Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Cass

Richard308 wrote: »

I referenced the article about Carlson,yes, never said spying is justified on ordinary joe soap without a court warrant. I hadn’t heard the story about Carlson before speaking sexually about children.

What relevance does it have to the current topic? IOW why did the BBC, and you, feel the need to comment on his actions from 15 years ago? How does that relate to the alleged spying?

FYI the nsa issued a statement in black and white saying they never spied on him, he was never a target.

Well, in that case .................... :rolleyes:

Ok so who are the victims that were shamed you were referencing?

I never said shamed, I said victim blaming. As this whole thing is about Carlson, take a stab in the dark.

Or is it shaming him that he’s the target of spying(which it appears he isn’t)

Never said shaming, and what happened to your "I'll wait until all the facts are in", and "I use multiple sources before making my mind up" go? Seems a simple denial is enough and if history has taught us anything is that you can take clandestine agencies at their word. :rolleyes:

And they just threw some horrible truths at him on the bbc?

Which have no relevance to this story/case. Its a chance to do a character assassination while pretending to report the news, hence biased.

Couldn’t call Carlson a victim

As I said earlier you've your mind made up already, hence the single link to the BBC article, so this back and forth is just another in a long line of prolonging debates that ultimately end in nothing.

To that end, I'll leave you to it.

Richard308

In other news.
Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dies.
Famous for the Rumsfeld rules,
And my personal favourite “the known knowns”

Richard308

Cass wrote: »

What relevance does it have to the current topic? IOW why did the BBC, and you, feel the need to comment on his actions from 15 years ago? How does that relate to the alleged spying?


Well, in that case .................... :rolleyes:

I never said shamed, I said victim blaming. As this whole thing is about Carlson, take a stab in the dark.

Never said shaming, and what happened to your "I'll wait until all the facts are in", and "I use multiple sources before making my mind up" go? Seems a simple denial is enough and if history has taught us anything is that you can take clandestine agencies at their word. :rolleyes:

Which have no relevance to this story/case. Its a chance to do a character assassination while pretending to report the news, hence biased.


As I said earlier you've your mind made up already, hence the single link to the BBC article, so this back and forth is just another in a long line of prolonging debates that ultimately end in nothing.

To that end, I'll leave you to it.

Ok blaming/shaming

So you think tucker was a victim in his comments on sexualising young girls.

I think people always reference people for some wrong they do.

Ie ian Bailey artist/poet (your man that’s suspected of killing Sophie Tuscan du plantier)

Bertie Ahern politician writer (your man that was found against in the tribunal for the whip around)

Wayne Rooney man Utd legend (your man that likes granny prostitutes)

Mtk promotions world class boxing promoters (linked to the kinahan cartel)

Matt Hancock former minister for health during pandemic (had to resign after being caught on camera performing sexual acts in his office with his assistant)

Don’t think that’s victim blaming.

Feisar

Richard308 wrote: »

In other news.
Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dies.
Famous for the Rumsfeld rules,
And my personal favourite “the known knowns”

The known knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns were a theory that he popularised but it was already a thing.

One can legitimately account for the first two but always keep an ace in the hole for the third.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

What a quaint and outdated notion you have there Rich...That doesn't apply to Republicans or Trump supporters or anyone with a slightly differing opinion to the woke status quo mob mentality these days..you are obviously a nazi and are guilty straight away especially if you are the orange man or support him.

Well thats what facebook did with Trump. "Orange man bad, lets bin him". I seen at Trumps comeback rally, there was a massive amount of people attended it, thousands couldn't get in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIbmqO5-PAw

Cass

First, we had Coronavirus (covid-19). Then we have the South African strain, then South American, then Indian, renamed to Delta for the soft touches, now the Delta plus.

Think this about sums it up at this point:

Richard308

tudderone wrote: »

Well thats what facebook did with Trump. "Orange man bad, lets bin him". I seen at Trumps comeback rally, there was a massive amount of people attended it, thousands couldn't get in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIbmqO5-PAw

Being honest I’d go to one of his rally, pure entertainment.

