Everyone jumps on the hook and believes the AI story, rather than the much simpler story that they were just working off a list that had been in development for 50 years and didn’t bother to check whether the targets were still accurate.
“Law enforcement and organisations with designated regulatory powers and functions must be able to access all content hosted and streamed by pornography platforms for investigative and enforcement purposes,” notes another recommendation.
Lmfao so the true purpose is free porn for cops.
Yeah I know, the post is reasonable. If the government pays for the bags, anyway.
The comment I replied to was making out that having kids lock their phones away during class was akin to denying them access to any knowledge that might contradict the teacher.
Lmao you think kids sit on their phones scrolling through ebooks or something?
Cathinones are the “designer drugs” of like the 70s and 80s that are somewhat similar to amphetamines, but maybe more of a stimulant.
That sounds like a different injunction?
This injunction was by Russell Brand and against his accuser, Sylvie Berki, who couldn’t afford a lawyer and represented herself against him, and the judge basically steamrolled her and bankrupted her. The injunction explicitly spelled out who she can discuss it with and the list is very short.
It does seem like this specific judge had a problem with litigants-in-person, and he was acting against specific guidance on how to treat them. Regardless, his injunction against her still stands.
“Visible differences” encompasses everyone.
She has a condition and wants to take the opportunity to highlight the difficulties people with it go through.
Neither of these imply malice towards trans people. They’re neutral statements.
Maybe she does feel that way, maybe not; she hasn’t really let on either way.
Sure, but a business isn’t going to be able to do that. The law isn’t unfairly discriminating against businesses, aside from giving them a near impossible task. It’s people affected by these laws who would have to take it to court.
Well at least he isn’t breaking any election campaign promises.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
This website has a good history of freedom of information laws in the UK.
Court records are typically publicly available, unless the judge seals it. There is usually an administrative cost to access court records.
Lmao I doubt you could even read that much without getting distracted and wandering off somewhere else.
This is in England.
Surely the law doesn’t require them to hire someone to police the toilets.
It pretty much does. Not specifically to have someone dedicated to check everyone, but they have to take reasonable measures and a member of staff speaking up would fall under that.
What is this “cautiosness” she’s talking about?
The law requires businesses to police toilets somewhat.
It’s close, but sometimes women really do need the whole room as private gendered space, eg to wash blood off clothing.
The best solution is that each stall has its own sink, but that isn’t usually practicable as it takes up more space and reduces the total number of stalls. Five Guys manage it, though.
Better an island than a whole fucking continent of more violent TERFs.
I don’t see where she gave any such negative opinion? Closest was she said she understood from a business point of view, as in, a business needs to follow the law.
This was the intention all along.
That, and MasterCard and VISA wanted more businesses to use card authentications for age checks. Businesses have been skipping authentication to save on fees, and they knew that even if other technology came along they’d still get a few more. Literally, the OSA only vaguely describes ID or face scanning (because the technology didn’t really exist at the time), but spells out card transactions as the default method of age verification.
… but why?
And who the fuck is Lisa Nandy?? Bit of a shit article, BBC.
Citation needed.