SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Tom]

My testicles in my 50s.

 

[Scouse]

My testicles in my 50s.

They give out random spam?

 

[Scouse]

Woman sexually assaulted on plane refused compensation

The 24-year-old shares the impact of her ordeal on a flight from Qatar and being refused compensation.

www.bbc.co.uk

So, I feel for her - I really do. However, why do we offer "compensation" paid by taxpayers for anything like this?

We can't afford to do normal shit, why are the taxpayer on the hook for compensating people for the actions of criminals?

 

[Deebs]

Woman sexually assaulted on plane refused compensation

The 24-year-old shares the impact of her ordeal on a flight from Qatar and being refused compensation.

www.bbc.co.uk

So, I feel for her - I really do. However, why do we offer "compensation" paid by taxpayers for anything like this?

We can't afford to do normal shit, why are the taxpayer on the hook for compensating people for the actions of criminals?

Surely the operator of the plane is responsible for the security inside the plane, therefore they should pay up.

 

[Scouse]

Surely the operator of the plane is responsible for the security inside the plane, therefore they should pay up.

I mean, if there's compensation due, then yes. But I'd argue that the plane isn't responsible for the behaviour of the passengers on the plane to that extent.

It's generally unreasonable to hold a company to account for the criminal actions of it's service users. If someone did it on a bus, do you think the bus company should be liable?

 

[Gwadien]

Shitty one, it's in a similar vein to NHS compensation when they fuck up (which costs us billions).

Then again I suppose it's really shit to say sorry your perpetrator wasn't very rich so you're not getting shit.

Maybe force the guy to work in prison and give everything to her? But then you open another can of worms of why are we paying £50k a year for EACH prisoner which comes from the taxpayer?

 

[Deebs]

I mean, if there's compensation due, then yes. But I'd argue that the plane isn't responsible for the behaviour of the passengers on the plane to that extent.

It's generally unreasonable to hold a company to account for the criminal actions of it's service users. If someone did it on a bus, do you think the bus company should be liable?

Last time I checked the airline operator was responsible for the safety of the passengers on the plane. To be fair buses are a little different to a jumbo hurtling around at 500mph with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

 

[Gwadien]

Last time I checked the airline operator was responsible for the safety of the passengers on the plane. To be fair buses are a little different to a jumbo hurtling around at 500mph with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Unless he had a criminal record, I fail to see how its the fault of the airline?

I mean it sets a weird precedent - have women only sections in planes?

 

[Deebs]

Unless he had a criminal record, I fail to see how its the fault of the airline?

I mean it sets a weird precedent - have women only sections in planes?

Read what I said, airlines are responsible for the safety of the passengers when on a plane under guidance from governing bodies but ultimately the staff are provided by the airline operator.

 

[Scouse]

Last time I checked the airline operator was responsible for the safety of the passengers on the plane. To be fair buses are a little different to a jumbo hurtling around at 500mph with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Are they? They literally called the company Airbus after all.
The airline is responsible for safe passage of the passengers under normal circumstances. If the airline is to be held responsible for criminal activity then they should pay out if terrorists kill people.

Shitty one, it's in a similar vein to NHS compensation when they fuck up (which costs us billions).

If you've paid for a service, you are due safe service. If they fuck up due to negligence, then they should rightly pay.

The airline wasn't negligent when it wasn't monitoring passengers for illicit fingering.


(There's a whole other dimension to this story where if we tell humans that <insert crime here> should devestate them then they become utterly devestated when and if <said crime> actually happens - it's like societally prompted snowflakification - we reduce mental resilience and ability to recover from said crime. However, we won't get into that because, wow, the potential rage )

 

[Deebs]

Are they? They literally called the company Airbus after all.
The airline is responsible for safe passage of the passengers under normal circumstances. If the airline is to be held responsible for criminal activity then they should pay out if terrorists kill people.


If you've paid for a service, you are due safe service. If they fuck up due to negligence, then they should rightly pay.

The airline wasn't negligent when it wasn't monitoring passengers for illicit fingering.


(There's a whole other dimension to this story where if we tell humans that <insert crime here> should devestate them then they become utterly devestated when and if <said crime> actually happens - it's like societally prompted snowflakification - we reduce mental resilience and ability to recover from said crime. However, we won't get into that because, wow, the potential rage )

Um can you tell me which airline is responsible for screening all luggage both in hold and carry on? Last time I checked it was the airport's responsibility to ensure only allowed items get through baggage check.

 

[Raven]

I feel for her, but fuck all to do with me, don't see why any tax should be involved.

The only time tax should be used as compensation is when a public or government body fucks up.