Cass

Gavin Newsom is being recalled as the petition has enough votes and a recall election is now scheduled.

Andrew Cuomo is being impeached, or at least subpoenas are being issued to begin the process.

Matt Hancock sucks the face off an aide and immediately resigns.

Meanwhile our politicians can lie, cheat, steal, refuse to answer questions, even go to jail and there is not a damn thing can be done by the people. Republic my a**e.

BattleCorp

I think I'll leave this here.

Cass

That is like the G7 show. They were all touching elbows in front of the cameras and when they thought they were out of sight they was hugging each other, shaking hands, eating besdie one another.

As per my meme above, nobody cares, just shake hands.

Grizzly 45

Can we get this woman over here to work as a TD....Please???

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/not-miss-rep-lauren-boebert-unloads-speaker-pelosi-hunter-biden-cop-hating-democrats-pro-2a-speech-ages-video/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=PostSideSharingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons&fbclid=IwAR2hYnV9ZXdATpWzptK_myD6SQLrYtl7SjoayaPCXJLfCIKkiswRPpagFNI

tudderone

A golf range finder for sale soon in Lidl.

https://www.lidl.ie/p/golf-zone/laser-rangefinder/p12854

Cass

SCOTUS just ruled today that voting restrictions put in place in Arizona do not violate the 1965 voting act. The restrictions were originally denied/ruled unconstitutional by a local court, but SCOTUS in a 6-3 majority ruled that inconvenience is not a removal or denial of voting rights.

This means restrictions such as absentee/mail in voting must have a timescale and not be months in advance, same with submitting someone's vote. It must be a family member or caregiver, no more ballot harvesting, as well as banning electioneering near/at polling stations (like the case in NY).

This has a two major outcomes.

It sets a prescdent which other states considering similar restrictions may now put in place.
It all but destroys the Biden DoJs upcoming SCOTUS case against the state of Georgia for implementing similar restictions.

Grizzly 45

One to keep in mind if you are intending to get the youngsters jabbed..Not without its risks either.

https://trendingpolitics.com/inventor-of-mrna-vaccines-reveals-what-he-suspects-is-behind-childhood-heart-inflammation-cases-knab/

Cass

Cass

Mee-hole Martin said three days ago that the level of spending during the past 15 months is unsustainable.

Also today the cabinet signed off on restoring TDs and civil servant salaries/wages to 2008 levels.


Carlsberg don't do irony, but if they did:

Grizzly 45

Arizona bans the use of trail cams for hunting...On both public and private land...:eek:

https://www.fieldandstream.com/hunting/arizona-bans-trail-cameras/

Cass

Confrontations between hunters and taking people's picture without their permission.

Confrontations will continue if not rise when they are out on the land regardless, and I thought picture taking on public land requires no permission, at least in the states?

Feisar

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think I'll leave this here.

He’s taking the piss!

Wasn’t Grizz talking about implanting a few sleeper operatives in the Greens/PETA. Looks like he pulled it off.
Although next time your agent comes in maybe tell him to lay off the sleeping!

Cass

I'll see your glass cleaning and raise you picking up dog poo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSv2yK0qmVU

Feisar

Cass wrote: »

I'll see your glass cleaning and raise you picking up dog poo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSv2yK0qmVU

Wasn’t that Mia Khalifa? I’d say she’s done worse for a crust.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

I'll see your glass cleaning and raise you picking up dog poo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSv2yK0qmVU

That just made me a bit uncle dick

Bog Trotter99

tudderone wrote: »

That just made me a bit uncle dick

Not half as bad as her boyfriend was after he saw the video.

Munsterlad102

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Arizona bans the use of trail cams for hunting...On both public and private land...:eek:

https://www.fieldandstream.com/hunting/arizona-bans-trail-cameras/

Just put up CCTV cameras to capture footage of trespassers, problem solved

tudderone

:rolleyes:

Police in California confiscate 5,000lbs of fireworks, and try to get rid of them in a controlled explosion around the corner ...........................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqp_aGLp0hY

Bog Trotter99

"Fire in the hole"

One of the cops found a banger.:D

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

Confrontations between hunters and taking people's picture without their permission.

