RayC

45 minutes ago, transam said:

I can just imagine Angela Rayner in control, approaching the despatch box with a pint of Newcastle Brown Ale in here hand, and the recording chap struggling to bleep out the expletives.........😱................😂

Rayner's from Manchester, Trans. Unlikely to be drinking Newkie Brown, more likely she'll have a pint of Bodies😉

5 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

They did not need permission to host indexing files. The companies do not own IP rights for the indexes.

 

It is almost impossible to explain how torrents works to laymen. It's just beyond their comprehension level.

And let's face it, the legal entities in the court didn't had a clue about what was discussed.

 At that time I was following Peter Sunde's tweets from the court house. 

 

You're just quoting dry data from Wikipedia.

Try torrentfreak.com for real information about the trial. There is also a documentary made, "TPB AFK", but you would probably have to go The Pirate Bay to download it 

The concept of copyright infringement (see below) is imo an easy concept to grasp, although you seem to be unable or unwilling to accept it. Whether you believe it to be a 'just' law is completely irrelevant.

The simple fact is that a Swedish court and Appeal Court found PB guilty of copyright infringement. I imagine that the verdict would have been the same had the trial been held in the UK, US or Timbuktu although, of course, that is my opinion not a fact.

-----++++

"What is copyright infringement?

As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner."

10 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Exactly, there were no illegal files hosted on their servers.

But that's totally off topic for this tread, so let's not bother continuing.

The only way that your statement can be true is if you redefine the word 'illegal'.

PB hosted files when they did not have permission to do so. The site broached companies' Intellectual Property Rights. This is illegal and a criminal offence.

21 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

Exactly, sentenced by the judge who at the same time was working for RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). No conflict of interest there, right?

 

Obviously you're just quoting dry data from Wikipedia, and are not aware of the full story or the follow-up. They were convicted on the bogus charges, but the best thing is that the police did not confiscate any of the TPB servers. They were located at a different locations and TPB was up 3 days later.

The appeal court concluded that “The Pirate Bay has facilitated illegal file sharing in a way that results in criminal liability for those who run the service.”

That's a pretty definite and unambiguous statement. What is bogus about It? Are you suggesting that PB didn't engage in illegal file sharing?

6 hours ago, Red Forever said:

Wrong. With regard to the "sexual assault" the blame lies with the US. The charges were dropped when it was revealed that the "victim" was a CIA operative who laid the honey trap. 

Wrong.

Firstly, there were three victims not just one as you suggest. Secondly, the 'lesser' charges were dropped due to the stature of limitation in Swedish law (the charges effectively timed out). Thirdly, the Swedish prosecutor decided to drop the remaining charges and close the case because "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed" but said that "the complainant had submitted a credible and reliable version of events". Hardly an admission that they believed Assange to be innocent.

6 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Because the US of A  is Sweden's overlord, and dictates to the Swedish government what to do in cases which they have an interest in.

He might not even have been extradited, but just disappeared. Some American alphabet agencies are very good at the disappearing thing. 

 

Remember the raid on TPB servers in 2006 and the following court case? The TPB did not break any Swedish law, and the primary judge was later found to be a legal consultant to RAAA. Coincidence? OH NO! Conspiracy theory CH would say.

"In April 2009, the website's founders–Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholm–were found guilty in the Pirate Bay trial in Sweden for assisting in copyright infringement and were sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine." (Source: Wikipedia)

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

How do they know the speech is powerful ahead of time?

 

One nit: Palestinians are Semites, too.

Copies of speeches are often given to the media before they are actually delivered.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That was obvious and IMO it's very doubtful that the charges were genuine. One suspects they were invented to get him to Sweden where the US would have stepped in to extradite him to the US where they doubtless want to lock him up for his remaining lifetime as a warning to any journalist that would have the gall to expose US war crimes.

Why is obvious that the UK would have extradited Assange to Sweden so that Sweden, in turn, could extradite him to the UK?

Why would Sweden - a country admired for being largely free from corruption (see quote below) - embroil itself in a scandal by inventing charges against Assange? What's in it for them?

