Re: Engineered constitutional crisis

[Bryan Morris]

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

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

[Sn!pe]

He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

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

[Roger Hayter]

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

--
Roger Hayter

[Bryan Morris]

In message <k2trep...@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
<ro...@hayter.org> writes

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

[Roger Hayter]

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

--
Roger Hayter

[Jon Ribbens]

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

[Bryan Morris]

In message <slrntsjg5i.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens

Oh you're a Corbynista too?
--
Bryan Morris

[Jon Ribbens]

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

[Bryan Morris]

In message <slrntsjsvi.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens

<jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>> In message <slrntsjg5i.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>><jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>On 2023-01-19, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 21:53:15 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>> In message <k2trep...@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
>>>>> <ro...@hayter.org> writes
>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bryan Morris <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <slrntsddch.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>,
>>>>>>>>Jon Ribbens
>>>>>>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and
>>>>>>>>>>>>Conservative
>>>>>>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gender-recogn
>>>>>>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The row appears contrived. Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex marriage),
>>>>>>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable to accept
>>>>>>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>decision of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Scottish government. The result a court case and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>political row
>>>>>>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by
>>>>>>>>>>>the Tories,
>>>>>>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are
>>>>>>>>>>>

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

[Jon Ribbens]

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

[Bryan Morris]

In message <slrntsjvo7.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens

<jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>> In message <slrntsjsvi.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>><jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>>>> In message <slrntsjg5i.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>>>><jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>On 2023-01-19, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 21:53:15 GMT, "Bryan Morris"
>>>>>><nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <k2trep...@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
>>>>>>> <ro...@hayter.org> writes
>>>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bryan Morris <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <slrntsddch.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>,
>>>>>>>>>>Jon Ribbens
>>>>>>>>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Conservative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The row appears contrived. Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>decision of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Scottish government. The result a court case and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>political row
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the Tories,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with
>>>>>>>>>>>>the Scottish
>>>>>>>>>>>> law either.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>>>>>>>>>>>> towards them,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but
>>>>>>>>>>>the current
>>>>>>>>>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>>>>>>>>>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action
>>>>>>>>>>>the Tory
>>>>>>>>>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is
>>>>>>>>>>>*not* run
>>>>>>>>>>> by any other party.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>>>>>>> uk.legal.moderated
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a totally
>>>>>>>> inappropriate newsgroup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is constitutionally legal in that shithead posting inappropriate
>>>>>>> personal comments in a newsgroup of which he is a moderator?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A personal comment would normally have to be about a specific person.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps "Bryan Morris" is secretly Keir Starmer in disguise.
>>>> Oh you're a Corbynista too?
>>>
>>>So you didn't even read the message that prompted your immoderate
>>>outburst. Why am I not surprised?
>>
>> Yes I know you think Starmer is a shithead. No doubt you share Corbyn's
>> views on matters that keep him outside the Labour whip
>
>I'm sorry to report that you are even worse at reading minds
>than you are at reading words.

I read OK, is English not your first language?

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

[Mike Fleming]

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

[Jeff Gaines]

On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1...@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
wrote:

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

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

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

[Roger Hayter]

On 21 Jan 2023 at 08:41:48 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgne...@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1...@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
> wrote:
>
>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>> uk.legal.moderated"
>>
>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his ability
>> to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>
> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive remarks
> about our properly elected government which indicates their views are too
> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The group seems
> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about
> Brexit.

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

--
Roger Hayter

[Bryan Morris]

In message <xn0nx3won...@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgne...@outlook.com> writes

>On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1...@mid.individual.net> Mike
>Fleming wrote:
>
>>>As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>> uk.legal.moderated"
>>
>>What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his
>>ability to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>
>That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive
>remarks about our properly elected government which indicates their
>views are too extreme for them to have impartial views on other
>matters. The group seems to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's
>throats and whine about Brexit.
>

Exactly.
They abuse their position as moderators making remarks they would not
accept from "common" posters
--
Bryan Morris

[Bryan Morris]

In message <k31p6j...@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
<ro...@hayter.org> writes

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

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

Bryan Morris

[Sn!pe]

Jeff Gaines <jgne...@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1...@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
> wrote:
>
> >>As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
> >> uk.legal.moderated"
> >
> >What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his ability
> >to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>
> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive remarks
> about our properly elected government which indicates their views are too
> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The group seems
> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about
> Brexit.
>

Alas, there is politically incontinent argument in all too many
newsgroups. One might hope that at least a moderated group
could be free of such evangelistic agendas. I suppose that for
some people, dogma is inseparable from balanced discussions
in pursuit of truth (whose truth?...)

