Labour government. The law being so vague that the government could class any publication as illegal.
ReplyDeleteThe same bad lawmaking applies to the Online Safety Act. Rather than define every instance they want to curtail, they made very vague definitions that can catch virtually anything in it's net. In the past we had Judges in the Lords that scrutinised new laws and pointed out the bad law. Now everything gets through and if there's any issues caused, it's down to the Supreme Court to sort it out after the fact. It's a shit system open to massive abuse of power. And don't for a second think the Police won't use the vagueness for their own ends. When Journalists are arrested under prevention of terrorism legislation, you know the Police are overreaching and abusing the power of the law.
I wan’t going to comment as this posts a bit old now, but just wanted to say thanks. ufanance
ReplyDelete