Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > uk.net.news.management > #17781 > unrolled thread

Re: Engineered constitutional crisis

Started byBryan Morris <nospam@this.machine>
First post2023-01-19 17:05 +0000
Last post2023-01-27 13:06 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 73 — 14 participants

Back to article view | Back to uk.net.news.management

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-19 17:05 +0000
    Re: Engineered constitutional crisis snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-01-19 18:25 +0000
      Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-19 21:36 +0000
        Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-19 21:53 +0000
          Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-19 22:04 +0000
            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-19 22:14 +0000
              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-20 01:31 +0000
                Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-20 01:52 +0000
                  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-20 02:12 +0000
                    Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-20 02:40 +0000
                      Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-20 19:57 +0000
                        Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-21 02:37 +0000
                          Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 08:41 +0000
                            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 09:22 +0000
                              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 10:30 +0000
                                Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-21 11:00 +0000
                                  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 11:15 +0000
                                    Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-21 14:02 +0000
                                      Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 14:12 +0000
                                        Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 14:17 +0000
                                        Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> - 2023-01-21 14:21 +0000
                                          Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 16:13 +0000
                                            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 17:53 +0000
                                              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 18:36 +0000
                                                Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 22:23 +0000
                                                  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 22:50 +0000
                                                    Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-22 02:23 +0000
                                            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> - 2023-01-21 21:36 +0000
                                            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-22 15:44 +0000
                                        Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-21 14:26 +0000
                                          Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-21 15:47 +0000
                                  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 11:36 +0000
                                    Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 15:43 +0000
                                    Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-22 15:48 +0000
                                  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Algernon Goss-Custard <Ben@nowhere.com> - 2023-01-21 15:30 +0000
                                    Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-21 15:51 +0000
                                    Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-21 18:28 +0000
                            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 10:22 +0000
                            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-01-21 10:43 +0000
                              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 15:49 +0000
                            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-21 10:43 +0000
                              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-21 14:20 +0000
                              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> - 2023-01-21 14:27 +0000
                              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jeff Layman <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-21 20:01 +0000
                                Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-21 22:28 +0000
                                  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jeff Layman <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-22 09:22 +0000
                            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-21 11:01 +0000
                              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 11:17 +0000
                                Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-21 18:30 +0000
                                  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 21:08 +0000
                                    Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-22 02:25 +0000
                                      Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-22 08:25 +0000
                                        Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-23 01:20 +0000
                                          Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> - 2023-01-23 13:04 +0000
                                            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2023-01-23 13:17 +0000
                                              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> - 2023-01-27 00:34 +0000
                                                Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> - 2023-01-27 06:37 +0000
                                                  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-27 08:55 +0000
                                            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-23 13:36 +0000
                                              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> - 2023-01-27 00:35 +0000
                                                Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-27 17:09 +0000
                                                  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> - 2023-01-29 19:25 +0000
                                                    Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> - 2023-01-30 00:52 +0000
                                                      Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> - 2023-01-30 01:21 +0000
                              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> - 2023-01-21 17:18 +0000
                            Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-21 11:13 +0000
                              Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 12:15 +0000
                                Re: Engineered constitutional crisis snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-01-21 12:47 +0000
                                  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> - 2023-01-21 14:11 +0000
                                  Re: Engineered constitutional crisis "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 14:18 +0000
                                    Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-22 16:00 +0000
                                Re: Engineered constitutional crisis The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> - 2023-01-22 15:59 +0000
                        Re: Engineered constitutional crisis Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> - 2023-01-27 13:06 +0000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →


#17781 — Re: Engineered constitutional crisis

FromBryan Morris <nospam@this.machine>
Date2023-01-19 17:05 +0000
SubjectRe: Engineered constitutional crisis
Message-ID<hGmmJYFQhXyjFwzD@this.machine>
In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens 
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and Conservative
>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gender-recogn
>>>>ition-will-end-court/
>>>>
>>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex marriage),
>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag to the blue
>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable to accept
>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic decision of
>>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a political row
>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by the Tories,
>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are the Tories
>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>
>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with the Scottish
>> law either.
>
>If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>
>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>> towards them,
>
>Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but the current
>topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking so they're
>fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>other party then they would certainly not be taking the action the Tory
>scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is *not* run
>by any other party.