It's indicative of bankrupt thought.

[Jeff Layman]

On 21/01/2023 08:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1...@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
> wrote:
>
>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>  uk.legal.moderated"
>>
>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his ability
>> to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>
> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive remarks
> about our properly elected government which indicates their views are too
> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The group seems
> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about
> Brexit.

That statement is not accurate in several ways. Firstly, you appear to
be applying it as a blanket statement to /all/ moderators. The majority
of them might make offensive remarks about a certain political party,
but not all (and whether or not that is "often" might also be arguable).
Secondly, having extreme views on one matter, and you assuming that
makes them unable to have impartial views on other matters, is a
non-sequitur. It is an extrapolation too far.

The group exists as per its charter. Whether or not it has become
something else does not affect the charter. You are free to unsubscribe
from ulm and/or make comments in this newsgroup about statements made in
that newsgroup.

--

Jeff

[The Todal]

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

[The Todal]

On 21/01/2023 08:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1...@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
> wrote:
>
>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>  uk.legal.moderated"
>>
>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his
>> ability to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>
> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive
> remarks about our properly elected government which indicates their
> views are too extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters.
> The group seems to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats
> and whine about Brexit.
>

Does it offend you, personally, if you read that our Prime Minister is
incompetent?

[The Todal]

On 21/01/2023 08:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1...@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
> wrote:
>
>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>  uk.legal.moderated"
>>
>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his
>> ability to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>
> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive
> remarks about our properly elected government which indicates their
> views are too extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters.
> The group seems to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats
> and whine about Brexit.
>

Is it offensive (for example) to point out that Nadhim Zahawi was under
investigation by the HMRC while he was Chancellor, and that he
aggressively threatened The Independent with legal action if they
published this fact, and that he has now been obliged to pay HMRC a
penalty of more than 1m and possibly as much as 5m?

It may be disrespectful to the man but does he deserve respect? Is it
"socialist dogma" to print this story?

The Independent article is here - I think you can register and login free.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nadhim-zahawi-tax-legal-action-b2266128.html

quote

In an extraordinary exchange before The Independent broke the story that
he was being investigated last July, Mr Zahawi repeatedly threatened
legal action:

• When asked about the NCA inquiry, he responded: “One hundred per cent
I will take legal action.”

• When questioned about the HMRC probe, he responded: “I will take legal
action.”

• When pressed for an answer, he responded: “I have responded to you. I
repeat I will take legal action.”

The Independent first reported that Inland Revenue experts were
investigating Mr Zahawi’s tax affairs on 6 July after a secret inquiry
by the NCA in 2020.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uua...@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:

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

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

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

There are 3 types of people in this world. Those who can count, and those
who can't.

[Jeff Gaines]

When remarks like that are made frequently and vehemently by moderators it
makes me question if they are suitable people to be moderators.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

Here we go it's getting close, now it's just who wants it most.

[Bryan Morris]

In message <k31uua...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<the_...@icloud.com> writes

Don't try that on me. You bloody know what I mean
--
Bryan Morris

[Bryan Morris]

In message <k31vng...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<the_...@icloud.com> writes

Here we go again, you just don't get it do you

What the fuck has this to do with uk.legal.moderated and this group

Write what you want to The Gnurdian Mrs Rayner but not here
--
Bryan Morris

[Sn!pe]

Can it be that ulm has succumbed to the wider Usenet malaise of a
thriving newsgroup being effectively killed by politically motivated
activists swamping the group with off-topic argy-bargy?

I do hope not, I've seen too many once valuable groups go that way.
One would hope that a moderated group might be able to defend
itself against such destructive nonsense.

[frownie goes here]

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgne...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uua...@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
>>Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen any.
>
> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said in the
> quotes.

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

[Bryan Morris]

In message <slrntsns3u.3r...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon
Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes

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

[Bryan Morris]

In message <1q4wr2v.1psj2iwo4mbedN%snip...@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
<snip...@gmail.com> writes

Problem is that it is largely the so called moderators who feel free to
swamp the group with off-topic argy-bargy
--
Bryan Morris

[Jeff Gaines]

Precisely.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

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

[Jeff Gaines]

On 21/01/2023 in message <1q4wr2v.1psj2iwo4mbedN%snip...@gmail.com>

Sn!pe wrote:

>Can it be that ulm has succumbed to the wider Usenet malaise of a
>thriving newsgroup being effectively killed by politically motivated
>activists swamping the group with off-topic argy-bargy?

