Author Topic: Points to Ponder  (Read 220297 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #420 on: December 18, 2014, 03:57:35 pm »
Nobody has the right not to be ridiculed.

"What other people say about me, is none of my business" Wayne Dyer
We're not talking about him being ridiculed, we're talking about a real person being shown to be assassinated. Unbelievable bad taste, regardless of who it is. Personally, I think its hillarious that Sony are getting hammered over this. Maybe losing a few hundred million dollars will make them think twice before being involved in producing dire unfunny and offensive rubbish like 'The Interview'.

Offline born2run

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #421 on: December 18, 2014, 04:10:16 pm »
That's your opinion that it's unfunny. May be my opinion as well if I ever got to see the film. But it won't be because I'm not allowed to!


Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #422 on: December 18, 2014, 04:15:13 pm »
That's your opinion that it's unfunny. May be my opinion as well if I ever got to see the film. But it won't be because I'm not allowed to!
It's a Seth Rogen film. Do you really need to see it to know it'll be unfunny?  :laugh:
« Last Edit: December 19, 2014, 09:04:28 am by DaveR »

Offline Merddin Emrys

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4426
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #423 on: December 18, 2014, 04:20:46 pm »
From the clips I have seen it looks totally rubbish!
A pigeon is for life not just Christmas

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #424 on: December 19, 2014, 12:32:01 am »
Born to Run, genuine question, do you think that there is nothing that should be banned or censored?
Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline born2run

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #425 on: December 19, 2014, 09:05:57 am »
I absolutely do. Anything real that is illegal for example. There was a time last year or so when facebook should have changed it's name to snuffmovies.com
Every other video was some chap getting his head lobbed off, or some animal cruelty or something else disgusting and real
I have luckily managed to avoid watching all those videos, some have not been so fortunate and have been scarred by them, a lot of other people get off on them.
In my opinion they should all be banned for reasons to numerous to mention.

Anything fictional should be allowed, otherwise we are back to burning books like our friends in Germany did in the 1930s.

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #426 on: December 19, 2014, 09:07:28 am »
For Born2Run. Bear in mind a film company usually puts all the best bits of a film in a Trailer...  $donald$

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnalZzJ-XS4

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8955
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #427 on: December 19, 2014, 09:11:04 am »
I liked the main selling point: "From the guys who brought you Neighbours"...   _))* _))* _))*
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline born2run

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #428 on: December 19, 2014, 09:15:46 am »
Yeah it doesn't look great. If it ever does get released it will do great though, they couldn't have had a better publicity stunt!

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #429 on: December 19, 2014, 11:34:52 am »
Anything 'legal' then B2R?
So you are OK with the laws of this land being observed.  That's great.

But Facebook is a global network, (so I've heard), and therefore it should be OK to screen hangings in China, Stonings for adultery in Saudi Arabia, and as for some of the (legal) practices affecting women in African countries I dare not even say.

However, it may well be ILLEGAL in N Korea to threaten the life of the President.  Just saying...

You have decided to draw the line for us.  Nice to know that I'm not the judgmental one on this occasion.

By the way, have you tried posting any drawings of the Prophet Mohammed on the internet recently?  Just wondered.

Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline born2run

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #430 on: December 19, 2014, 12:15:33 pm »
So you're defending real life snuff videos, often of British hostages being widely shared, that the victims families will inevitably see or hear about. But opposed to a film with the fake death of some nutter in North Korea? I haven't decided to draw the line for you at all. You asked me "genuine question, do you think that there is nothing that should be banned or censored?"
I answered your question and now you are saying I am being judgemental. How exactly does that work?

Offline born2run

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #431 on: December 19, 2014, 12:23:22 pm »
"However, it may well be ILLEGAL in N Korea to threaten the life of the President.  Just saying..."

Sorry Fester didn't realise these Hollywood film makers were actually planning to kill the president, I didn't think they had even threatened to do it to be honest, I thought they were just making a fictional film, silly me  :o

 $good$

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8955
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #432 on: January 17, 2015, 11:44:40 am »
The case of Jacqui Thompson, from Llanwrda, Carmarthenshire, who was sued by Mark James over five posts she made on her blog is very interesting. At first sight it seems as though this is the County Council being extremely heavy-handed with a local blogger, but there's clearly more to it.

