On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:11:51 +0000, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:

>On 09/03/2024 16:20, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 09/03/2024 14:40, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9 Mar 2024 13:49:32 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it
>>>> actually
>>>> stream live TV?
>>>
>>> This is a good question. I thought all TV could be streamed live, but
>>> I could be wrong about that. I know how to do it on BBC and Sky, I
>>> have done it on another TV with Channel 4. Maybe I should try ITV X
>>> instead and put in an English postcode?
>>
>> Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these channel-bespoke
>> solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by a single common
>> platform:
>>
>> https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
>>
>I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
>4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
>
>i.e, we can already watch all these channels on iplayer, ITVHub, 4OD and
>Demand5 without using Freely?

I'm confused too but at the moment I cannot get live TV on either ITVX
or C4 (but I can on BBC iPlayer and Sky News) even though an Android
TV - which mine is - is supposed to be supported.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:10:45 +0000, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>>This assumes the modern meaning of "live", which apparently no longer
>>means "as the events you are watching are actually happening and are
>>not a recording", but "as the events you are watching are actually
>>being transmitted by one of the mainstream broadcasting channels, even
>>if it is a recording".
>
>So if they show the Coronation again, you need a licence to watch it?
>Or the 1966 World Cup. Opening night of ITV?

If they show it at a scheduled time on a conventional broadcasting
service, then yes, you do need a licence. It may be a recording, but
according to the definition that seems to be the default now, it's
considered "live" if it's being broadcast.

If something is made available via an internet on-demand catchup
service (with the exception of BBC iPlayer) where you start the
playback of the recording yourself at a time of your choosing, then
you don't need a licence. It may be a recording of the same programme,
but the need to buy a licence depends on what you use to watch it.

We now have the problem of what to call a transmission showing events
at the same time as they are actually happening. We used to call it
"live" but we seem to have debased the term so we can no longer be
sure what it means unless somebody redefines it each time it is used.

Rod.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:11:51 +0000, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:

>I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
>4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?

Probably just the convenience of having them all in the same place for
people who don't want the complication of configuring them all
individually.

Unless I've misunderstood something, or they're also going to change
the law to cover this (which seems unlikely), then the "live" i.e.
timetabled broadcast streams included in this service would require a
TV licence, just the same as if you were watching them using a
receiver connected to an aerial.

If this is the case, then the website is misleading where it says that
it will enable watching TV via the internet "for free".

The only difference I can think of is that if people can be persuaded
to watch broadcasting streams via the internet, it will be technically
possible to monitor what they are watching, whereas with conventional
transmissions over the air, such a mechanism doesn't even exist.

I wonder why they'd want that?

Rod.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:11:51 +0000, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
>> 4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
>
> Probably just the convenience of having them all in the same place for
> people who don't want the complication of configuring them all
> individually.
>
> Unless I've misunderstood something, or they're also going to change
> the law to cover this (which seems unlikely), then the "live" i.e.
> timetabled broadcast streams included in this service would require a
> TV licence, just the same as if you were watching them using a
> receiver connected to an aerial.
>
> If this is the case, then the website is misleading where it says that
> it will enable watching TV via the internet "for free".
>
> The only difference I can think of is that if people can be persuaded
> to watch broadcasting streams via the internet, it will be technically
> possible to monitor what they are watching, whereas with conventional
> transmissions over the air, such a mechanism doesn't even exist.
>
> I wonder why they'd want that?
>
> Rod.
>

Clearly free has to be taken not entirely at face value. Other than the
licence fee issue, you have to provide an Internet connection, electricity,
and the capital outlay for a TV, none of which come without cost.

What is not clear from the launch information is whether or not Freely
enabled PVRs will be a thing. Clearly you will be able to stream previously
aired programmes but I can almost guarantee you won’t be able to skip the
adverts without additional fees being payable. A PVR is really the only way
of making today’s advert infested programmes viewable.