What evidence exists to support any of these opinions? Answer: None. As Chomper has correctly stated throughout this thread, it is all conspiratorial nonsense.

--------

"Transparency International's 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index scored Sweden at 82 on a scale from 0 ("highly corrupt") to 100 ("very clean"). When ranked by score, Sweden ranked 6th among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked first is perceived to have the most honest public sector." (Source: Wikipedia).

7 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Compared to the BBC standard model where members of the audience are hand picked for their political views and quickly silenced when they ask the "wrong " questions.

The process governing audience selection for programmes such as QT would suggest otherwise 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5HrMm77Yz7vwzCZZ570nTdp/frequently-asked-questions

11 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Because in my opinion, his conclusions are all wrong. To me,  he’s just another western mouthpiece, possibly funded by those who has an agenda.

11 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

 

Imo Horowitz makes a compelling argument in support of the premise is, " ... Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is driven by Putin’s desire to expand Russian influence and power".

He is far from being an idiot.

34 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Nothing like a good scare disease to get Biden in the bunker again for the next election

Biden's going after the bird and cattle vote?

(No sheep quips please. Thank you).

On 5/17/2024 at 4:59 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I never thought it would be Jeremy leading the battle against PC, wokism, and the anti white male agenda of the colluding man hating men grovelling to the feminist shower.

 

Good that he is.

... said the editor of the 'Bigot and Misogynist weekly' 

38 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Cherries picked, then attractively displayed atop beds of apples  and oranges. 

Cherry orchard located. Plenty of pickings. Other fruits also available.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/reports/

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Just not true, if you take anti biotics for a viral infection, there isn't any harmful bacteria to become resistant ,  so it will just be ineffective.

@Hawaiian is correct.

Although some anti-biotics are 'targeted', many are not and they can therefore eliminate friendly gut bacteria.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/247213/antibiotics-promote-growth-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria/#:~:text=Some antibiotics target specific bacteria,with digestion and other processes.

On 5/12/2024 at 4:41 AM, Gweiloman said:

The sun is slowly but surely setting on the western empire and they have no one to blame but themselves. The world rejects the idea of a unipolar liberal hegemony. The west has the choice of either embracing this shift and being part of it which will keep them a powerful force or to fight it which will result in their inevitable decline. Idiots like Borrell and von der lying are too full of themselves so the latter scenario is the most likely one.

I would agree with most of that but would argue that this shift in power has been recognised in mainland Europe with the realisation that it needs to act as a bloc to remain relevant. However, unfortunately imo 52% of those voting in a referendum in the UK had a different view.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Most UK expats here are not immigrants (it says so on the visa tin) and have not applied to become so. If they were invited to immigrate and then wanted to do so, then it would be fair to require them to integrate much further (which is required in several ways anway, for the few who have been though all the hoops and managed to attatn cizenship, usually after many years). No semantics just how it is.

 

Are you suggesting that a British expat who has lived in Thailand for say 4 years, speaks no more than very basic Thai, cannot read Thai and spends most of his time in an expat bubble is not being inconsistent when he demands that immigrants to the UK integrate themselves into UK society by embracing British culture, simply because the stamp in his passport states "Non-Imm" whilst that of the immigrant to the UK reads "Imm"? 

It's a semantic justification for hypocrisy.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Have you been hacked too?

Not that I am aware of.

18 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Well there are big differences. You could start with a passport and visa, perhaps? Try that here without the documents! 

I don't understand your point?

Legal immigrants to the UK need to have a passport and visa. Illegal immigrants to the UK and Thailand will either be treated as refugees or deported.

Anyway, that is tangential to the point which was I was making i.e. that those calling for immigrants to fully integrate into UK society should, if they are being consistent, apply the same requirement to UK expats who have made Thailand their home.

So far the only attempt to counter my contention relies on semantics.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Allowing illegal immigrants to stay in Britain instead of deporting them is not "dealing with the problem", neither is it an act of kindness.

 

It is causing damage to Britain and the British people. 

If Labour initiatives to reduce the number of boats landing are successful, the question of deporting those who do arrive becomes less of an issue.