And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in 
uk.legal.moderated
-- 
Bryan Morris

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#17782

Fromsnipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
Date2023-01-19 18:25 +0000
Message-ID<1q4thsl.14w0ko1vftvmN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>
In reply to#17781
Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:

> In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
> >On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
> >> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> >>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and Conservative
> >>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gender-recogn
> >>>>ition-will-end-court/
> >>>>
> >>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has always / long
> >>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex marriage),
> >>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag to the blue
> >>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable to accept
> >>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic decision of
> >>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a political row
> >>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
> >>>
> >>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by the Tories,
> >>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are the Tories
> >>> not "unable to accept" it,
> >>
> >> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with the Scottish
> >> law either.
> >
> >If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
> >
> >> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
> >> towards them,
> >
> >Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but the current
> >topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking so they're
> >fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
> >other party then they would certainly not be taking the action the Tory
> >scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is *not* run
> >by any other party.
> 
> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in 
> uk.legal.moderated
 
He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.  
 
-- 
^Ï^.       Sn!pe   –   My pet rock Gordon just is.  

  No plan survives contact with the enemy.   
                   ~ Slava Ukraini ~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17783

FromRoger Hayter <roger@hayter.org>
Date2023-01-19 21:36 +0000
Message-ID<k2trepF81n5U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#17782
On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:

> Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
> 
>> In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and Conservative
>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gender-recogn
>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex marriage),
>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag to the blue
>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable to accept
>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic decision of
>>>>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a political row
>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>> 
>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by the Tories,
>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are the Tories
>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>> 
>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with the Scottish
>>>> law either.
>>> 
>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>>> 
>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>>>> towards them,
>>> 
>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but the current
>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking so they're
>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action the Tory
>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is *not* run
>>> by any other party.
>> 
>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>> uk.legal.moderated
> 
> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.

At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a totally
inappropriate newsgroup.

-- 
Roger Hayter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17784

FromBryan Morris <nospam@this.machine>
Date2023-01-19 21:53 +0000
Message-ID<t5gVmRJLvbyjFwxo@this.machine>
In reply to#17783
In message <k2trepF81n5U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter 
<roger@hayter.org> writes
>On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>
>> Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and Conservative
>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gender-recogn
>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex marriage),
>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag to the blue
>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable to accept
>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic decision of
>>>>>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a political row
>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by the Tories,
>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are the Tories
>>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with the Scottish
>>>>> law either.
>>>>
>>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>>>>> towards them,
>>>>
>>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but the current
>>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking so they're
>>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action the Tory
>>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is *not* run
>>>> by any other party.
>>>
>>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>> uk.legal.moderated
>>
>> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.
>
>At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a totally
>inappropriate newsgroup.
>

What is constitutionally legal in that shithead posting inappropriate 
personal comments in a newsgroup of which he is a moderator?
-- 
Bryan Morris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17785

FromRoger Hayter <roger@hayter.org>
Date2023-01-19 22:04 +0000
Message-ID<k2tt3qF88t6U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#17784
On 19 Jan 2023 at 21:53:15 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote:

> In message <k2trepF81n5U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
> <roger@hayter.org> writes
>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>> 
>>> Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>>>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and Conservative
>>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gender-recogn
>>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex marriage),
>>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag to the blue
>>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable to accept
>>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic decision of
>>>>>>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a political row
>>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by the Tories,
>>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are the Tories
>>>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with the Scottish
>>>>>> law either.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>>>>>> towards them,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but the current
>>>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking so they're
>>>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>>>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action the Tory
>>>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is *not* run
>>>>> by any other party.
>>>> 
>>>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>> uk.legal.moderated
>>> 
>>> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.
>> 
>> At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a totally
>> inappropriate newsgroup.
>> 
> 
> What is constitutionally legal in that shithead posting inappropriate
> personal comments in a newsgroup of which he is a moderator?