A suspect Freely is seen by the commercial broadcasters as a way of cutting
down on advert skipping.

On 11/03/2024 21:20, Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:11:51 +0000, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/03/2024 16:20, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2024 14:40, Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9 Mar 2024 13:49:32 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it
>>>>> actually
>>>>> stream live TV?
>>>>
>>>> This is a good question. I thought all TV could be streamed live, but
>>>> I could be wrong about that. I know how to do it on BBC and Sky, I
>>>> have done it on another TV with Channel 4. Maybe I should try ITV X
>>>> instead and put in an English postcode?
>>>
>>> Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these channel-bespoke
>>> solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by a single common
>>> platform:
>>>
>>> https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
>>>
>> I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
>> 4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
>>
>> i.e, we can already watch all these channels on iplayer, ITVHub, 4OD and
>> Demand5 without using Freely?
>
> I'm confused too but at the moment I cannot get live TV on either ITVX
> or C4 (but I can on BBC iPlayer and Sky News) even though an Android
> TV - which mine is - is supposed to be supported.

On the ITVX client I have here you left arrow whicj brings up a menu.
Then down arrow to "Live TV" and select the channel you wish to view.

On 11/03/2024 21:11, SH wrote:

> I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
> 4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
>
> i.e, we can already watch all these channels on iplayer, ITVHub, 4OD and
> Demand5 without using Freely?

i believe its another way of delivering existing channels. currently
when you setup your tv you choose arial, sattelite or cable, there
should be a fourth choice, internet.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:19:53 +0000, Mark Undrill
<spam@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/03/2024 21:20, Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:11:51 +0000, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/03/2024 16:20, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 09/03/2024 14:40, Scott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9 Mar 2024 13:49:32 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you receive STV (Scottish TV ???) without an aerial? Does it
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> stream live TV?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a good question. I thought all TV could be streamed live, but
>>>>> I could be wrong about that. I know how to do it on BBC and Sky, I
>>>>> have done it on another TV with Channel 4. Maybe I should try ITV X
>>>>> instead and put in an English postcode?
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget that for the major five channels, all these channel-bespoke
>>>> solutions seem set to disappear, and be replaced by a single common
>>>> platform:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.techradar.com/streaming/what-is-freely-the-new-bbc-itv-and-channel-4-smart-tv-platform-explained
>>>>
>>> I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
>>> 4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
>>>
>>> i.e, we can already watch all these channels on iplayer, ITVHub, 4OD and
>>> Demand5 without using Freely?
>>
>> I'm confused too but at the moment I cannot get live TV on either ITVX
>> or C4 (but I can on BBC iPlayer and Sky News) even though an Android
>> TV - which mine is - is supposed to be supported.
>
>On the ITVX client I have here you left arrow whicj brings up a menu.
>Then down arrow to "Live TV" and select the channel you wish to view.
>
Yes, that's right but the arrow is removed if it is not a 'supported'
device. There is stuff on the Internet about this.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:18:11 +0000, the dog from that film you saw
<dsb@REMOVETHISbtinternet.com> wrote:

>On 11/03/2024 21:11, SH wrote:
>
>> I'm a little confused... What does Freely give that BBC iPlayer, ITVHub,
>> 4OD and Demand5 doesn't give?
>>
>> i.e, we can already watch all these channels on iplayer, ITVHub, 4OD and
>> Demand5 without using Freely?
>
>i believe its another way of delivering existing channels. currently
>when you setup your tv you choose arial, sattelite or cable, there
>should be a fourth choice, internet.

This was my belief also until I tried to accomplish it. It needs to be
a 'supported device' but the definition of supported is opaque.

On 12/03/2024 09:27, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> The only difference I can think of is that if people can be persuaded
> to watch broadcasting streams via the internet, it will be technically
> possible to monitor what they are watching,

They would only be able to monitor what is being streamed - not that
people are watching it.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article <6570vidn7i4idm6g5npsgha2et8nuii32a@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> .... it will be technically possible to monitor what they are
> watching, whereas with conventional transmissions over the air,
> such a mechanism doesn't even exist.