Sadly yes, with the moderators being the main offenders.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

Every day is a good day for chicken, unless you're a chicken.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2023-01-21, Jeff Layman <Je...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 08:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1...@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>  uk.legal.moderated"
>>>
>>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his ability
>>> to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>>
>> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive remarks
>> about our properly elected government which indicates their views are too
>> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The group seems
>> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about
>> Brexit.
>
> That statement is not accurate in several ways. Firstly, you appear to
> be applying it as a blanket statement to /all/ moderators. The majority
> of them might make offensive remarks about a certain political party,
> but not all (and whether or not that is "often" might also be arguable).
> Secondly, having extreme views on one matter, and you assuming that
> makes them unable to have impartial views on other matters, is a
> non-sequitur. It is an extrapolation too far.

Indeed. And bear in mind that it is entirely unnecessary (and frankly
implausible) for the moderators to have no views on the topics
discussed in the group. The only thing that is necessary or even
desirable is that they are impartial, while making moderation decisions,
on the single question of whether the post in front of them is in line
with the moderation policy.

There are countless times I've looked at a waiting post and thought
"well, this is a worthless piece of drivel written by a deranged,
moronic, lying arsehole" and then pressed "Approve", because the
post was compliant with the policy. Similarly, there have been
occasions (but far less often) when I've thought "this post is
well-written, insightful, and informative" but then rejected it
because it sailed too close to the line of insulting the poster
it was replying to, even if its comments about that poster were
entirely truthful.

*That* is what you want in moderators. If you want moderators who
somehow have no opinions on important topics affecting the society
they live in then good luck summoning these imaginary spirits from
the vasty deep.

[Pamela]

As I read this thread, what I see is you making loud complaints but
failing to follow up with examples when invited.

Are you posting just for a moan or do you intend to make some
constructive criticism?

[Jon Ribbens]

Well that would go over well in court: "Ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, it's obvious the defendant has broken the law. Any of you who
don't know which one don't deserve to be on the jury. The prosecution
rests."

[Pamela]

On 10:43 21 Jan 2023, Jeff Layman said:
> On 21/01/2023 08:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1...@mid.individual.net> Mike
>> Fleming wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>> uk.legal.moderated"
>>>
>>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his
>>> ability to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>>
>> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive
>> remarks about our properly elected government which indicates their
>> views are too extreme for them to have impartial views on other
>> matters. The group seems to exist to pour socialist dogma down
>> people's throats and whine about Brexit.
>
> That statement is not accurate in several ways. Firstly, you appear
> to be applying it as a blanket statement to /all/ moderators. The
> majority of them might make offensive remarks about a certain
> political party, but not all (and whether or not that is "often"
> might also be arguable). Secondly, having extreme views on one
> matter, and you assuming that makes them unable to have impartial
> views on other matters, is a non-sequitur. It is an extrapolation too
> far.

Both good points.

> The group exists as per its charter. Whether or not it has become
> something else does not affect the charter. You are free to
> unsubscribe from ulm and/or make comments in this newsgroup about
> statements made in that newsgroup.

I never understand why people who dislike the way ULM is run keep
coming back to read things which upset them.

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> posted

In the thread "Engineered constitutional crisis"
Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
Date: 17 January 2023 14:35:36

"The row has been confected by the Tories, because they are stupid and
evil, "

Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
Date: 17 January 2023 14:49:53

"If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.

... obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, ... any other
party [] would certainly not be taking the action the Tory scum say they
are,"

Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
Date: 18 January 2023 18:51:57
"Well, the Tories are obviously evil, and - since you mention it - it
wouldn't be unreasonable to describe them as mass murderers, "


Incidentally, Jon also falsely denied that he had been the first to
bring up Hitler in the thread, and he also accused me of being the only
one in the thread who had mentioned comparing anyone to Hitler. I
replied (on 19 January 2023 16:53:15) citing proof of his mendacity, but
either Jon or one of his moderator arse-lickers suppressed my post,
which I reproduce here:

Date: 17 January 2023 14:57:10
Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> posted
>No. Which is why nearly all of the arguments against the GRR Bill
>are transparent lies. A "gender critical" person approvingly quoting
>Adolf Hitler in opposition to the bill was also a big clue as to how
>things stand.


