Firearms (3D Printing) Bill

[Jethro_uk]

(This never appeared for moderation ?)

Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?


https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877

A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.0

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:48:52 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk
(This never appeared for moderation ?)
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming
law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of an
issue that they're campainging about, rather than making actual changes to
legislation.

However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it
themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the
designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs
in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is
sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on
a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy.
It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in
the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if
the server is hosted elsewhere.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming
law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of an
issue that they're campainging about, rather than making actual changes to
legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it
themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the
designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs
in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is
sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on
a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy.
It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in
the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if
the server is hosted elsewhere.

And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.

A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably be
used to decorate a firearm).

Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count as
a firearm.

[Spike]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming
law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of an
issue that they're campainging about, rather than making actual changes to
legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it
themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the
designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs
in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is
sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on
a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy.
It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in
the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if
the server is hosted elsewhere.

And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably be
used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count as
a firearm.

We’ll all have to be very careful when mentioning 3D printers in
association with innocent words such as lock, stock, barrel, magazine,
round, chamber, receiver, bolt, link, sight, butt, port, regulator, piston,
and doubtless a thousand others.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Spike

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming
law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of an
issue that they're campainging about, rather than making actual changes to
legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it
themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the
designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs
in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is
sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on
a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy.
It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in
the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if
the server is hosted elsewhere.

And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably be
used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count as
a firearm.

We’ll all have to be very careful when mentioning 3D printers in
association with innocent words such as lock, stock, barrel, magazine,
round, chamber, receiver, bolt, link, sight, butt, port, regulator, piston,
and doubtless a thousand others.

Yes, those are trigger words.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming
law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of an
issue that they're campainging about, rather than making actual changes to
legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it
themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the
designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs
in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is
sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on
a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy.
It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in
the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if
the server is hosted elsewhere.

And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably be
used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count as
a firearm.

I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you
can only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is
rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the
production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of
possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for
connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of
becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise
awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than
making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for
it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide
the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the
designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the
web is sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to
view them on a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if
transient, copy. It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you
view it on a device in the UK (without lawful justification) you've
committed the offence, even if the server is hosted elsewhere.

And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably be
used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count as
a firearm.

I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you can
only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is
rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.

Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it to
be.

I wonder how these laws deal with people who have the knowledge
("blueprints") embedded in their brain ?

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the
production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of
possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for
connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of
becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise
awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than
making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for
it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide
the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the
designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the
web is sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to
view them on a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if
transient, copy. It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you
view it on a device in the UK (without lawful justification) you've
committed the offence, even if the server is hosted elsewhere.

And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably be
used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count as
a firearm.

I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you can
only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is
rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.

Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it to
be.

Good point. I guess for some purposes a gun that's used only once or
very few times and is then easy to destroy might be useful.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the
production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of
possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for
connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of
becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise
awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than
making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate
for it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which
provide the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be
possessing the designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing
the designs on the web is sufficient to make out the offence, because
in order for you to view them on a device in the UK the device has to
make a local, even if transient, copy. It's no different to viewing
unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in the UK (without lawful
justification) you've committed the offence, even if the server is
hosted elsewhere.

And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm,
and not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably
be used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count
as a firearm.

I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you
can only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is
rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.

Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it to
be.

Good point. I guess for some purposes a gun that's used only once or
very few times and is then easy to destroy might be useful.

A cousin used to be a warden in a US prison. He'd encountered a one-shot
gun made from a pen, paperclip and elastic band.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the
production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of
possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for
connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of
becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise
awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than
making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate
for it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which
provide the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be
possessing the designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing
the designs on the web is sufficient to make out the offence, because
in order for you to view them on a device in the UK the device has to
make a local, even if transient, copy. It's no different to viewing
unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in the UK (without lawful
justification) you've committed the offence, even if the server is
hosted elsewhere.

And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm,
and not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably
be used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count
as a firearm.

I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you
can only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is
rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.

Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it to
be.

Good point. I guess for some purposes a gun that's used only once or
very few times and is then easy to destroy might be useful.

A cousin used to be a warden in a US prison. He'd encountered a one-shot
gun made from a pen, paperclip and elastic band.

I'd be reluctant to hold something like that, but necessity is the
mother of invention.

Guns don't kill people --- ammo does.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Adam Funk

12:04:13 on Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the
production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of
possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for
connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of
becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise
awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than
making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and
legislate for it themselves, the existence of websites outside the
UK which provide the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence
would be possessing the designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that
even viewing the designs on the web is sufficient to make out the
offence, because in order for you to view them on a device in the
UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy. It's
no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device
in the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the
offence, even if the server is hosted elsewhere.

And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm,
and not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could
conceivably be used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't
count as a firearm.

I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that
you can only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel,
which is rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable
steel.

Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it
to be.

Good point. I guess for some purposes a gun that's used only once or
very few times and is then easy to destroy might be useful.

A cousin used to be a warden in a US prison. He'd encountered a
one-shot gun made from a pen, paperclip and elastic band.

I'd be reluctant to hold something like that, but necessity is the
mother of invention.
Guns don't kill people --- ammo does.

Oh! I was imagining the elasticity of the band directly propelling some
sort of pellet out of the pen, and I was thinking it didn't sound very
dangerous. You're presumably imagining the band instead making the clip
strike the primer cap of an actual ammunition cartridge, which sounds
much more dangerous - mostly, as you say, to the wielder.

It only has to cause the person it's head is held against to do what you
want once.

There was a convict who managed to escape? (certainly cause trouble) with
what looked like a gun fashion out of soap. (QI fact).

[Adam Funk]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the
production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of
possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for
connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of
becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise
awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than
making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate
for it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which
provide the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be
possessing the designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing
the designs on the web is sufficient to make out the offence, because
in order for you to view them on a device in the UK the device has to
make a local, even if transient, copy. It's no different to viewing
unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in the UK (without lawful
justification) you've committed the offence, even if the server is
hosted elsewhere.