A personal comment would normally have to be about a specific person.

-- 
Roger Hayter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17786

FromJon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
Date2023-01-19 22:14 +0000
Message-ID<slrntsjg5i.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
In reply to#17785
On 2023-01-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2023 at 21:53:15 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>> In message <k2trepF81n5U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
>> <roger@hayter.org> writes
>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>>>>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and Conservative
>>>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gender-recogn
>>>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex marriage),
>>>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag to the blue
>>>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable to accept
>>>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic decision of
>>>>>>>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a political row
>>>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by the Tories,
>>>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are the Tories
>>>>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with the Scottish
>>>>>>> law either.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>>>>>>> towards them,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but the current
>>>>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking so they're
>>>>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>>>>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action the Tory
>>>>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is *not* run
>>>>>> by any other party.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>> uk.legal.moderated
>>>> 
>>>> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.
>>> 
>>> At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a totally
>>> inappropriate newsgroup.
>>> 
>> 
>> What is constitutionally legal in that shithead posting inappropriate
>> personal comments in a newsgroup of which he is a moderator?
>
> A personal comment would normally have to be about a specific person.

Perhaps "Bryan Morris" is secretly Keir Starmer in disguise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17787

FromBryan Morris <nospam@this.machine>
Date2023-01-20 01:31 +0000
Message-ID<XsNLzqL+7eyjFwmW@this.machine>
In reply to#17786
In message <slrntsjg5i.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens 
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>On 2023-01-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 21:53:15 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>> In message <k2trepF81n5U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
>>> <roger@hayter.org> writes
>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>>>>>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and Conservative
>>>>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gender-recogn
>>>>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex marriage),
>>>>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag to the blue
>>>>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable to accept
>>>>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic 
>>>>>>>>>>decision of
>>>>>>>>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a political row
>>>>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by the Tories,
>>>>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are the Tories
>>>>>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with the Scottish
>>>>>>>> law either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>>>>>>>> towards them,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but the current
>>>>>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking so they're
>>>>>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>>>>>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action the Tory
>>>>>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is *not* run
>>>>>>> by any other party.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>>> uk.legal.moderated
>>>>>
>>>>> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.
>>>>
>>>> At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a totally
>>>> inappropriate newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is constitutionally legal in that shithead posting inappropriate
>>> personal comments in a newsgroup of which he is a moderator?
>>
>> A personal comment would normally have to be about a specific person.
>
>Perhaps "Bryan Morris" is secretly Keir Starmer in disguise.
Oh you're a Corbynista too?
-- 
Bryan Morris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17788

FromJon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
Date2023-01-20 01:52 +0000
Message-ID<slrntsjsvi.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
In reply to#17787
On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
> In message <slrntsjg5i.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens 
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>On 2023-01-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 21:53:15 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>> In message <k2trepF81n5U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
>>>> <roger@hayter.org> writes
>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>>>>>>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and Conservative
>>>>>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gender-recogn
>>>>>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex marriage),
>>>>>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag to the blue
>>>>>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable to accept
>>>>>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic 
>>>>>>>>>>>decision of
>>>>>>>>>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a political row
>>>>>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by the Tories,
>>>>>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are the Tories
>>>>>>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with the Scottish
>>>>>>>>> law either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>>>>>>>>> towards them,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but the current
>>>>>>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking so they're
>>>>>>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>>>>>>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action the Tory
>>>>>>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is *not* run
>>>>>>>> by any other party.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>>>> uk.legal.moderated
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a totally
>>>>> inappropriate newsgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is constitutionally legal in that shithead posting inappropriate
>>>> personal comments in a newsgroup of which he is a moderator?
>>>
>>> A personal comment would normally have to be about a specific person.
>>
>>Perhaps "Bryan Morris" is secretly Keir Starmer in disguise.
> Oh you're a Corbynista too?