--
Algernon

[Roger Hayter]

Well I don't! Please *read* the moderation policy and explain what
contravention you have identified.

--
Roger Hayter

[Jeff Layman]

I wondered if that might be attributable to Cocklecarrot, obviously well
before he became Master of the Rolls, but perhaps taken into account for
his appointment?

--

Jeff

[Roger Hayter]

What precisely is "bankrupt" thought? And is the belief that there is one
truth which can only be reached by English-speaking intellectuals calmly
discussing the matter in a politically neutral way itself a a bankrupt
thought? Please discuss in a balanced way.

--
Roger Hayter

[Jon Ribbens]

Ok, now cite any moderation policy that any of the above posts
contravenes.

> Incidentally, Jon also falsely denied that he had been the first to
> bring up Hitler in the thread,

No I didn't. You've added the words "in the thread". You falsely
implied that I had something similar to "The Tories Are All Evil
Mass Murderers Just Like Adolf Hitler", and apart from the word
"evil", your claim, like nearly everything you say, was false.

> and he also accused me of being the only one in the thread who had
> mentioned comparing anyone to Hitler.

I did say that. Because it's true.

> I replied (on 19 January 2023 16:53:15) citing proof of his mendacity, but
> either Jon or one of his moderator arse-lickers suppressed my post,

I rejected it because it was repetitive.

> which I reproduce here:
>
> Date: 17 January 2023 14:57:10
> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> posted
> >No. Which is why nearly all of the arguments against the GRR Bill
> >are transparent lies. A "gender critical" person approvingly quoting
> >Adolf Hitler in opposition to the bill was also a big clue as to how
> >things stand.

Ok, now point to any part of that post which compares anyone to Hitler.

You've been whingeing about the moderation under this pseudonym for
nearly three years now, and you've never yet managed to have an actual
point. It's sad really.

[Bryan Morris]

In message <XnsAF93922...@88.198.57.247>, Pamela
<uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> writes

>On 14:12 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said:
>> In message <slrntsns3u.3r...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon
>> Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgne...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uua...@mid.individual.net> The
>>>> Todal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen
>>>>> any.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said
>>>> in the quotes.
>>>
>>>Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation
>>>policy or policies my post contravened.
>>
>> If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator
>
>As I read this thread, what I see is you making loud complaints but
>failing to follow up with examples when invited.

I'm not falling into that trap, my name isn't Norman
If you don't know what I mean you're part of the problem

>
>
>Are you posting just for a moan or do you intend to make some
>constructive criticism?

Apart from one recently appointed moderator (who never uses 1 word when
6 will do;) ) generally the remaining moderators use their positions to
make snide , off topic, political remarks in a legal newsgroup


--
Bryan Morris

[JNugent]

I have never read anything to that effect.

I *have* read silly claims of it, though.

[Roger Hayter]

But you don't need to be a moderator to do that in ulm! It is not against the
moderation policy.

Indeed it was only a couple of years ago that Jeremy Corbyn was being
regularly accused in ulm of being a traitor to the UK, a supporter of
terrorists and an anti-semite. Much worse than is currently being said about
any current Tory.

But somehow that didn't worry you; becuse you supported that particular bit of
lying propaganda perhaps?


I believe your protestss are totally hypocritical and designed to score
party-political points. I am unsurprised, but sad, to see that Tories also see
it as important to support Keith Starmer. One would almost think he was one of
them.


--
Roger Hayter

[Mike Fleming]

Those seem entirely reasonable and accurate statements.

[Mike Fleming]

Because they're capable of rational thought?

[Bryan Morris]

In message <k32n42...@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
<ro...@hayter.org> writes

It SHOULD be a policy that moderators of a moderated group confine
themselves to dealing with issues related directly to the objectives of
the group (in this case legal issues). The moderators should also deal
with snide , off topic, political remarks made by other posters. That
surely is the role of a moderator

> Indeed it was only a couple of years ago that Jeremy Corbyn was being
>regularly accused in ulm of being a traitor to the UK, a supporter of
>terrorists and an anti-semite. Much worse than is currently being said about
>any current Tory.
>
>But somehow that didn't worry you; becuse you supported that particular bit of
>lying propaganda perhaps?