> I wonder why they'd want that?

The much more important question is - who would want that information.

Bob.

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:35:24 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <6570vidn7i4idm6g5npsgha2et8nuii32a@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> .... it will be technically possible to monitor what they are
>> watching, whereas with conventional transmissions over the air,
>> such a mechanism doesn't even exist.
>
>> I wonder why they'd want that?
>
>The much more important question is - who would want that information.
>
>Bob.

Anyone with a motive to "prove" that you have been watching something
that requires you to have a licence.

I've heard some disturbing stories of the lengths the licence people
will go to, sending repeated threatening letters to the deceased for
example, even prosecuting someone with Downs syndrome who had no
control of her own finances. Apparently it's even possible to
prosecute people in their absence, which makes me wonder what is
presented by way of "evidence".

As BBC iPlayer seems to be installed by default on a lot of devices,
its presence doesn't actually prove anything, but you wouldn't know
what argument might be presented in court in your absence.

Rod.

On 14/03/2024 12:55, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:35:24 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> In article <6570vidn7i4idm6g5npsgha2et8nuii32a@4ax.com>,
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> .... it will be technically possible to monitor what they are
>>> watching, whereas with conventional transmissions over the air,
>>> such a mechanism doesn't even exist.
>>
>>> I wonder why they'd want that?
>>
>> The much more important question is - who would want that information.
>
> Anyone with a motive to "prove" that you have been watching something
> that requires you to have a licence.
>
> I've heard some disturbing stories of the lengths the licence people
> will go to, sending repeated threatening letters to the deceased for
> example, even prosecuting someone with Downs syndrome who had no
> control of her own finances. Apparently it's even possible to
> prosecute people in their absence, which makes me wonder what is
> presented by way of "evidence".

Yes, I remember from periods when I didn't own a TV that they're very
good with the threatening letters etc, but, IIRC, that's an outside
sub-contractor debt-collector agency employed by the BBC, not the actual
BBC itself (BTW, that's not an unjustifiable attempt to excuse the BBC
from their ultimate responsibility for the methods of the people & firms
they employ, rather, I'm making a different point here). Similarly,
judging by the domains of the servers that iPlayer uses, those belong to
a different external sub-contractor who hosts their streaming services
for them. I suspect ...

- It would be neither easy nor legal under data protection laws for
the IPs of iPlayer users to find their way from one external agency
running the streaming service to a different external agency running the
licence-fee collection service.

- Even if they did, how would they make use of them? The only legal
way for the collection agency to find the holder of a particular IP at a
particular point in time would be get an injunction from a court
requesting this information from their ISP, an injunction which would
only be granted if it can be shown that the IP in question has been
involved in nefarious activity, but, for any given IP, that can't be
proven in advance without knowing which household was using the IP and
that the particular household didn't have a TV licence at the time, so
it's an insoluble chicken & egg situation for them - they can't get an
injunction without prior proof of wrongdoing, but they can't prove such
wrongdoing without an injunction.

- Even if they were to get around that somehow (but how?), the cost of
obtaining an injunction for every single IP that accesses iPlayer would
be many, many times any additional money won beyond the current system
of relying on the general public's honesty, so it wouldn't make any
economic sense for it to be attempted.

> As BBC iPlayer seems to be installed by default on a lot of devices,
> its presence doesn't actually prove anything, but you wouldn't know
> what argument might be presented in court in your absence.

Given the above, how would they get hold of any device to prove the
existence of iPlayer on it anyway?

So put aside the paranoia, both of you.