So you didn't even read the message that prompted your immoderate
outburst. Why am I not surprised?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17789

FromBryan Morris <nospam@this.machine>
Date2023-01-20 02:12 +0000
Message-ID<WsWLDIOSifyjFwWU@this.machine>
In reply to#17788
In message <slrntsjsvi.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens 
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>> In message <slrntsjg5i.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>On 2023-01-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 21:53:15 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>> In message <k2trepF81n5U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
>>>>> <roger@hayter.org> writes
>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, 
>>>>>>>>Jon Ribbens
>>>>>>>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>Conservative
>>>>>>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gender-recogn
>>>>>>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex marriage),
>>>>>>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable to accept
>>>>>>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>decision of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>political row
>>>>>>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by 
>>>>>>>>>>>the Tories,
>>>>>>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with the Scottish
>>>>>>>>>> law either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>>>>>>>>>> towards them,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but 
>>>>>>>>>the current
>>>>>>>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking so they're
>>>>>>>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>>>>>>>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action 
>>>>>>>>>the Tory
>>>>>>>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is *not* run
>>>>>>>>> by any other party.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>>>>> uk.legal.moderated
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a totally
>>>>>> inappropriate newsgroup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is constitutionally legal in that shithead posting inappropriate
>>>>> personal comments in a newsgroup of which he is a moderator?
>>>>
>>>> A personal comment would normally have to be about a specific person.
>>>
>>>Perhaps "Bryan Morris" is secretly Keir Starmer in disguise.
>> Oh you're a Corbynista too?
>
>So you didn't even read the message that prompted your immoderate
>outburst. Why am I not surprised?

Yes I know you think Starmer is a shithead. No doubt you share Corbyn's 
views on matters that keep him outside the Labour whip
-- 
Bryan Morris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17790

FromJon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
Date2023-01-20 02:40 +0000
Message-ID<slrntsjvo7.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
In reply to#17789
On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
> In message <slrntsjsvi.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens 
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>> In message <slrntsjg5i.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>On 2023-01-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 21:53:15 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <k2trepF81n5U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
>>>>>> <roger@hayter.org> writes
>>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, 
>>>>>>>>>Jon Ribbens
>>>>>>>>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Conservative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gender-recogn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex marriage),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable to accept
>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>decision of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>political row
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>the Tories,
>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with the Scottish
>>>>>>>>>>> law either.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>>>>>>>>>>> towards them,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but 
>>>>>>>>>>the current
>>>>>>>>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking so they're
>>>>>>>>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>>>>>>>>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action 
>>>>>>>>>>the Tory
>>>>>>>>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is *not* run
>>>>>>>>>> by any other party.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>>>>>> uk.legal.moderated
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a totally
>>>>>>> inappropriate newsgroup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is constitutionally legal in that shithead posting inappropriate
>>>>>> personal comments in a newsgroup of which he is a moderator?
>>>>>
>>>>> A personal comment would normally have to be about a specific person.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps "Bryan Morris" is secretly Keir Starmer in disguise.
>>> Oh you're a Corbynista too?
>>
>>So you didn't even read the message that prompted your immoderate
>>outburst. Why am I not surprised?
>
> Yes I know you think Starmer is a shithead. No doubt you share Corbyn's 
> views on matters that keep him outside the Labour whip

I'm sorry to report that you are even worse at reading minds
than you are at reading words.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17791