2 years ago from memory I no longer subscribed to that group (and last
year, being in hospital for over 2 months, I was off usenet for a long
time.) But no, and I won't give my opinion on Corbyn who I once knew,
comments about him, unless relevant in a legal newsgroup, should not be
posted there.

>
>
>I believe your protestss are totally hypocritical and designed to score
>party-political points. I am unsurprised, but sad, to see that Tories also see
>it as important to support Keith Starmer. One would almost think he was one of
>them.
>
>

Keith?

--
Bryan Morris

[Jeff Layman]

On 21/01/2023 10:43, Jeff Layman wrote:

Test reply to my own post, using uk.net.news.management only.

Is there a problem posting to uk.net.news.management? I could apparently
not reply to a post in uk.net.news.moderation, but then noticed the
message I was replying to had also been crossposted to
uk.net.news.management. Deleting the later allowed the post to go
through to unn.moderation. Strangely, I had no problem replying to a
crossposted message earlier today.

--

Jeff

[Jeff Gaines]

On 21/01/2023 in message <k32paf...@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
wrote:

>>When remarks like that are made frequently and vehemently by moderators
>>it makes me question if they are suitable people to be moderators.
>
>Because they're capable of rational thought?

Because they appear incapable of rational, impartial, behaviour.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

I've been through the desert on a horse with no name.
It was a right bugger to get him back when he ran off.

[Pamela]

On 16:13 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said:
> In message <XnsAF93922...@88.198.57.247>, Pamela
> <uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> writes
>>On 14:12 21 Jan 2023, Bryan Morris said:
>>> In message <slrntsns3u.3r...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon
>>> Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>On 2023-01-21, Jeff Gaines <jgne...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k31uua...@mid.individual.net> The
>>>>> Todal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please post some examples here. As many as you like. I've not seen
>>>>>> any.
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably that's a joke? Look at the example of what Ribbens said
>>>>> in the quotes.
>>>>
>>>>Excellent, so this is your opportunity to explain what moderation
>>>>policy or policies my post contravened.
>>>
>>> If you don't know you don't deserve to be a moderator
>>
>>As I read this thread, what I see is you making loud complaints but
>>failing to follow up with examples when invited.
>
> I'm not falling into that trap, my name isn't Norman
> If you don't know what I mean you're part of the problem

The difference between your response and something Norman might write is
that he would provide examples.

On the other hand, you moan but when asked to explain your concerns you
declare it's a trap. You sound paranoid.

[Roger Hayter]

You are welcome to request a discussion of the setting up of such a newsgroup,
but that doesn't happen to be the written policy of ULM, which the electorate
supported x years ago.

>
>> Indeed it was only a couple of years ago that Jeremy Corbyn was being
>> regularly accused in ulm of being a traitor to the UK, a supporter of
>> terrorists and an anti-semite. Much worse than is currently being said about
>> any current Tory.
>>
>> But somehow that didn't worry you; becuse you supported that particular bit of
>> lying propaganda perhaps?
>
> 2 years ago from memory I no longer subscribed to that group (and last
> year, being in hospital for over 2 months, I was off usenet for a long
> time.) But no, and I won't give my opinion on Corbyn who I once knew,
> comments about him, unless relevant in a legal newsgroup, should not be
> posted there.

I apologise if you were not one of the mob of like-minded people who supported
the media campaign against Corbyn. But many who did are now complaining about
the Todal and Jon Ribbens saying unkind things about the Tories. (By the way,
I really wish I was in a position to claim to have "carelessly" "forgotten" to
pay a million pounds of tax.)

>>
>>
>> I believe your protestss are totally hypocritical and designed to score
>> party-political points. I am unsurprised, but sad, to see that Tories also see
>> it as important to support Keith Starmer. One would almost think he was one of
>> them.
>>
>>
> Keith?

Who knows? He sounds like a Keith and has more in common with Ramsay Macdonald
than Keir Hardie!