A more possible scenario is that data on licence holders be made
available to the streaming services for them somehow to use to vet users
accessing the service, but they would have the same problem as above,
how to know which IPs belong to households with a licence? For users
accessing the service through the web interface, that's entirely
possible, because of the need to sign in, so potentially your
licence-fee details may have to be included in your user's profile,
otherwise access to iPlayer will be denied you. However, in most cases
they still wouldn't be able to prove that you are accessing the service
from that household or are using a mobile device belonging to a member
of that household, rather than using borrowed details as was widespread
with Netflix, at least until the recent clampdown.

Even then, programs like GetiPlayer and YouTubeDownload(Plus)
(youtube-dl, yt-dlp), which work partly by pretending to the server that
they are normal web-clients, may still be able to access content from
their respective sources, as proven by the fact that currently they
still work despite myriad changes to those sources in the past, even
though some of those changes probably having been designed specifically
to prevent such unauthorised use!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:46:40 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>The only legal
>way for the collection agency to find the holder of a particular IP at a
>particular point in time would be get an injunction from a court
>requesting this information from their ISP, an injunction which would
>only be granted if it can be shown that the IP in question has been
>involved in nefarious activity, but, for any given IP, that can't be
>proven in advance without knowing which household was using the IP and
>that the particular household didn't have a TV licence at the time, so
>it's an insoluble chicken & egg situation for them - they can't get an
>injunction without prior proof of wrongdoing, but they can't prove such
>wrongdoing without an injunction.

To oblige ISPs to provide this information routinely on demand would
only require a slight change in the law, which if anybody proposed it
would probably get through the system unopposed, because as usual
nobody would be paying attention because it's technical and they
couldn't understand it.

Look at some things that have already happened. Apparently we have a
law that enables the police to demand passwords on the threat of
prison, and only recently Scotland has criminalised words uttered in
your own home if they can be judged to be "hate crime", without a
clear definition of what this means, i.e. effectively the plods get to
make up the law as they go along.

The difference between the detection of TV viewing by internet
streaming and by radio broadcast is that the former includes a
mechanism that would only require a change in the law to invoke it,
whilst in the latter case the mechanism doesn't even exist. No law can
demand something that isn't physically possible (unless for example it
demands the complete replacement of all conventional cars with
electric ones, but that's another story, and physics will eventually
win anyway because it always does).

Rod.

In article <f8s5vilqtk8rad1948lvog8460cted9llu@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:35:24 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> >In article <6570vidn7i4idm6g5npsgha2et8nuii32a@4ax.com>,
> > Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> .... it will be technically possible to monitor what they are
> >> watching, whereas with conventional transmissions over the air,
> >> such a mechanism doesn't even exist.
> >
> >> I wonder why they'd want that?
> >
> >The much more important question is - who would want that
> >information.

> Anyone with a motive to "prove" that you have been watching
> something that requires you to have a licence.

That's not an issue for me. The law is what the law is, people know
the telly tax is becoming ever more absurd as time goes on, it will
end itself - eventually. Besides, if we go online then direct
subscription payments per view may be more practical and certainly
fairer.

No, what bothers me is data gathering by the thought police in one
guise or another. Unfortunately, we live in a world where unhinged
people see themselves as virtuous but shutting down their political
opponents by dirty means whilst claiming it's for the greater good.

You only have to look across the pond where the Democrats have
weaponised the entire justice system and changed the whole meaning of
the word "moral". It no longer refers to what you do, it now means -
why you do it, so any vile, corrupt, dishonest act done against Trump
is now seen as moral and is for the greater good.

I see a time when people who watch items deemed "wrong think" will be
easily identified for the thought police to deal with.

That's what bothers me.

Bob.