 

[Scouse]

Um can you tell me which airline is responsible for screening all luggage both in hold and carry on? Last time I checked it was the airport's responsibility to ensure only allowed items get through baggage check.

That would be the airport's responsibility, not the airlines.

And in the event of a terrorist act, it would still have to be demonstrated that the airport was negligent.

Stopping people from fingering you whilst you're asleep on a plane is NOT the airline's responsibility. Where are they negligent?

 

[Deebs]

That would be the airport's responsibility, not the airlines.

And in the event of a terrorist act, it would still have to be demonstrated that the airport was negligent.

Stopping people from fingering you whilst you're asleep on a plane is NOT the airline's responsibility. Where are they negligent?

I am still confused I have always thought the Captain and therefore his staff are responsible for the safety and well being of passengers on his aircraft.

 

[DaGaffer]

Read what I said, airlines are responsible for the safety of the passengers when on a plane under guidance from governing bodies but ultimately the staff are provided by the airline operator.

Reading the article, the cabin crew dealt with the situation as soon as they became aware of it. In any court case the airline will use "the test of a reasonable person", and in this case how could the cabin crew know in the middle of the night what was going on until she reacted? They dealt with the problem as soon as they were aware, they literally couldn't do anything else unless we're advocating shackling passengers to their seats for the duration of the flight?

If a company is negligent, then throw the book at them, but I don't see any negligence here.

 

[Scouse]

Either way, she shouldn't be getting any sort of payout from taxpayers...

 

[Scouse]

Get us out of those pesky european things!!

Met police’s facial recognition plans fall foul of European law, says watchdog

Use of cameras at Notting Hill carnival could have ‘chilling effect’ on people’s rights, says equality regulator

www.theguardian.com

I mean. They need to drop the E from ECHR. It's harder to object to a court of human rights.

 

[DaGaffer]

Might head over to Blighty to see this:

‘We were the runt of the litter at the BBC’: Johnny Vegas and Graham Duff on resurrecting their sitcom Ideal

The cult 2000s show accrued obsessive fans and celebrity guests before being abruptly cancelled. Now, 20 years on, its star and writer return with a stage revival – but they insist it’s no victory lap

www.theguardian.com

I loved Ideal, and it was really pissed off when it just stopped.

 

[Scouse]

Almost posted this in @Embattle 's energy thread.

Block Elon Musk’s bid to supply UK home energy, Ed Davey urges

Exclusive: Lib Dem leader says giving Tesla a foothold in Britain’s energy market could be national security risk

www.theguardian.com

My first thought is - fuck off Ed Davey.

We need clean energy solutions. If we banned companies from doing business because we didn't like the opinions of their CEO's then we'd not do any business.

We're in an existential race (and a real drought, linked to that race) - we can't afford to bin the market leader off because some of us have taken offence.

 

[Gwadien]

Almost posted this in @Embattle 's energy thread.

Block Elon Musk’s bid to supply UK home energy, Ed Davey urges

Exclusive: Lib Dem leader says giving Tesla a foothold in Britain’s energy market could be national security risk

www.theguardian.com

My first thought is - fuck off Ed Davey.

We need clean energy solutions. If we banned companies from doing business because we didn't like the opinions of their CEO's then we'd not do any business.

We're in an existential race (and a real drought, linked to that race) - we can't afford to bin the market leader off because some of us have taken offence.

It's all a bit 'Alien' though - as in the film series...

Elon has proven that he wants to get involved in politics overtly, where as companies haven't so overtly and consequently. He also has a track record of using his services as a bargaining chip - see Ukraine and Starlink.

I think so long as we have strong monopoly rules and we don't give him the ability to suddenly rise prices or shut it off apply political pressure I'm alright with it.

 

[Scouse]

He also has a track record of using his services as a bargaining chip - see Ukraine and Starlink

Musk denied it, when questioned Zelensky praised Musk and Starlink. So the "track record" is disputed.

(Regardless, the US routinely turns off GPS when the prez moves about. And remember very clearly people saying to me that private companies can do what the fuck they like, eh?)

And so what if he wants to make political statements. The answer is - make your own. Win the argument.

On the electricity front, if Musk wanted to wang his prices up massively then he has to give notice and we'd all u-switch the shit away. But he'd trash his own business.

This is the LibDems being wankers. Hopping on emotional anti-Musk hatred in an attemp to buy votes from retards.

Like Labour though - this is how they'd act in power. (Although maybe they wouldn't lock up hundreds for sitting down showing signs.)

 

[DaGaffer]

Musk denied it, when questioned Zelensky praised Musk and Starlink. So the "track record" is disputed.