--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

I have no idea why that happened, but since there is no, even tenuous, ground
for posting the main part of this thread in u.n.n.nmanagement instead of or as
well as u.n.n.modereateed (and the OP possibly did so by mistake) perhaps we
should all confine those replies the latter?
--
Roger Hayter

[Bryan Morris]

In message <k336ui...@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter

Thank you for your condescending response that I'm welcome to request a
discussion

If you don't understand responsibilities of those given authority to act
as a moderator you probably don't understand the responsibilities of
judges in applying laws in a neutral way

>
>
>>
>>> Indeed it was only a couple of years ago that Jeremy Corbyn was being
>>> regularly accused in ulm of being a traitor to the UK, a supporter of
>>> terrorists and an anti-semite. Much worse than is currently being said about
>>> any current Tory.
>>>
>>> But somehow that didn't worry you; becuse you supported that
>>>particular bit of
>>> lying propaganda perhaps?
>>
>> 2 years ago from memory I no longer subscribed to that group (and last
>> year, being in hospital for over 2 months, I was off usenet for a long
>> time.) But no, and I won't give my opinion on Corbyn who I once knew,
>> comments about him, unless relevant in a legal newsgroup, should not be
>> posted there.
>
>I apologise if you were not one of the mob of like-minded people who supported
>the media campaign against Corbyn. But many who did are now complaining about
>the Todal and Jon Ribbens saying unkind things about the Tories. (By the way,
>I really wish I was in a position to claim to have "carelessly" "forgotten" to
>pay a million pounds of tax.)
>
>

I refuse to be drawn into a political discussion on this group about
what you call the "media campaign against Corbyn" Though from that
remark of yours I conclude you support Corbyn's views for which he has
lost the Labour whip

>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe your protestss are totally hypocritical and designed to score
>>> party-political points. I am unsurprised, but sad, to see that
>>>Tories also see
>>> it as important to support Keith Starmer. One would almost think he
>>>was one of
>>> them.
>>>
>>>
>> Keith?
>
>Who knows? He sounds like a Keith and has more in common with Ramsay Macdonald
>than Keir Hardie!
>
>

--

Bryan Morris

[Mike Fleming]

On 21/01/2023 22:50, Bryan Morris wrote:
>
> If you don't understand responsibilities of those given authority to act
> as a moderator you probably don't understand the responsibilities of
> judges in applying laws in a neutral way

Perhaps you should research the responsibilities of the "moderator" role
of those who are moderators. Being a moderator does not preclude one
from having or posting personal opinions, and having or posting personal
opinions in no way prevents a person from fulfilling the position of
moderator.

[Mike Fleming]

On 21/01/2023 21:08, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <k32paf...@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
> wrote:
>
>>> When remarks like that are made frequently and vehemently by
>>> moderators it makes me question if they are suitable people to be
>>> moderators.
>>
>> Because they're capable of rational thought?
>
> Because they appear incapable of rational, impartial, behaviour.

Evidence, specifically of this charge in relation to the role of moderator?

[Jeff Gaines]

On 22/01/2023 in message <k33l5a...@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
wrote:

Read the thread, I'm not going through it for you.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they
will stop making it

[Jeff Layman]

I'm replying here as I agree that u.n.n.moderated should be used in
future (I had no idea that u.n.n.management existed until yesterday
evening!). I've raised this strange issue in
alt.comp.software.thunderbird to see if anyone can explain it.

--

Jeff

[The Todal]

Do try harder.

The complaint was: "highly offensive remarks" and "they act with

impunity, posting stuff they wouldn't accept from non Guardian readers"

Remarks that might offend a Tory MP don't count. What exactly has
offended you, personally? Or offended a fellow contributor?

Can you explain how the moderators check whether each contributor reads
the Guardian?

Or was the complaint a petulant whinge without any basis in reality?

[The Todal]

On 21/01/2023 11:36, Bryan Morris wrote:
> In message <k31uua...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
> <the_...@icloud.com> writes

>> On 21/01/2023 10:30, Bryan Morris wrote:
>>> In message <k31p6j...@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
>>> <ro...@hayter.org> writes
>>>> On 21 Jan 2023 at 08:41:48 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines""

>>>> <jgne...@outlook.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1...@mid.individual.net> Mike
>>>>> Fleming
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>>>>  uk.legal.moderated"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his
>>>>>> ability
>>>>>> to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive
>>>>> remarks
>>>>> about our properly elected government which indicates their views
>>>>> are  too
>>>>> extreme for them to have impartial views on other matters. The
>>>>> group  seems
>>>>> to exist to pour socialist dogma down people's throats and whine about
>>>>> Brexit.
>>>>

>>>> Making highly offensive remarks about a properly elected government

>>>> seems to

>>>> be a pretty normal activity in our democracy, whichever party is in
>>>> power.
>>>>

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

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

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

> Don't try that on me. You bloody know what I mean

This is like the classic matrimonial tiff. "You know perfectly well what
you've done. I refuse to spell it out". (Shit, did I forget our wedding
anniversary?)