On 15/03/2024 09:08, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:46:40 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> The only legal
>> way for the collection agency to find the holder of a particular IP at a
>> particular point in time would be get an injunction from a court
>> requesting this information from their ISP, an injunction which would
>> only be granted if it can be shown that the IP in question has been
>> involved in nefarious activity, but, for any given IP, that can't be
>> proven in advance without knowing which household was using the IP and
>> that the particular household didn't have a TV licence at the time, so
>> it's an insoluble chicken & egg situation for them - they can't get an
>> injunction without prior proof of wrongdoing, but they can't prove such
>> wrongdoing without an injunction.
>
> To oblige ISPs to provide this information routinely on demand would
> only require a slight change in the law, which if anybody proposed it
> would probably get through the system unopposed, because as usual
> nobody would be paying attention because it's technical and they
> couldn't understand it.

It wouldn't be a slight change, it would be a considerable one which
freedom groups would immediately pick up on, because it would make
things like anonymous whistleblowing more difficult or even sometimes
personally dangerous.

> Look at some things that have already happened. Apparently we have a
> law that enables the police to demand passwords on the threat of
> prison,

More overblown paranoia. Only if they have reasonable grounds as part
of an investigation, they can't just do it 'on spec':

https://adleygray.com/what-are-my-rights-when-the-police-ask-for-my-phone-password/

"The police have the power to request access to your device under the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). This anti-terror
legislation has been broadened over the years and allows police to serve
a notice under Section 49 of the act, requiring suspects to disclose
passwords or codes to their devices.
Grounds for a Section 49 Notice

A Section 49 notice can be issued if the following circumstances apply:

The password is in the suspect’s possession
Disclosure is necessary for preventing or detecting crime
Disclosure is proportional to the investigation
The protected material cannot be obtained by other means

Do You Have to Comply with a RIPA Notice?

The answer is no, but failing to comply with a police request can result
in a prosecution. Section 53 of RIPA makes it a criminal offence to not
comply with a Section 49 notice, carrying a sentence of up to two years
in prison, and up to five years in cases involving national security or
child indecency."

> and only recently Scotland has criminalised words uttered in
> your own home if they can be judged to be "hate crime", without a
> clear definition of what this means, i.e. effectively the plods get to
> make up the law as they go along.

Not really true as stated, the word 'home' doesn't even occur in the
following article, so again, paranoia. The new law coming into effect
on April 1st is indeed somewhat controversial, but that is just because
it is Scotland's attempt to handle a subject that is inherently
controversial, as it needs to find the middle ground between two
conflicting forces: personal freedom & how exercise of personal freedom
adversely affects other people. Further, the article ends ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68570614

"The UK government is grappling with similar issues as it discusses
violence, hatred and intolerance in its attempt to define extremism.

[1 paragraph more]"

.... so the wider UK and in fact many other nations are struggling with
the same dilemma:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country

> The difference between the detection of TV viewing by internet
> streaming and by radio broadcast is that the former includes a
> mechanism that would only require a change in the law to invoke it,
> whilst in the latter case the mechanism doesn't even exist. No law can
> demand something that isn't physically possible (unless for example it
> demands the complete replacement of all conventional cars with
> electric ones, but that's another story, and physics will eventually
> win anyway because it always does).

But you're still being paranoid about it. It's gone the 11th March now,
and, as warned by the BBC, the download button is now disabled on the
iPlayer website, at least to me browsing from a laptop, but, as
predicted by myself and others, GetIPlayer is still working. If 'they'
were really headed down this repressive path characteristic of Putin's
Russia, don't you think that would have been among the first things
'they' would have tried to kill off? After all, it enables anybody to
download independent news.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/03/2024 10:43, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> You only have to look across the pond where the Democrats have
> weaponised the entire justice system and changed the whole meaning of
> the word "moral". It no longer refers to what you do, it now means -
> why you do it, so any vile, corrupt, dishonest act done against Trump
> is now seen as moral and is for the greater good.
More nonsense from the sewer that was called Shitter (and should still
be) as usual calling black 'white' and white 'black', ie the complete
reverse of the actual truth. The Trump incited insurrection on Jan 6
was a clear attempt at Putinising the American democratic system, he has
clearly broken the law in multiple further ways, and has even said
publicly that if elected he intends to become a dictator (though
afterwards he backtracked that to "for a day") and will revenge himself
on all those who have taken him to court. Wasn't his disastrous
*actual* presidency enough evidence for you? It was for many Americans,
a recent poll of who had been the best and worst presidents in US
history placed him bottom. Currently he faces or has lost more than 91
charges, with potentially more from his attempts to overturn the 2020
election in more states in the pipeline.