Well he would, wouldn't he? Zelensky still needs Starlink.

(Regardless, the US routinely turns off GPS when the prez moves about. And remember very clearly people saying to me that private companies can do what the fuck they like, eh?)

GPS isn't a private company, and thanks to Brexit fuckwittery the UK cut itself out of the strategic alternative (for no sane reason).

And so what if he wants to mak e political statements. The answer is - make your own. Win the argument.

It's not the political statements that are the problem, it's the political interference. While it's unlikely there would ever be a Doge angle for Musk in the UK, the fact that he has a track record of interference in the operations of an entire country to service his own benefit (and make no mistake, that's what Doge was all about, he now has the keys to social security data) should immediately call into question his fitness in any "right and proper person" test for running strategic elements of the UK economy.

On the electricity front, if Musk wanted to wang his prices up massively then he has to give notice and we'd all u-switch the shit away. But he'd trash his own business.

It's not pricing, it's using the threat of throttling, discriminating or other blackmailing. Which, once again, he has form for.

This is the LibDems being wankers. Hopping on emotional anti-Musk hatred in an attemp to buy votes from retards.

Like Labour though - this is how they'd act in power. (Although maybe they wouldn't lock up hundreds for sitting down showing signs.)

Or, counterpoint, it's a valid questioning of Elon Musk's fitness to run strategic pillars infrastructure. Given the UK's lamentable track record in giving all kinds of chancers and cunts this kind of power (look at water ffs) then questioning Musk's fitness is entirely right and proper.

 

[Scouse]

The only things there that matter are 1) the "fit and proper person" test.

My response here is, tbh, rofl. The point about every CEO stands - and I'll add them to your 'political interference' point as every blinking large business interferes politically - lobbying, cash for questions, endemic structural embedding throughout all layers of government. The fact that the yanks ponied up what they did doesn't mean we have to.

2) Throttling/discriminating/blackmailing?

Throttling what? Electricity?
Discriminating against who? And how? No Teslas for black people?

Blackmailing?

Be more specific. Until you can demonstrate what your actual plausible fear is it's just nice-sounding word salad that, whilst emotionally satisfying, doesn't voice any genuine actionable concern.


I know we all hate mecha hitler, but all he wants to do is sell shitloads of batteries. If he comes into the British market and undercuts the current big players then that's fucking great.

 

[Gwadien]

The only things there that matter are 1) the "fit and proper person" test.

My response here is, tbh, rofl. The point about every CEO stands - and I'll add them to your 'political interference' point as every blinking large business interferes politically - lobbying, cash for questions, endemic structural embedding throughout all layers of government. The fact that the yanks ponied up what they did doesn't mean we have to.

2) Throttling/discriminating/blackmailing?

Throttling what? Electricity?
Discriminating against who? And how? No Teslas for black people?

Blackmailing?

Be more specific. Until you can demonstrate what your actual plausible fear is it's just nice-sounding word salad that, whilst emotionally satisfying, doesn't voice any genuine actionable concern.


I know we all hate mecha hitler, but all he wants to do is sell shitloads of batteries. If he comes into the British market and undercuts the current big players then that's fucking great.

He's a different breed of CEO though.

Yes, CEOs interfere with politics all the time, but they're fully aware that there's a line they can't openly can't cross because of their shareholders. They're the reason why there's such wealth inequality.

Musk doesn't give a fuck about the shareholders, they seem to gravitate him because he's edgy.

It's also not about his current far-right views either, it's more that he's volatile and unpredictable, and as I said before has been known to use his businesses as ransom if he doesn't get his way.

He will support the political party that will benefit him personally, even if that means he's more equal in a Communist state.

 

[Scouse]

He's a different breed of CEO though.

Hard disagree*.

He's simply more public in his views, and that's the end of it.

*edit: Not just because of that statement. Shareholders gravitate to him because he makes them money. There is zero loyalty there. They're not "attracted to edginess". 🤦

 

[Scouse]

Ultraprocessed bee food:

Scientists make 'superfood' that could save honeybees

We rely on honeybees to pollinate our crops and a new food could protect them from growing threats.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

 

[Raven]

Decided, I am rejoining the Parish council.

 

[Gwadien]

Decided, I am rejoining the Parish council.

missed the drama aint ya

 

[Scouse]

I see Blunkett's still alive, unfortunately:

Suspend ECHR to pave way for migrant deportations, Blunkett tells Starmer

Former Labour home secretary urges ministers to consider ‘radical’ approach to give them time to ‘get a grip’ on crisis

www.telegraph.co.uk

If they can turn off human rights when they're inconvenient then they're worthless.