Carmarthenshire council indemnified their Chief Executive Mark James in his libel counter-claim against Mrs Thompson, a move found to be "Illegal" by the Welsh Audit Office, which also hinted that the Council might not have been entirely forthcoming.

Carmarthenshire paid out more than £26,000 in external legal costs since 2012 under the decision to indemnify Mark James, and although it might seem odd for a county council to indemnify an employee in this way, the council clearly thought otherwise, and blamed the WAO.

They said:

 
Quote
For almost two years the Wales Audit Office gave the council every indication that it was quite satisfied that the authority was within its rights to indemnify a council officer to bring a counterclaim in response to being sued for libel and was fully aware of the legal advice that the council had received supporting its action.

"In fact, some six months after the indemnity was granted, the auditors - responding to questions raised by a local resident - repeatedly confirmed that they were satisfied that the council was acting within their powers.

The WAO stood by their finding, however, and further claimed the council, who had said it would "publish the correspondence between ourselves and the auditors so that everyone can see for themselves what has taken place" had not in fact published all of the correspondence. So, once again, the observer is left to wonder what is going on and why vast amounts of taxpayers money is being spent by Councils who seem to thrive on secrecy...

Mark James won his case, but the detailed verdict bears study, more because of what the bogger didn't do and because of a serious mistake:

Quote
In 2006 she (sometimes with her husband) wrote a number of letters accusing both the Head of Planning for the Council (Mr Bowen) and Mr James of corruption, although Mr James had no involvement in the planning decisions complained of by Mrs Thompson. Mr Bowen sued Mr and Mrs Thompson for libel. The Thompsons did not seek to prove the allegations of corruption and their defence of honest comment was struck out. The action was in due course settled by a public retraction and apology in October 2007, as well as by an agreement to pay £7500 towards Mr Bowen’s costs.

3. Notwithstanding this defeat, Mrs Thompson started a blog in March 2009 under the title “Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more”. Her postings were highly critical of the Council. She made repeated false statements of fact for which the judge held that there was no foundation and made various allegations of corruption, lying, perjury and misappropriation of public money.

4. Mrs Thompson also started to film proceedings of the Council and posted the resultant clips on YouTube. On the 3rd occasion of doing this on 13th April 2011 a Council Officer, a Mr Davies, was sent up to the public gallery to ask her to stop. She did stop, left the public gallery and then made an allegation that, while they were in the public gallery, Mr Davies had assaulted her and attempted to steal her mobile phone. The judge found that this allegation was false and known by Mrs Thompson to be false. He also held that it was an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

It's a complex case, but one which resonates with everyone in the Three Towns, partly because of marked similarities between the behaviour of Carmarthenshire council and our own CCBC. The same fondness for secrecy seems apparent in both and planning issues can cause major headaches for everyone involved.

But this lady lost (although the final sentence of the verdict almost certainly didn't help) and might have to sell her house.

There are many who believe it's too easy to sue for Libel in the UK, but the other side of the coin is whether people are entitled to free speech, and how far that entitlement extends.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #433 on: January 17, 2015, 06:02:33 pm »
I too thought the article very interesting on the TV news, if only because of some very strange goings on when I applied to CCBC Planning Dept for some work on my house.... very VERY strange in fact.

Anyhow, with reference to Mrs Thompson's case, the TV article inferred that she sued the CEO of the council first, and was counter sued in response.
If that was the case, I thought she deserved all she got.   But now I'm not so sure.
Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline Mr Tunnock

  • Member
  • Posts: 118
Re: Points to Ponder
« Reply #434 on: January 21, 2015, 04:32:18 pm »
Would any members voluntarily give submit to DNA testing for the process of elimination in a murder enquiry?
I ask this because of the previous arguments whereby DNA samples have been kept against the will of many for years after giving samples.
This is happening somewhere in England at present to eliminate men in a murder investigation.