And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm,
and not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably
be used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count
as a firearm.

I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you
can only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is
rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.

Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it to
be.

Good point. I guess for some purposes a gun that's used only once or
very few times and is then easy to destroy might be useful.

A cousin used to be a warden in a US prison. He'd encountered a one-shot
gun made from a pen, paperclip and elastic band.

I'd be reluctant to hold something like that, but necessity is the
mother of invention.
Guns don't kill people --- ammo does.

Oh! I was imagining the elasticity of the band directly propelling some
sort of pellet out of the pen, and I was thinking it didn't sound very
dangerous. You're presumably imagining the band instead making the clip
strike the primer cap of an actual ammunition cartridge, which sounds
much more dangerous - mostly, as you say, to the wielder.

Maybe the trick is to give it to the target and run.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the
production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of
possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; and for
connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of
becoming law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise
awareness of an issue that they're campainging about, rather than
making actual changes to legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate
for it themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which
provide the designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be
possessing the designs in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing
the designs on the web is sufficient to make out the offence, because
in order for you to view them on a device in the UK the device has to
make a local, even if transient, copy. It's no different to viewing
unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in the UK (without lawful
justification) you've committed the offence, even if the server is
hosted elsewhere.

And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm,
and not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.
A firearm might have a fancy wood-effect decoration set into the handle.
Does that outlaw all wood-effect 3D printing (that could conceivably
be used to decorate a firearm).
Or even used to decorate an air rifle, which I suspect doesn't count
as a firearm.

I was under the impression (but maybe this is out of date?) that you
can only 3D print certain parts of a handgun, but the barrel, which is
rather critical, still needs to machined from suitable steel.

Depends on how long you want it to work and how accurate you need it to
be.

Good point. I guess for some purposes a gun that's used only once or
very few times and is then easy to destroy might be useful.

A cousin used to be a warden in a US prison. He'd encountered a one-shot
gun made from a pen, paperclip and elastic band.

I'd be reluctant to hold something like that, but necessity is the
mother of invention.
Guns don't kill people --- ammo does.

Oh! I was imagining the elasticity of the band directly propelling some
sort of pellet out of the pen, and I was thinking it didn't sound very
dangerous. You're presumably imagining the band instead making the clip
strike the primer cap of an actual ammunition cartridge, which sounds
much more dangerous - mostly, as you say, to the wielder.

[Peter Walker]

Post by Roland Perry
And the whole thing will depend on whether they can find a <sorry>
bulletproof definition of a firearm, and hence parts of a firearm, and
not manage to outlaw many dual-use items.

Firearms Act 1968?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

"Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C4Definitions of "ammunition" and "firearm" in this Act applied (E.W.)
(25.10.1991) by Deer Act 1991 (c. 54, SIF 4:3), ss.16, 18(3)"

[Adam Funk]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:48:52 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk
(This never appeared for moderation ?)
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.

It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming
law. PMBs are mostly just an opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of an
issue that they're campainging about, rather than making actual changes to
legislation.
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it
themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the
designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs
in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is
sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on
a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy.
It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in
the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if
the server is hosted elsewhere.

Are there safeguards for people clicking on a link that they didn't
expect to contain illegal material?

(Yes, I know people shouldn't click carelessly, for security reasons
too.)

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge
However, should the government decide to pick this up and legislate for it
themselves, the existence of websites outside the UK which provide the
designs is broadly irrelevant. The offence would be possessing the designs
in the UK. Bearing in mind that even viewing the designs on the web is
sufficient to make out the offence, because in order for you to view them on
a device in the UK the device has to make a local, even if transient, copy.
It's no different to viewing unlawful porn. If you view it on a device in
the UK (without lawful justification) you've committed the offence, even if
the server is hosted elsewhere.

Are there safeguards for people clicking on a link that they didn't
expect to contain illegal material?

Not in legislation, no. In practice, if you've genuinely been dick-rolled
into viewing it and you genuinely had no reason to expect to see it, then
the police are unlikely to take any action unless they suspect that there's
more to it than (literally!) meets the eye.

Mark

[Andy Burns]

Post by Mark Goodge
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of becoming
law.

Can we have a law that makes it illegal to introduce new laws that make
stuff illegal which is already illegal, unless the new law is replacing
the old law?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Mark Goodge
It's a Private Member's Bill, so it has practically zero chance of
becoming law.

Can we have a law that makes it illegal to introduce new laws that make
stuff illegal which is already illegal, unless the new law is replacing
the old law?

wasn't there a one-out, one-in policy floated a while back ?

[billy bookcase]

(This never appeared for moderation ?) *
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?

Presumably its just another arm of anti-terrorist legislation. As presumably
its already an offence to possess bomb making instructions, of which the web
apparently abounds then a similar curb on instructions to make firearms
would be the next logical step

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.0

bb



* quote:

2025-01-15 11:4x GMT <vm87b4$2cva1$***@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk at .. tmailbin.com> Firearms (3D Printing) Bill post
2025-01-15 11:4x GMT 173694174310139
<vm87b4$2cva1$***@dont-email.me>
Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk at .. tmailbin.com> Firearms (3D Printing) Bill enqueue
2025-01-15 11:4x GMT <vm87b4$2cva1$***@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk at .. tmailbin.com> Firearms (3D Printing) Bill receive

:unquote

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm

[Adam Funk]

Post by billy bookcase

(This never appeared for moderation ?) *
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?

Presumably its just another arm of anti-terrorist legislation. As presumably
its already an offence to possess bomb making instructions,

Does that include chemistry textbooks? I also saw a British
documentary on British TV a few years ago about the history of
explosives that showed how to make nitrocellulose.