[The Todal]

On 21/01/2023 12:15, Bryan Morris wrote:
> In message <k31vng...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
> <the_...@icloud.com> writes

>> On 21/01/2023 08:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k311g1...@mid.individual.net> Mike
>>> Fleming  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> As I asked "are you deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>>  uk.legal.moderated"
>>>>
>>>> What have his very reasonable political views got to do with his
>>>> ability to be a moderator in uk.legal.moderated?
>>>  That is a tautology. Moderators in ulm often make highly offensive
>>> remarks about our properly elected government which indicates their
>>> views are too extreme for them to have impartial views on other
>>> matters.  The group seems to exist to pour socialist dogma down
>>> people's throats  and whine about Brexit.
>>>
>>

>> Is it offensive (for example) to point out that Nadhim Zahawi was
>> under investigation by the HMRC while he was Chancellor, and that he
>> aggressively threatened The Independent with legal action if they
>> published this fact, and that he has now been obliged to pay HMRC a
>> penalty of more than 1m and possibly as much as 5m?
>>
>> It may be disrespectful to the man but does he deserve respect? Is it
>> "socialist dogma" to print this story?
>>
>> The Independent article is here - I think you can register and login
>> free.
>>
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nadhim-zahawi-tax-legal-a
>> ction-b2266128.html
>>
>> quote
>>
>> In an extraordinary exchange before The Independent broke the story
>> that he was being investigated last July, Mr Zahawi repeatedly
>> threatened legal action:
>>
>> • When asked about the NCA inquiry, he responded: “One hundred per
>> cent I will take legal action.”
>>
>> • When questioned about the HMRC probe, he responded: “I will take
>> legal action.”
>>
>> • When pressed for an answer, he responded: “I have responded to you.
>> I repeat I will take legal action.”
>>
>> The Independent first reported that Inland Revenue experts were
>> investigating Mr Zahawi’s tax affairs on 6 July after a secret inquiry
>> by the NCA in 2020.
>
> Here we go again, you just don't get it do you
>
> What the fuck has this to do with uk.legal.moderated and this group
>
> Write what you want to The Gnurdian Mrs Rayner but not here


You really can't expect everyone here to idolise our Prime Minister and
his cabinet in the same way that you do.

I'm willing to believe that you are neither stupid nor wicked. You're
probably like Mr Zahawi - "simply careless'.

[The Todal]

On 21/01/2023 14:18, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <1q4wr2v.1psj2iwo4mbedN%snip...@gmail.com>
> Sn!pe wrote:
>
>> Can it be that ulm has succumbed to the wider Usenet malaise of a
>> thriving newsgroup being effectively killed by politically motivated
>> activists swamping the group with off-topic argy-bargy?
>
> Sadly yes, with the moderators being the main offenders.
>


We really should weigh up the Gaines against the losses.

[Mike Fleming]

On 22/01/2023 08:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 22/01/2023 in message <k33l5a...@mid.individual.net> Mike Fleming
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 21:08, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k32paf...@mid.individual.net> Mike
>>> Fleming wrote:
>>>
>>>>> When remarks like that are made frequently and vehemently by
>>>>> moderators it makes me question if they are suitable people to be
>>>>> moderators.
>>>>
>>>> Because they're capable of rational thought?
>>>
>>> Because they appear incapable of rational, impartial, behaviour.
>>
>> Evidence, specifically of this charge in relation to the role of
>> moderator?
>
> Read the thread, I'm not going through it for you.

I have read the thread, and I see you have provided no evidence so far.
Vexatious litigant.

[Fredxx]

Are you both blind and condone the behaviour of a moderator for saying,
"I'm sorry to report that you are even worse at reading minds than you
are at reading words".

If it was anyone else the post would have been rejected. If you can read
some legal content in those words rather than unpleasantries then I can
see your fixation with vexatious litigants.

[Jon Ribbens]

You really would be well advised to stop insulting people, calling them
"bad at maths", "blind", etc, because whenever you do that it inevitably
turns out that it's you that's suffering from the fault you're accusing
them of.

The message you're referring to was not posted in the moderated group.