FromBryan Morris <nospam@this.machine>
Date2023-01-20 19:57 +0000
Message-ID<fePpfGE2IvyjFwUl@this.machine>
In reply to#17790
In message <slrntsjvo7.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens 
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>> In message <slrntsjsvi.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>> In message <slrntsjg5i.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>On 2023-01-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 21:53:15 GMT, "Bryan Morris" 
>>>>>><nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <k2trepF81n5U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
>>>>>>> <roger@hayter.org> writes
>>>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>,
>>>>>>>>>>Jon Ribbens
>>>>>>>>>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Conservative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>decision of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>political row
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the Tories,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>the Scottish
>>>>>>>>>>>> law either.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>>>>>>>>>>>> towards them,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but
>>>>>>>>>>>the current
>>>>>>>>>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>>>>>>>>>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action
>>>>>>>>>>>the Tory
>>>>>>>>>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is 
>>>>>>>>>>>*not* run
>>>>>>>>>>> by any other party.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>>>>>>> uk.legal.moderated
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a totally
>>>>>>>> inappropriate newsgroup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is constitutionally legal in that shithead posting inappropriate
>>>>>>> personal comments in a newsgroup of which he is a moderator?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A personal comment would normally have to be about a specific person.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps "Bryan Morris" is secretly Keir Starmer in disguise.
>>>> Oh you're a Corbynista too?
>>>
>>>So you didn't even read the message that prompted your immoderate
>>>outburst. Why am I not surprised?
>>
>> Yes I know you think Starmer is a shithead. No doubt you share Corbyn's
>> views on matters that keep him outside the Labour whip
>
>I'm sorry to report that you are even worse at reading minds
>than you are at reading words.

I read OK, is English not your first language?

As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
  uk.legal.moderated"
-- 
Bryan Morris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17792

FromMike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk>
Date2023-01-21 02:37 +0000
Message-ID<k311g1Fms1bU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#17791
On 20/01/2023 19:57, Bryan Morris wrote:
> In message <slrntsjvo7.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens 
> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>> On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>> In message <slrntsjsvi.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>> On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>> In message <slrntsjg5i.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon 
>>>>> Ribbens
>>>>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>> On 2023-01-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 21:53:15 GMT, "Bryan Morris" 
>>>>>>> <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <k2trepF81n5U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
>>>>>>>> <roger@hayter.org> writes
>>>>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bryan Morris <nospam@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <slrntsddch.cr0.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Ribbens
>>>>>>>>>>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conservative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The row appears contrived.  Whilst Scottish law has 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always / long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Scottish government.  The result a court case and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> political row
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Tories,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Scottish
>>>>>>>>>>>>> law either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then 
>>>>>>>>>>>> sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hatred
>>>>>>>>>>>>> towards them,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> the current
>>>>>>>>>>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking
>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was 
>>>>>>>>>>>> run by any
>>>>>>>>>>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Tory
>>>>>>>>>>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> *not* run
>>>>>>>>>>>> by any other party.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>>>>>>>> uk.legal.moderated
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a 
>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>> inappropriate newsgroup.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is constitutionally legal in that shithead posting 
>>>>>>>> inappropriate
>>>>>>>> personal comments in a newsgroup of which he is a moderator?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A personal comment would normally have to be about a specific 
>>>>>>> person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps "Bryan Morris" is secretly Keir Starmer in disguise.
>>>>> Oh you're a Corbynista too?
>>>>
>>>> So you didn't even read the message that prompted your immoderate
>>>> outburst. Why am I not surprised?
>>>
>>> Yes I know you think Starmer is a shithead. No doubt you share Corbyn's
>>> views on matters that keep him outside the Labour whip
>>
>> I'm sorry to report that you are even worse at reading minds
>> than you are at reading words.
> 
> I read OK, is English not your first language?
> 
> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>   uk.legal.moderated"

What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his ability 
to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17793

From"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
Date2023-01-21 08:41 +0000
Message-ID<xn0nx3won44fdvs005@news.individual.net>
In reply to#17792
On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1Fms1bU3@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming 
wrote:

>>As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>> uk.legal.moderated"
>
>What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his ability 
>to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?