Post by billy bookcase
of which the web
apparently abounds then a similar curb on instructions to make firearms
would be the next logical step

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.0

bb
<jethro_uk at .. tmailbin.com> Firearms (3D Printing) Bill post
2025-01-15 11:4x GMT 173694174310139
Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk at .. tmailbin.com> Firearms (3D Printing) Bill enqueue
<jethro_uk at .. tmailbin.com> Firearms (3D Printing) Bill receive
:unquote
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm

[Jethro_uk]

[quoted text muted]

Does that include chemistry textbooks? I also saw a British documentary
on British TV a few years ago about the history of explosives that
showed how to make nitrocellulose.

There are a few YouTube channels that demonstrate making and testing
explosives.

[Les. Hayward]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by billy bookcase
Presumably its just another arm of anti-terrorist legislation. As presumably
its already an offence to possess bomb making instructions,

Does that include chemistry textbooks? I also saw a British
documentary on British TV a few years ago about the history of
explosives that showed how to make nitrocellulose.

If so, then I am doomed - as an author of "The Royal Naval Cordite
Factory - Holton Heath" (Folly books) which gives clear guidance on the
large-scale manufacture of nitrocellulose, nitroglycerine, Tetryl and of
course cordite...

[Spike]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by billy bookcase

(This never appeared for moderation ?) *
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?

Presumably its just another arm of anti-terrorist legislation. As presumably
its already an offence to possess bomb making instructions,

Does that include chemistry textbooks? I also saw a British
documentary on British TV a few years ago about the history of
explosives that showed how to make nitrocellulose.

There’s a whole public-access exhibition devoted to these topics. One
wonders how it survives in the current legislative climate. Here’s a page
from their web site, which lists among other things

- How gunpowder originated from China and made its way to the UK

- The difference between explosives and propellants

- The ingredients that go into producing gunpowder and how the raw
materials are gathered

<https://www.royalgunpowdermills.com/main-exhibition-and-film>

Click on the logo at the top left to go to the (interesting) home page.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by billy bookcase

(This never appeared for moderation ?) *
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?

Presumably its just another arm of anti-terrorist legislation. As presumably
its already an offence to possess bomb making instructions,

Does that include chemistry textbooks?

That would presumably depend on what purpose they were being consulted

One example from the Sentencing Guidelines

quote:

Offender took significant steps towards creating an explosion or developing
or obtaining a viable explosive device

:unquote

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/explosive-substances-terrorism-only/

Post by Adam Funk
I also saw a British
documentary on British TV a few years ago about the history of
explosives that showed how to make nitrocellulose.

quote:

InR v Wheatley[1979] 1 WLR 144 it was held that “explosive” for the purposes
of the 1883 Act should be construed in light of the meaning provided for by
section 3 of the Explosives Act 1875:
“…gunpowder, nitroglycerine, dynamite, gun-cotton, blasting powders, fulminate
of mercury or of other metals, coloured fires and every other substance, whether similar
to those above mentioned or not

unquote:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/explosives

If it was on the BBC, I suggest you inform the "Daily Mail" at once.


bb

[Max Demian]

Post by Jethro_uk
(This never appeared for moderation ?)
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.0

The gun may be a crude device. It's the cartridge that is the clever
part. Just control the sale of the ammo.

[J Newman]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk
(This never appeared for moderation ?)
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.0

The gun may be a crude device. It's the cartridge that is the clever
part. Just control the sale of the ammo.

The cartridge need not be as complicated as one made in a factory. Its
purpose is to generate a large volume of hot gas quickly on the
application of a mechanical impact from the firing pin or hammer.

There are other methods of generating hot gases if the design
requirements are relaxed, such as electrical ignition of a flammable gas
mixture. Your non-electric car does it all the time too.

[Adam Funk]

Post by J Newman

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk
(This never appeared for moderation ?)
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.0

The gun may be a crude device. It's the cartridge that is the clever
part. Just control the sale of the ammo.

The cartridge need not be as complicated as one made in a factory. Its
purpose is to generate a large volume of hot gas quickly on the
application of a mechanical impact from the firing pin or hammer.
There are other methods of generating hot gases if the design
requirements are relaxed, such as electrical ignition of a flammable gas
mixture. Your non-electric car does it all the time too.

Or go back to muzzle-loading firearms.

[J Newman]

Post by Jethro_uk
(This never appeared for moderation ?)
Curious as to how this will work when there are sites (I won't link this
time) that are publicly available in the world that have a stash of
designs for 3D printing ?
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
A Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production
of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a
firearm produced by 3D printing; and for connected purposes.0

I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.

So many countries are intent on disarming their peons. There are 3
different levels of disarmament:
1. Intent - why would you need a firearm? Guns are dangerous. The
government will protect you.
2. Knowledge - how do you build one? How does one work?
3. Physical disarmament - making the rounds, parts and guns themselves
illegal.


Where will this lead to?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by J Newman

[quoted text muted]

I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons

Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership
does seem to have it's own issues.

As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I
accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.

I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder
with a firearm last year.

Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting
the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?

Really ?

Really ?

The best way to protect from tyranny is not to elect tyrants. And that
*is* on the population. I guess the problem is that it takes more brains
and responsibility than waving your Glock around (and that isn't a
euphemism).

[J Newman]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by J Newman

[quoted text muted]

I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons

Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership
does seem to have it's own issues.
As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I
accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.

As a libertarian, you ought to know that freedom is dangerous. The
safest place for a lion would be in a zoo. Free health care, free food,
all expenses paid. But the lion is most free in the wild, where none of
these are to be taken for granted.

What kind of life would you prefer to live?

For those that say it's a spectrum of freedom vs. danger, I would say
that in for a penny, in for a pound.

Post by Jethro_uk
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder
with a firearm last year.

The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something
like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone,
always try to de-escalate and be careful.

Post by Jethro_uk
Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting
the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?
Really ?
Really ?

I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one.
Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,
and freedom on the other.

Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.

Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!

Post by Jethro_uk
The best way to protect from tyranny is not to elect tyrants. And that
*is* on the population. I guess the problem is that it takes more brains
and responsibility than waving your Glock around (and that isn't a
euphemism).