To start with the two civil cases he's already lost, he owes tens of
millions in *punitive* fines for slandering a *second* time a woman he
raped, E. Jean Carroll, but has just slandered her again, leading to the
possibility of him being sued by her a third time, which, if happens, he
will certainly lose, and the fines may then be ratcheted up another
order of magnitude in an effort to teach him the wisdom of putting his
brain in gear before operating his mouth. More seriously, for him but
of course not for the rape victim, he also owes hundreds of millions in
fines for falsifying his business records for tax purposes, money which
all the signs indicate that he doesn't have in readily realisable cash,
and will have to start selling significant assets to pay it 'when' -
according to seemingly most US legal experts - not 'if' he loses his
attempted appeal. Meanwhile the running of his businesses are being
overseen by a caretaker official.

But he still faces 91 charges in four separate *criminal* cases still to
come to court. Potentially, he has to be found guilty on only *one* of
these 91 charges to end up in jail. The only real question is not his
guilt, but whether the lumbering US justice system can get him convicted
before the election against a barrage from his lawyers' of delaying
tactics by raising the most absurd & ridiculous appeals, most of which
most courts if they were trying anyone else would feel able to just
dismiss out of hand.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161

But, if all the above wasn't enough to convince a rational person that
he's a danger to US democracy and thereby to the democracy of its
allies, you should consider some other points ...

The idolatrous Republican party is now completely in the hands of their
Orange Juju, literally, in that their national convention is now
completely controlled by members of his own family, and they are laying
off people, around 60 at the most recent count, to leave more money for
paying his legal fees and fines from his lost court cases. So all the
money that well-meaning people in the past have contributed to achieve a
political effect is instead being syphoned off for something else entirely.

Republicans are engaged in a nationwide campaign of attempting to ensure
a continuous House majority by redrawing electoral boundaries in the
states that they control to reduce the number of democratic
Representatives that they elect. They have already attempted and lost a
number of cases in this endeavour.

They are also trying to tighten up state voting laws in such various
ways as to disadvantage the sort of people in society who are more
likely to vote Democrat. To give just one example, currently most
states allow postal ballots to be counted as long they are postmarked on
or before election day, but some Republican-controlled states are trying
to alter the rules in their state so that ballots have actually to
arrive before election day; superficially this seems reasonable, but the
trouble with it is that it opens the possibility for votes from Democrat
areas to be deliberately delayed by bad actors in the postal system so
that they will not be counted.

Then there are the wide ranging consequences of overturning Roe v Wade.
As embryos of any age are now considered people, this is affecting not
just abortion but IVF and potentially even contraceptive rights. Those
in the US of reproductive age, particularly of course women, stand to
lose significant reproductive rights and control over their own bodies.

But nowhere is the shambolic state to which Trump & his MAGA high
priests have reduced the Republican party more noticeable than in
Congress. As you are always raging against Putin and condemning
everyone who argues against you as being rabidly left-wing (when of
course the real truth is that it is you who is rabidly right-wing), I
presume that, like most people in Western democracies, you want Ukraine
to win its war of freedom against Russian oppression? So, given the
ineffectual & unfunny clown show to which Republicans have reduced the
House of Representatives, so that it is unable to pass almost any
legislation because they want to fuck any chance of Biden passing any
such in the last year of his term to, as they think, increase their own
chances of winning the forthcoming election by pointing the public to
the chaos that they themselves are causing and blaming Biden for it, how
can you justify Trump's stated aim of preventing any aid to Ukraine
passing through the House, and his stated aim of not giving any aid to
Ukraine if he is elected? Even long-standing GOP Representatives -
mostly those who are so who are so pissed off at the current state of
obeyance to the Orange Juju that they are not seeking re-election anyway
- are considering resigning early in order to reduce the GOP majority
and possibly even hand it back to the Democrats, so that normal
government can resume. One went yesterday, there are rumours of a few
more, and I think only 4 or 5 in total are needed to overturn the
Republican majority, and then maybe the House can resume its normal
business of government that they were elected to do, including passing
the Senate bill to give desperately needed aid to Ukraine.