That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive remarks 
about our properly elected government which indicates their views are too 
extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The group seems 
to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about 
Brexit.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his 
life.
(Jeremy Thorpe, 1962)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17794

FromRoger Hayter <roger@hayter.org>
Date2023-01-21 09:22 +0000
Message-ID<k31p6jFqcsjU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#17793
On 21 Jan 2023 at 08:41:48 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1Fms1bU3@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
> wrote:
> 
>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>  uk.legal.moderated"
>> 
>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his ability
>> to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
> 
> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive remarks
> about our properly elected government which indicates their views are too
> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The group seems
> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about
> Brexit.

Making highly offensive remarks about a properly elected government seems to
be a pretty normal activity in our democracy, whichever party is in power.

-- 
Roger Hayter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17796

FromBryan Morris <nospam@this.machine>
Date2023-01-21 10:30 +0000
Message-ID<qpdUyaI867yjFwRj@this.machine>
In reply to#17794
In message <k31p6jFqcsjU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter 
<roger@hayter.org> writes
>On 21 Jan 2023 at 08:41:48 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1Fms1bU3@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>  uk.legal.moderated"
>>>
>>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his ability
>>> to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>>
>> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive remarks
>> about our properly elected government which indicates their views are too
>> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The group seems
>> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about
>> Brexit.
>
>Making highly offensive remarks about a properly elected government seems to
>be a pretty normal activity in our democracy, whichever party is in power.
>

And highly offensive remarks from uk.legal.moderated moderators seems to
be a pretty normal activity in that group.

They act with impunity, posting stuff they wouldn't accept from non 
Guardian readers,

Bryan Morris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17799

FromThe Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
Date2023-01-21 11:00 +0000
Message-ID<k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#17796
On 21/01/2023 10:30, Bryan Morris wrote:
> In message <k31p6jFqcsjU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter 
> <roger@hayter.org> writes
>> On 21 Jan 2023 at 08:41:48 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1Fms1bU3@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>>  uk.legal.moderated"
>>>>
>>>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his 
>>>> ability
>>>> to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>>>
>>> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive 
>>> remarks
>>> about our properly elected government which indicates their views are 
>>> too
>>> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The group 
>>> seems
>>> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about
>>> Brexit.
>>
>> Making highly offensive remarks about a properly elected government 
>> seems to
>> be a pretty normal activity in our democracy, whichever party is in 
>> power.
>>
> 
> And highly offensive remarks from uk.legal.moderated moderators seems to
> be a pretty normal activity in that group.
> 
> They act with impunity, posting stuff they wouldn't accept from non 
> Guardian readers,
> 
> Bryan Morris


Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17802

From"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
Date2023-01-21 11:15 +0000
Message-ID<xn0nx40s849xg9s00b@news.individual.net>
In reply to#17799
On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:

>Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any.

Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said in the 
quotes.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There are 3 types of people in this world. Those who can count, and those 
who can't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17807

FromJon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
Date2023-01-21 14:02 +0000
Message-ID<slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
In reply to#17802
On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
>>Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any.
>
> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said in the 
> quotes.

Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation
policy or policies my post contravened.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17809

FromBryan Morris <nospam@this.machine>
Date2023-01-21 14:12 +0000
Message-ID<WsYLjvMoL$yjFw2q@this.machine>
In reply to#17807
In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon 
Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
>>>Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any.
>>
>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said in the
>> quotes.
>
>Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation
>policy or policies my post contravened.

If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator
-- 
Bryan Morris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#17810

From"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
Date2023-01-21 14:17 +0000
Message-ID<xn0nx45ke4gf3s000e@news.individual.net>
In reply to#17809
On 21/01/2023 in message <WsYLjvMoL$yjFw2q@this.machine> Bryan Morris wrote:

>In message <slrntsns3u.3rma.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens 
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uuaFr523U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal 
>>>wrote:
>>>>Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any.
>>>
>>>Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said in the
>>>quotes.
>>
>>Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation
>>policy or policies my post contravened.
>
>If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator

Precisely.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
That's an amazing invention but who would ever want to use one of them?
(President Hayes speaking to Alexander Graham Bell on the invention of the 
telephone)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.net.news.management


csiph-web