[Roger Hayter]

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by J Newman

[quoted text muted]

I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons

Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership
does seem to have it's own issues.
As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I
accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.

As a libertarian, you ought to know that freedom is dangerous. The
safest place for a lion would be in a zoo. Free health care, free food,
all expenses paid. But the lion is most free in the wild, where none of
these are to be taken for granted.
What kind of life would you prefer to live?
For those that say it's a spectrum of freedom vs. danger, I would say
that in for a penny, in for a pound.

Post by Jethro_uk
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder
with a firearm last year.

The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something
like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone,
always try to de-escalate and be careful.

Post by Jethro_uk
Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting
the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?
Really ?
Really ?

I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one.
Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,
and freedom on the other.
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!

I doubt that the average libertarian would be in favour of expelling students
from universities for their political views.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by J Newman

[quoted text muted]

I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons

Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership
does seem to have it's own issues.
As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I
accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.

As a libertarian, you ought to know that freedom is dangerous. The
safest place for a lion would be in a zoo. Free health care, free food,
all expenses paid. But the lion is most free in the wild, where none of
these are to be taken for granted.
What kind of life would you prefer to live?
For those that say it's a spectrum of freedom vs. danger, I would say
that in for a penny, in for a pound.

Post by Jethro_uk
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder
with a firearm last year.

The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something
like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone,
always try to de-escalate and be careful.

Post by Jethro_uk
Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting
the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?
Really ?
Really ?

I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one.
Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,
and freedom on the other.
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!

I doubt that the average libertarian would be in favour of expelling students
from universities for their political views.

The answer to that has to depend upon the precise meaning of
"pro-terrorist supporting", as I know you will agree.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by J Newman

[quoted text muted]

I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons

Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership
does seem to have it's own issues.
As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I
accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.

As a libertarian, you ought to know that freedom is dangerous. The
safest place for a lion would be in a zoo. Free health care, free food,
all expenses paid. But the lion is most free in the wild, where none of
these are to be taken for granted.
What kind of life would you prefer to live?
For those that say it's a spectrum of freedom vs. danger, I would say
that in for a penny, in for a pound.

Post by Jethro_uk
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder
with a firearm last year.

The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something
like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone,
always try to de-escalate and be careful.

Post by Jethro_uk
Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting
the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?
Really ?
Really ?

I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one.
Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,
and freedom on the other.
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!

I doubt that the average libertarian would be in favour of expelling students
from universities for their political views.

The answer to that has to depend upon the precise meaning of
"pro-terrorist supporting", as I know you will agree.

No it simply does not, in the UK anyway. The government has proscribed certain
terrorist organisations and it is a crime to express support for them in
public. Other organisations (such as the SAS who apparently systematically
killed unarmed people to terrorise the population in Afghanistan) it is
perfectly legal to support. And surely the enemies of 'cancel culture' would
not want to expel students merely for supporting quite legal organisations?

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by J Newman

[quoted text muted]

I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons

Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership
does seem to have it's own issues.
As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I
accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.

As a libertarian, you ought to know that freedom is dangerous. The
safest place for a lion would be in a zoo. Free health care, free food,
all expenses paid. But the lion is most free in the wild, where none of
these are to be taken for granted.
What kind of life would you prefer to live?
For those that say it's a spectrum of freedom vs. danger, I would say
that in for a penny, in for a pound.

Post by Jethro_uk
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder
with a firearm last year.

The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something
like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone,
always try to de-escalate and be careful.

Post by Jethro_uk
Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting
the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?
Really ?
Really ?

I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one.
Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,
and freedom on the other.
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!

I doubt that the average libertarian would be in favour of expelling students
from universities for their political views.

The answer to that has to depend upon the precise meaning of
"pro-terrorist supporting", as I know you will agree.

No it simply does not, in the UK anyway. The government has proscribed certain
terrorist organisations and it is a crime to express support for them in
public. Other organisations (such as the SAS who apparently systematically
killed unarmed people to terrorise the population in Afghanistan) it is
perfectly legal to support. And surely the enemies of 'cancel culture' would
not want to expel students merely for supporting quite legal organisations?

Please specify the nature of the "support" being given as envisaged
within the phrase "pro-terrorist supporting".

I am not interested in whether the terrorists indicated are members of
this terrorist group or that terrorist group.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by J Newman

[quoted text muted]

I'm so glad I am an American citizen now.
So many countries are intent on disarming their peons

Whilst you may have a point, the "US" solution of universal gun ownership
does seem to have it's own issues.
As a libertarian, I really don't like "banning" anything. However I
accept in the case of guns, there may be a point.

As a libertarian, you ought to know that freedom is dangerous. The
safest place for a lion would be in a zoo. Free health care, free food,
all expenses paid. But the lion is most free in the wild, where none of
these are to be taken for granted.
What kind of life would you prefer to live?
For those that say it's a spectrum of freedom vs. danger, I would say
that in for a penny, in for a pound.

Post by Jethro_uk
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder
with a firearm last year.

The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something
like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone,
always try to de-escalate and be careful.

Post by Jethro_uk
Also - for all the hyperbole about the 2nd amendment somehow protecting
the populace from tyranny (looks over the Atlantic) ... really ?
Really ?
Really ?

I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one.
Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,
and freedom on the other.
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!

I doubt that the average libertarian would be in favour of expelling students
from universities for their political views.

The answer to that has to depend upon the precise meaning of
"pro-terrorist supporting", as I know you will agree.

No it simply does not, in the UK anyway. The government has proscribed certain
terrorist organisations and it is a crime to express support for them in
public. Other organisations (such as the SAS who apparently systematically
killed unarmed people to terrorise the population in Afghanistan) it is
perfectly legal to support. And surely the enemies of 'cancel culture' would
not want to expel students merely for supporting quite legal organisations?

Please specify the nature of the "support" being given as envisaged
within the phrase "pro-terrorist supporting".
I am not interested in whether the terrorists indicated are members of
this terrorist group or that terrorist group.