Etc, etc. When Trump even says openly that he intends to be a dictator,
FFS, BELIEVE HIM!

[
Provenance for the above can be found mostly in most decent mainstream
news sources, naturally particularly US ones.

Some further interesting details come out of a number of YouTube videos
by Brian Taylor Cohen, so a word or two about him. He is quite
obviously very anti-Trump, but his solo rants on that subject are not
the videos I would point you to, but others where he discusses various
legal and political points with experts, whom he lets speak largely
uninterrupted:

+ Those subtitled The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner

+ Those subtitled Democracy Watch with Marc Elias

+ Those subtitled Inside The Right with Tim Miller

https://www.youtube.com/@briantylercohen/videos

Further interesting videos come out of the Meidas Touch, particularly
those that cover in depth the legal issues raised by the Trump cases:

https://www.youtube.com/@MeidasTouch
]

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <ut1luf$2al67$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 15/03/2024 10:43, Bob Latham wrote:
> >

> More nonsense from the sewer that was called Shitter (and should
> still be) as usual calling black 'white' and white 'black', ie the

Can't be arsed to argue with lefties and their 6th form naive
politics or put up with their name calling again from school age.

But thank for the attack, it confirms I'm on the right lines.

Bob.

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ut1luf$2al67$1@dont-email.me>,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 15/03/2024 10:43, Bob Latham wrote:

>> More nonsense from the sewer that was called Shitter (and should
>> still be) as usual calling black 'white' and white 'black', ie the

> Can't be arsed to argue with lefties and their 6th form naive
> politics or put up with their name calling again from school age.

> But thank for the attack, it confirms I'm on the right lines.

> Bob.

Don’t knock it…you got a thousand word essay in response. A deranged essay,
but think of the effort that was wasted putting it together.

--
Spike

On 15/03/2024 19:28, Spike wrote:
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <ut1luf$2al67$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 15/03/2024 10:43, Bob Latham wrote:
>
>>> More nonsense from the sewer that was called Shitter (and should
>>> still be) as usual calling black 'white' and white 'black', ie the
>
>> Can't be arsed to argue with lefties and their 6th form naive
>> politics or put up with their name calling again from school age.
>>
>> But thank for the attack, it confirms I'm on the right lines.

So yet again you are proven to have no answer to actual facts when they
are presented to you. No change there then.

> Don’t knock it…you got a thousand word essay in response. A deranged essay,
> but think of the effort that was wasted putting it together.

It's not wasted effort, because anyone coming along later has the option
of reading it if they so choose, and thereby finding out more about the
issues in question. I can't force idioticly hopeless obeisant disciples
like you & Bob out of the shitty rabbit-holes of quasi-religious fake
news that you dig for yourselves, but the option is there for others who
may have a few brain cells about them and may wish to avoid a similarly
ignominious fate.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <l5jlqrFi16cU1@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

> Don‘t knock itŒyou got a thousand word essay in response. A
> deranged essay, but think of the effort that was wasted putting it
> together.

Indeed a wonderful thought. Made me chuckle, thanks for that.

Bob.

In article <5b41f85672bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> No, what bothers me is data gathering by the thought police in one guise
> or another. Unfortunately, we live in a world where unhinged people see
> themselves as virtuous but shutting down their political opponents by
> dirty means whilst claiming it's for the greater good.