Confrontations will continue if not rise when they are out on the land regardless, and I thought picture taking on public land requires no permission, at least in the states?

In Ireland too.

You are not allowed to harass people in the course of your photography – stalking someone, or repeatedly blocking their way to take a photograph of them could be construed as harassment; simply taking a photograph of them probably won’t. Taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed – however, an exception is made where the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In public place, you have no right or expectation of privacy. I've how trail cams on public property infringe anyones right. Private property, I've less of a clue how that stands up

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

Just put up CCTV cameras to capture footage of trespassers, problem solved

How a legal point of view, CCTV would be out too. Which doesn't sound like this will stick.

Bog Trotter99

Mellor wrote: »

In Ireland too.



In public place, you have no right or expectation of privacy. I've how trail cams on public property infringe anyones right. Private property, I've less of a clue how that stands up



How a legal point of view, CCTV would be out too. Which doesn't sound like this will stick.

I think you may be wrong there Mellor. Even if you can get away with taking sombodys image publicly in Ireland, what you do with it afterwards is problematic.

I think it all now falls under the data protection act.

I think if cameras on private record on public. Then that can be an issue. Also I think you are restricted on what you record on private property regards third party persons. This refers what you do with and how you store that data (vid/pics). I think that is how it goes here in nutty land.

Anyway forgetting all that the universal world law I think states that if somebody poses or acts for you in a photograph or video then you need to get them to sign a 'model release' agreement. This gives you permission to do whatever agreed with such video/pics. If you do not get this signed then you could be open to costs.

So if you are using members of the public as your actors or models then is there a line being crossed?

Even so showing someone in what they may is 'not an acceptable light' by 'their' terms may possibly go the wrong way for the pic/vid taker.

I think also buildings/structures can have copywrite applied to them. Which means I think you would have to pay the copywrite owners royalty's for using such in photos and videos.

It's been a long time since I did photography and extra laws apply in certain countries etc. So I am not 100% on this stuff. So you had better check things out.

Cass

Mellor wrote: »

In Ireland too.

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

I think you may be wrong there Mellor. .

This is a messy one, and one I know little about.

There was concern about dashcams some time back and does the person become a data controller as the dashcam footage can be used to idenitfy a person or if the footage constitutues commercial use.

The photgraphing of people, according to data commissioner Helen Dixon, is permissible in public and even for sharing in private or on social media. However commercial use of the picture is a different ballgame and if you capture the image of someone (purposefully or by accident) and share it online (in a household networking setting) then you're still fine, but she said common sense and decency means if the person has a problem with it, they or it should be removed.

GDPR has been a confusing nightmare since its introduction a few years back. Even now its hard to know what is and is not "safe" to the extent Ive been told and heard of schools and other such facilities simply banning photography in an attempt to keep, legally, safe.

I suppose the best approach is in public work away, but be mindful, and if you intend to use it for commerical purposes then you need consent.

Trail cams would not fall into this, in my opinion. The lands we would place them on are not always public, but if they are the images are for private use.

Bog Trotter99

Cass wrote: »

This is a messy one, and one I know little about.

There was concern about dashcams some time back and does the person become a data controller as the dashcam footage can be used to idenitfy a person or if the footage constitutues commercial use.

The photgraphing of people, according to data commissioner Helen Dixon, is permissible in public and even for sharing in private or on social media. However commercial use of the picture is a different ballgame and if you capture the image of someone (purposefully or by accident) and share it online (in a household networking setting) then you're still fine, but she said common sense and decency means if the person has a problem with it, they or it should be removed.

GDPR has been a confusing nightmare since its introduction a few years back. Even now its hard to know what is and is not "safe" to the extent Ive been told and heard of schools and other such facilities simply banning photography in an attempt to keep, legally, safe.

I suppose the best approach is in public work away, but be mindful, and if you intend to use it for commerical purposes then you need consent.

Trail cams would not fall into this, in my opinion. The lands we would place them on are not always public, but if they are the images are for private use.

I think Cass is bang on there but I would even apply extra caution in nutty land because if people see you making a pound they will be after it.