What the person who originally expressed a wish to expel "pro-terrorist
supporting" students meant by this I cannot say. Possibly he just meant
students he doesn't like. I repeat what I said; either students are committing
a crime by expressing public support for proscribed organisations, in which
case the police can deal with them; or they are expressing perfectly legal
opinions and should not be expelled for them. I don't care what the previous
poster meant.

[Max Demian]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
The answer to that has to depend upon the precise meaning of
"pro-terrorist supporting", as I know you will agree.

No it simply does not, in the UK anyway. The government has proscribed certain
terrorist organisations and it is a crime to express support for them in
public. Other organisations (such as the SAS who apparently systematically
killed unarmed people to terrorise the population in Afghanistan) it is
perfectly legal to support. And surely the enemies of 'cancel culture' would
not want to expel students merely for supporting quite legal organisations?

Please specify the nature of the "support" being given as envisaged
within the phrase "pro-terrorist supporting".
I am not interested in whether the terrorists indicated are members of
this terrorist group or that terrorist group.

What the person who originally expressed a wish to expel "pro-terrorist
supporting" students meant by this I cannot say. Possibly he just meant
students he doesn't like. I repeat what I said; either students are committing
a crime by expressing public support for proscribed organisations, in which
case the police can deal with them; or they are expressing perfectly legal
opinions and should not be expelled for them. I don't care what the previous
poster meant.

A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli
government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting
Israel.

I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

[Fredxx]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
The answer to that has to depend upon the precise meaning of
"pro-terrorist supporting", as I know you will agree.

No it simply does not, in the UK anyway. The government has
proscribed certain
terrorist organisations and it is a crime to express support for them in
public.  Other organisations (such as the SAS who apparently
systematically
killed unarmed people to terrorise the population in Afghanistan) it is
perfectly legal to support. And surely the enemies of 'cancel culture' would
not want to expel students merely for supporting quite legal organisations?

Please specify the nature of the "support" being given as envisaged
within the phrase "pro-terrorist supporting".
I am not interested in whether the terrorists indicated are members of
this terrorist group or that terrorist group.

What the person who originally expressed a wish to expel "pro-terrorist
supporting" students meant by this I cannot say. Possibly he just meant
students he doesn't like. I repeat what I said; either students are committing
a crime by expressing public support for proscribed organisations, in which
case the police can deal with them; or they are expressing perfectly legal
opinions and should not be expelled for them. I don't care what the previous
poster meant.

A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli
government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting
Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.

Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Max Demian
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli
government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting
Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in
response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in
many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the
press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.

I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting
and discussion.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx

Post by Max Demian
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli
government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting
Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in
response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in
many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the
press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting
and discussion.

I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx

Post by Max Demian
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli
government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting
Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in
response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in
many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the
press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting
and discussion.

I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.

I sincerely hope not, I thought we had free speech in the UK. I have had a
lot of correspondence with my MP on this, he is apparently a Conservative
Friend of Israel but not a Conservative Friend of Palestine and wriggles
like mad when challenged about this and also the lobbying by Israel. I
asked him if the fact that 80% of Conservative MPs also being Friends of
Israel influenced the appalling way the UK had handled the situation but
he won't answer that either.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx

Post by Max Demian
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the
Israeli government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas
(which presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that
come from Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues
for supporting Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians
in response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic
or, in many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread
censorship by the press of any comments supporting Palestinian
civilians. The only public figure willing to openly support
Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided
reporting and discussion.

I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption
for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.

I sincerely hope not, I thought we had free speech in the UK. I have had
a lot of correspondence with my MP on this, he is apparently a
Conservative Friend of Israel but not a Conservative Friend of Palestine
and wriggles like mad when challenged about this and also the lobbying
by Israel. I asked him if the fact that 80% of Conservative MPs also
being Friends of Israel influenced the appalling way the UK had handled
the situation but he won't answer that either.

What will happen (or has happened, but as you will see, we won't
necessarily know) is that a lot of people will simply not say anything
for fear of being accused of something.

This all works swimmingly well as the bullies sail on believing that
because no one (dares) stands up to them they must have the majority
onside.

Then, one fateful day, you have something where people can express
themselves without fear. Either because it's secretly like an election,
or because they are anonymous. And at that point the whole house of cards
comes tumbling down as reality bites.

Then, naturally, the injured party wails on about vote-rigging or foreign
agencies and we all end up having a war.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx

Post by Max Demian
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli
government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting
Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in
response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in
many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the
press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting
and discussion.

I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.

I sincerely hope not, I thought we had free speech in the UK. I have had a
lot of correspondence with my MP on this, he is apparently a Conservative
Friend of Israel but not a Conservative Friend of Palestine and wriggles
like mad when challenged about this and also the lobbying by Israel. I
asked him if the fact that 80% of Conservative MPs also being Friends of
Israel influenced the appalling way the UK had handled the situation but
he won't answer that either.

We don't have, and have never had, any general right to free speech in the UK.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx

Post by Max Demian
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the
Israeli government of genocide without specifically mentioning
Hamas (which presumably is proscribed). They might quote death
tolls that come from Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British
synagogues for supporting Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian
civilians in response to Press articles and been accused of being
anti-semitic or, in many cases, had my post rejected due to the
widespread censorship by the press of any comments supporting
Palestinian civilians. The only public figure willing to openly
support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn and he has little
support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided
reporting and discussion.

I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption
for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.

I sincerely hope not, I thought we had free speech in the UK. I have
had a lot of correspondence with my MP on this, he is apparently a
Conservative Friend of Israel but not a Conservative Friend of
Palestine and wriggles like mad when challenged about this and also the
lobbying by Israel. I asked him if the fact that 80% of Conservative
MPs also being Friends of Israel influenced the appalling way the UK
had handled the situation but he won't answer that either.

We don't have, and have never had, any general right to free speech in the UK.