I'm concerned about the 'big tech' companies and the ultra-wealthy doing
this via their 'commerical' apps, devices, software, etc. Can't say it
would concern me for the UK Gov to know I watch the BBC.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5b41f85672bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>> No, what bothers me is data gathering by the thought police in one guise
>> or another. Unfortunately, we live in a world where unhinged people see
>> themselves as virtuous but shutting down their political opponents by
>> dirty means whilst claiming it's for the greater good.

> I'm concerned about the 'big tech' companies and the ultra-wealthy doing
> this via their 'commerical' apps, devices, software, etc. Can't say it
> would concern me for the UK Gov to know I watch the BBC.

Keeping in mind that “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the
most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him”, any
detective constable worth his salt would use your BBC-watching against you.

--
Spike

In article <l5lcfgFprutU1@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <5b41f85672bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> > <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> >> No, what bothers me is data gathering by the thought police in
> >> one guise or another. Unfortunately, we live in a world where
> >> unhinged people see themselves as virtuous but shutting down
> >> their political opponents by dirty means whilst claiming it's
> >> for the greater good.

> > I'm concerned about the 'big tech' companies and the
> > ultra-wealthy doing this via their 'commerical' apps, devices,
> > software, etc. Can't say it would concern me for the UK Gov to
> > know I watch the BBC.

> Keeping in mind that ”If you give me six lines written by the hand
> of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will
> hang him•, any detective constable worth his salt would use your
> BBC-watching against you.

I'm sure people would be quite safe watching the propaganda channels
put out by the elite so BBC, Sky, C4 no issues for certain. What
about GB news (or others), that trigger the offcom-munists on a
regular basis who like to make sure that the media stay well left of
centre or else. Interesting indeed to see where all of those people
came from, no prizes for guessing.

Remember, we now live in a state where one woman standing alone in
silent prayer (no banners, no placards) opposite an abortion clinic
can be arrested but a whole hoard of muslims in full, on their knees
prayer in the street is perfectly fine. Or a guy alone carries a
placard saying that Hamas are terrorists gets forced to the ground
and arrested. Again, this while Hamas and terrorist supporters can
climb over and deface monuments and call for (from the river to the
sea) genocide of the jews - all fine.

The days when the boys in blue could be relied upon to uphold the law
equally for all are long gone, they've clearly taken a side. I never
thought Britain could sink this low but it has. That's why snooping
is now a worry, you cannot predict how much worse things are going to
get.

The Tories have been truly awful but in the summer we get a Labour
government - God help us. This isn't a Labour concerned with working
people and the poor getting a fair crack, oh no. All Labour are
concerned with now are their luxury belief ideologies. Logic, reason,
common sense all gone. An emperor's new clothes world where anyone
with half a brain can see the insanity but you cannot speak against
the ideologies.

Britain is done, we stand at the gates of hell and there's no way
back.

Bob.

On 16/03/2024 in message <5b42849e4fbob@sick-of-spam.invalid> Bob Latham
wrote:

>Remember, we now live in a state where one woman standing alone in
>silent prayer (no banners, no placards) opposite an abortion clinic
>can be arrested but a whole hoard of muslims in full, on their knees
>prayer in the street is perfectly fine.

The same state was up in arms when the Palestinian flag was raised at a
football match (in Scotland) and at a junior league match - where
apparently one Israeli family complained so the match was abandoned.

Frankly knowing who our government treats as the goodies and who the
baddies is impossible to tell.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that
was responsible went immediately.
(Gordon Brown, April 2009)

On 16/03/2024 11:01, Spike wrote:
> Keeping in mind that “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the
> most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him”, any
> detective constable worth his salt would use your BBC-watching against you.

I am just waiting for a court to demand the full viewing habits from one
of the big American streaming companies to prove something.