But in a liberal democracy, what is not prohibited is allowed, surely ?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx

Post by Max Demian
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the
Israeli government of genocide without specifically mentioning
Hamas (which presumably is proscribed). They might quote death
tolls that come from Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British
synagogues for supporting Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian
civilians in response to Press articles and been accused of being
anti-semitic or, in many cases, had my post rejected due to the
widespread censorship by the press of any comments supporting
Palestinian civilians. The only public figure willing to openly
support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn and he has little
support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided
reporting and discussion.

I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption
for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.

I sincerely hope not, I thought we had free speech in the UK. I have
had a lot of correspondence with my MP on this, he is apparently a
Conservative Friend of Israel but not a Conservative Friend of
Palestine and wriggles like mad when challenged about this and also the
lobbying by Israel. I asked him if the fact that 80% of Conservative
MPs also being Friends of Israel influenced the appalling way the UK
had handled the situation but he won't answer that either.

We don't have, and have never had, any general right to free speech in the UK.

But in a liberal democracy, what is not prohibited is allowed, surely ?

But there are many things that are prohibited. Including but not limited to
causing distress and causing public disorder. And supporting things the
government doesn't approve of. Saying unpopular things often leads to one or
the other.

[Spike]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx

Post by Max Demian
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli
government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting
Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in
response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in
many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the
press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting
and discussion.

I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.

Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx

Post by Max Demian
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli
government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting
Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in
response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in
many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the
press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting
and discussion.

I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.

Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you meet many
Palestinians?

[Les. Hayward]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you meet many
Palestinians?

I don't see much anti-hamas material displayed in the protests. Perhaps
you might be kind enough to provide some examples?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Les. Hayward

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you meet many
Palestinians?

I don't see much anti-hamas material displayed in the protests. Perhaps
you might be kind enough to provide some examples?

These are protests by Palestinians?

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Les. Hayward

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few
Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you meet many
Palestinians?

I don't see much anti-hamas material displayed in the protests. Perhaps
you might be kind enough to provide some examples?

These are protests by Palestinians?

In the UK they are protests by people who empathise with the Palestinian
people who have (a) had their country taken from them and (b) are being
slaughtered daily (and have been for nearly 80 years) by Israel in the
name of "defence".

There is a difference between Hamas and Palestinian civilians but Israel
pushes the myth that they are the same. It is interesting to compare how
the UK dealt with the IRA and how Israel deals with Hamas.

[Fredxx]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Les. Hayward

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you meet many
Palestinians?

I don't see much anti-hamas material displayed in the protests. Perhaps
you might be kind enough to provide some examples?

These are protests by Palestinians?

In the UK they are protests by people who empathise with the Palestinian
people who have (a) had their country taken from them and (b) are being
slaughtered daily (and have been for nearly 80 years) by Israel in the
name of "defence".
There is a difference between Hamas and Palestinian civilians but Israel
pushes the myth that they are the same. It is interesting to compare how
the UK dealt with the IRA and how Israel deals with Hamas.

The NI struggle was unusual in that there was a political arm that was
connected but didn't publicly condone the actions of the IRA, nor did it
criticise the IRA.

That possibly made negotiations easier though I recall it nearly came
unstuck when Clinton asked how much power Gerry Adams had in stopping
the killings.

I've often thought the Gazzans are at a disadvantage by having an entity
in power that at the same time has blood on it's hand from violence
towards Israel.

I would advocate their separation, as per Sin Fein / IRA. Though some
posters might consider that view promotes terrorism.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Les. Hayward

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike
Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you meet many
Palestinians?

I don't see much anti-hamas material displayed in the protests. Perhaps
you might be kind enough to provide some examples?

These are protests by Palestinians?

In the UK they are protests by people who empathise with the Palestinian
people who have (a) had their country taken from them and (b) are being
slaughtered daily (and have been for nearly 80 years) by Israel in the
name of "defence".
There is a difference between Hamas and Palestinian civilians but Israel
pushes the myth that they are the same. It is interesting to compare how
the UK dealt with the IRA and how Israel deals with Hamas.

The NI struggle was unusual in that there was a political arm that was
connected but didn't publicly condone the actions of the IRA, nor did it
criticise the IRA.
That possibly made negotiations easier though I recall it nearly came
unstuck when Clinton asked how much power Gerry Adams had in stopping
the killings.
I've often thought the Gazzans are at a disadvantage by having an entity
in power that at the same time has blood on it's hand from violence
towards Israel.
I would advocate their separation, as per Sin Fein / IRA. Though some
posters might consider that view promotes terrorism.

How do you know they don't? Clearly such a distinction existed, as Hamas were
the government and administration of the enclave. Since the Israeli army kills
and imprisons members of the administration (doctors, hospital administrators,
ambulance men, journalists and many others) the undoubted practical
distinction between combatants and non-combatants (which international law
suggests Israel should recognise) would not be enabled by giving them a
different name. In fact there probably is a distinct name (it would be
practically convenient to distinguish soldiers from paediatricians) but I
doubt if that would save them.

[Spike]

[…]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.

Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?

Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? Or
seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled
London streets so recently?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Post by Roger Hayter
Do you meet many Palestinians?

Do you?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Spike
[…]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise
their own state. But I don't know that.

Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be
the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?

Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? Or
seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled
London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Er, you are arguing against your own position here. You are the one
claiming, without evidence, that there is an absence of something.

[Spike]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike
[…]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise
their own state. But I don't know that.

Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be
the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?

Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? Or
seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled
London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Er, you are arguing against your own position here. You are the one
claiming, without evidence, that there is an absence of something.

Er, I think my point stems from the question “…when have you seen or read
of any Palestinians criticising Hamas?”

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Spike

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike
[…]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise
their own state. But I don't know that.

Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be
the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?

Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? Or
seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled
London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Er, you are arguing against your own position here. You are the one
claiming, without evidence, that there is an absence of something.

Er, I think my point stems from the question “…when have you seen or read
of any Palestinians criticising Hamas?”

Your point stems from a question you wrote several posts after your
point? I don't think cause and effect work in that direction.

[Spike]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike
[…]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise
their own state. But I don't know that.

Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be
the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?

Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? Or
seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled
London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Er, you are arguing against your own position here. You are the one
claiming, without evidence, that there is an absence of something.

Er, I think my point stems from the question “…when have you seen or read
of any Palestinians criticising Hamas?”

Your point stems from a question you wrote several posts after your
point? I don't think cause and effect work in that direction.

Well, if you think that, let’s return to the remark that started this,
namely:

“Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?”

Thanks here to JNugent for showing understanding of the intended meaning of
‘…appear to…”.

Perhaps those Palestinians who don’t agree with Hamas just keep their
opinions to themselves, as a preferred modus to speaking up and getting
shot. It’s a form of survivor bias, any such anti-Hamas Palestinians that
may have spoken up seem not to be available to confirm their beliefs, as
they are very likely to have been terminated by Hamas.

Think of the hospital staffs who never saw Hamas fighters coming and going
to their secret command posts in their hospitals, even when shown on CCTV
passing them in the corridors (from a news report sometime during the
current Gaza war, sorry I didn’t note the time, date, or news channel).

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Spike

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike
[…]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise
their own state. But I don't know that.

Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be
the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?

Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? Or
seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled
London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Er, you are arguing against your own position here. You are the one
claiming, without evidence, that there is an absence of something.

Er, I think my point stems from the question “…when have you seen or read
of any Palestinians criticising Hamas?”

Your point stems from a question you wrote several posts after your
point? I don't think cause and effect work in that direction.

Well, if you think that, let’s return to the remark that started this,
“Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?”
Thanks here to JNugent for showing understanding of the intended meaning of
‘…appear to…”.

I think the intended meaning of "appear to" is to make your statement
unfalsifiable, so that you don't have to back it up with any evidence.
But unfortunately it also makes it meaningless. What "appears to" you
may not be the same as what "appears to" anyone else.

[Spike]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike
[…]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter
I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any
criticism of the state of Israel. I believe there may be an
exemption for Israeli citizens, who may be allowed to criticise
their own state. But I don't know that.

Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be
the case because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever?

Well, when have you seen or read of any Palestinians criticising Hamas? Or
seen a counter-demonstration to those of the pro-Palestinians that filled
London streets so recently?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Er, you are arguing against your own position here. You are the one
claiming, without evidence, that there is an absence of something.

Er, I think my point stems from the question “…when have you seen or read
of any Palestinians criticising Hamas?”

Your point stems from a question you wrote several posts after your
point? I don't think cause and effect work in that direction.

Well, if you think that, let’s return to the remark that started this,
“Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?”
Thanks here to JNugent for showing understanding of the intended meaning of
‘…appear to…”.

I think the intended meaning of "appear to" is to make your statement
unfalsifiable, so that you don't have to back it up with any evidence.
But unfortunately it also makes it meaningless.

By what measure?

Post by Jon Ribbens
What "appears to" you may not be the same as what "appears to" anyone else.

That’s *exactly* why such terms are used.

Feel free to think whatever you like about the phrase, but (for example)
Collins online dictionary explains its use in fairly simple terms.

<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/appear>

Unsurprisingly, if the situation regarding criticism of Hamas by
Palestinians “…appears…” to be different to different people, that is only
to be expected, and people are entitled to state those views.

The Collins page linked above gives among other examples, that of the word
“appears” followed by an infinitive verb, in my post it was “…to
criticise…”, which is standard use of English.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx

Post by Max Demian
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli
government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting
Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in
response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in
many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the
press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting
and discussion.

I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.

Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

It mystifies me how you know that. Are you simply stating this to be the case
because it suits your argument, with no evidence whatsoever? Do you meet many
Palestinians?

It sometimes surprises that the string "appear[s] to" (or even
"appear[s] not to") is not construed correctly.

Take that into account and the sense of the PP's position changes.

[Max Demian]

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx

Post by Max Demian
A person might support the Palestinians in Gaza and accuse the Israeli
government of genocide without specifically mentioning Hamas (which
presumably is proscribed). They might quote death tolls that come from
Hamas. They might criticise rabbis in British synagogues for supporting
Israel.
I don't know when such support would be deemed illegal, or under which law.

On this very group I criticised the barbaric behaviour of the Israel
government towards the Gazzan people and in doing so was accused by
another poster that I was committing an offence.
Emotion and religion often get in the way of common sense.

I have criticised the behaviour of Israel towards Palestinian civilians in
response to Press articles and been accused of being anti-semitic or, in
many cases, had my post rejected due to the widespread censorship by the
press of any comments supporting Palestinian civilians. The only public
figure willing to openly support Palestinians seems to be Jeremy Corbyn
and he has little support.
I think we are back to poor legal advice, play safe by stamping on
anything that could in any possible way be considered supportive of a
proscribed terrorist organisation. It has led to very one sided reporting
and discussion.

I think this is perhaps because our government has signed up to an
American/Israeli definition of anti-semitism which includes any criticism of
the state of Israel. I believe there may be an exemption for Israeli citizens,
who may be allowed to criticise their own state. But I don't know that.

Another factor in the unbalanced debate scenario is that few Palestinians
appear to criticise the terrorist organisation Hamas, but who knows?

Not all avowed Jews criticise the Israeli government.

[RJH]

Post by J Newman
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!

OOI, what's your source of UK 'government waste'? And indeed pro-terrorist
students in the UK.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by RJH

Post by J Newman
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!

OOI, what's your source of UK 'government waste'? And indeed pro-terrorist
students in the UK.

Since it is already a crime in the UK to support a proscribed terrorist
organisation, I assume there are no overtly pro-terrorist students currently
studying. I presume by "pro-terrorist" the previous poster means opponents of
Israel's military action in Gaza and the West Bank.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by J Newman
Also some things which Trump says make sense

Stopped clocks etc.

Admittedly, I can't seem to recall Trump sending US troops anywhere.
Which - much as I dislike him - is to his credit.

However, there is a lot to be said in Hitlers favour. Mainly the fact
that his actions required countries to exhort and excel themselves to
defeat him. Which - returning to your flawed lion analogy - is a little
like praising a lion for improving your sprint speeds.

[billy bookcase]

I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one. Forces of
ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,

Er, wasn't slavery a foundation stone of the economy of North America both
before and after the establishment of the United States ?

And just to refresh peoples memories, just how many years ago was it
that blacks in the US were finally allowed to travel not only the
same buses as us "white folks", but no longer had to sit at the back ?

Quite whether Native Americans would have regarded being driven off of
their land at gunpoint and herded into reservations like cattle as repression
or not, like the US's slave owning past, is again something best forgotten.

Those Chinese though eh ?

What would Walmart do without them ?

Except that is, for the mass production of hypocrisy, in which the US
still leads the world.



bb

[billy bookcase]

Post by J Newman
Also some things which Trump says make sense -

Indeed. That the US is losing its dominant position in the World.

An undoubted fact; which conventional politicians attempt to ignore
as they know they can't really do anything about it.

When neither, in reality, can Trump.

That's just how history works; with the geopolitical realities changing
all the time

Much the same as here, in the UK.

Here they voted for Brexit, over there they voted for Trump.

And now that that experiment has conspicuously failed and Bojos lies have
been found out, the Brexitards are all turning on Starmer as if he or anyone
else could now make any real difference.


bb

[Jethro_uk]

Post by billy bookcase
And now that that experiment has conspicuously failed and Bojos lies
have been found out, the Brexitards are all turning on Starmer as if he
or anyone else could now make any real difference.

The ever decreasing number of Brexitards too.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by billy bookcase
And now that that experiment has conspicuously failed and Bojos lies
have been found out, the Brexitards are all turning on Starmer as if he
or anyone else could now make any real difference.

The ever decreasing number of Brexitards too.

There is no "decreasing" about it, unfortunately.

As *they've* been insisting all along, *their* decision was *final*
and irrevocable.

As indeed it was. And still is. And will be forever more.

A slate which can never be wiped clean, IOW.

The referendum voting slips will have all have been numbered of course;
although presumably they have all been destroyed in the meantime,
in the absence of any evidence of fraudulent, as opposed to deranged,
voting activity.


bb

[Jethro_uk]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by billy bookcase
And now that that experiment has conspicuously failed and Bojos lies
have been found out, the Brexitards are all turning on Starmer as if
he or anyone else could now make any real difference.

The ever decreasing number of Brexitards too.

There is no "decreasing" about it, unfortunately.

Oh, there is. Just the remaining few have enough money to continue to
fill the airwaves

Post by billy bookcase
As *they've* been insisting all along, *their* decision was *final* and
irrevocable.

Is that the same as the "unsinkable" Titanic ?

Post by billy bookcase
As indeed it was. And still is. And will be forever more.
A slate which can never be wiped clean, IOW.
The referendum voting slips will have all have been numbered of course;
although presumably they have all been destroyed in the meantime,
in the absence of any evidence of fraudulent, as opposed to deranged,
voting activity.

Brexit is done and dusted. End of.

[Les. Hayward]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by J Newman
Also some things which Trump says make sense -

Indeed. That the US is losing its dominant position in the World.
An undoubted fact; which conventional politicians attempt to ignore
as they know they can't really do anything about it.
When neither, in reality, can Trump.
That's just how history works; with the geopolitical realities changing
all the time
Much the same as here, in the UK.
Here they voted for Brexit, over there they voted for Trump.
And now that that experiment has conspicuously failed and Bojos lies have
been found out, the Brexitards are all turning on Starmer as if he or anyone
else could now make any real difference.
bb

Amazing how printing firearms has turned into another Brexit rant.

Can we blame the bad weather on it too?

[Mark Goodge]

Post by J Newman

Post by Jethro_uk
I speak as someone who lives 800m from the scene of an attempted murder
with a firearm last year.

The proper response as a free person in a gun free country, to something
like this, is to carry a firearm of your own, be respectful to everyone,
always try to de-escalate and be careful.

Why would you want to increase your own risks?

There is plenty of reliable evidence that gun owners and their household
members are more, not less, likely to die of gunshot wounds than people from
households where there are no guns[1].

So to want to have a gun in an otherwise gun-free country is clearly not
rational self-interest. Which rather goes against the grain of claiming to
be a libertarian.

Post by J Newman
I would argue that the world has become, and is becoming, a bipolar one.
Forces of ignorance, repression, enslavement and repression on one side,
and freedom on the other.

It's not really that simple, though, is it. The forces of ignorance - things
like antivaxxers, conspiracy theorists, etc - flourish most in places where
there is freedom, because freedom includes the freedom to be an idiot in
public. There are fewer antivaxxers in China than there are in the west.
Which is a problem for libertarians, because - as you yourself neatly
illustrated above with yur gun comment - the reality is that far too many
people are simply incapable of rational self-interest. I do agree that
freedom is a Good Thing in itself, and to be pursued wherever practical. But
to posit that freedom alone is the only goal worth pursuing, and that
greater freedom will automatically make everything else better, is a
viewpoint not supported by any evidence.

Post by J Newman
Trump is certainly not a perfect guy to lead the axis of freedom but
someone who pumps his fist and yells "Fight!" after being shot in the
ear gets my vote.

A person's immediate, instinctive response to a sudden traumatic incident is
not a particularly good guide to how they will act when sitting at their
desk and considering decisions which require carefully balancing the weight
of evidence.

Post by J Newman
Also some things which Trump says make sense - like kicking the
pro-terrorist supporting students out of US universities, or cutting
government wastage. If only the UK would do both!

That may possibly be true, but of course kicking people out of universities
for holding contrary opinions is quite the opposite approach to
libertarianism. Which, again, demonstrates that freedom isn't everything.

[1] https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/

Mark