[Mike Fleming]

On 23/01/2023 13:04, Fredxx wrote:
> On 23/01/2023 01:20, Mike Fleming wrote:
>> On 22/01/2023 08:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2023 in message <k33l5a...@mid.individual.net> Mike
>>> Fleming wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/01/2023 21:08, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <k32paf...@mid.individual.net> Mike
>>>>> Fleming wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> When remarks like that are made frequently and vehemently by
>>>>>>> moderators it makes me question if they are suitable people to be
>>>>>>> moderators.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because they're capable of rational thought?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they appear incapable of rational, impartial, behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> Evidence, specifically of this charge in relation to the role of
>>>> moderator?
>>>
>>> Read the thread, I'm not going through it for you.
>>
>> I have read the thread, and I see you have provided no evidence so
>> far. Vexatious litigant.
>
> Are you both blind and condone the behaviour of a moderator for saying,
> "I'm sorry to report that you are even worse at reading minds than you
> are at reading words".

In an unmoderated newsgroup. And there is also no evidence of any of the
moderators being incapable of rational and impartial behaviour. There is
also no evidence of the moderators being incapable of carrying out their
moderation role, whatever their political leanings.

[Fredxx]

On 23/01/2023 13:17, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2023-01-23, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>> On 23/01/2023 01:20, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2023 08:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>> On 22/01/2023 in message <k33l5a...@mid.individual.net> Mike
>>>> Fleming wrote:
>>>>> Evidence, specifically of this charge in relation to the role of
>>>>> moderator?
>>>>
>>>> Read the thread, I'm not going through it for you.
>>>
>>> I have read the thread, and I see you have provided no evidence so far.
>>> Vexatious litigant.
>>
>> Are you both blind and condone the behaviour of a moderator for saying,
>> "I'm sorry to report that you are even worse at reading minds than you
>> are at reading words".
>>
>> If it was anyone else the post would have been rejected. If you can read
>> some legal content in those words rather than unpleasantries then I can
>> see your fixation with vexatious litigants.
>
> You really would be well advised to stop insulting people

You ought to direct that those calling others a "vexatious litigant".

> The message you're referring to was not posted in the moderated group.

It is behaviour unbecoming of a moderator in any group.

[Fredxx]

I can assure Mr Ribbens, when I said you were "blind", it was an
observation, and not an insult.

[Roland Perry]

In message <tqv65o$1d9mi$1...@dont-email.me>, at 00:34:01 on Fri, 27 Jan
2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> remarked:

>> The message you're referring to was not posted in the moderated group.
>
>It is behaviour unbecoming of a moderator in any group.

As almost every "any group" isn't moderated, the vast majority have no
moderator, and hence your target audience in tiny.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

There are those that believe moderators should be a special priesthood of
saintly (and preferably socially conservative) people. I think that is to
elevate the role to an importance it does not really have!


--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

On 20 Jan 2023 at 19:57:42 GMT, "Bryan Morris" <nos...@this.machine> wrote:

> In message <slrntsjvo7.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
> <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>> On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>>> In message <slrntsjsvi.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>> On 2023-01-20, Bryan Morris <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>> In message <slrntsjg5i.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
>>>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>> On 2023-01-19, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 21:53:15 GMT, "Bryan Morris"
>>>>>>> <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <k2trep...@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
>>>>>>>> <ro...@hayter.org> writes

>>>>>>>>> On 19 Jan 2023 at 18:25:23 GMT, "Sn!pe" <Sn!pe> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bryan Morris <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> In message <slrntsddch.c...@raven.unequivocal.eu>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Ribbens
>>>>>>>>>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2023 14:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-17, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently a row between the SNP Scottish government and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conservative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UK one that looks headed to the courts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23225604.one-way-gen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ition-will-end-court/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The row appears contrived. Whilst Scottish law has always / long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed marriage at 16 (now including I presume same sex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their gender change law appears to be set up as a red rag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulls in London in that the ERG / Tories would be unable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of its provisions and seek to overturn the democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Scottish government. The result a court case and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> political row
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "who rules Scotland - London or Edinburgh?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? The row has been confected by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Tories,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are stupid and evil, not the SNP. Not only are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not "unable to accept" it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the impression UK Labour are that happy with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Scottish
>>>>>>>>>>>>> law either.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If by that you mean Keir Starmer is a cowardly shithead then sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's just the Tories, or is this just your hatred
>>>>>>>>>>>>> towards them,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, obviously any decent human being hates the Tories, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> the current
>>>>>>>>>>>> topic of conversation is the actions the Tories are taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly inevitably involved. If the current government was run by any
>>>>>>>>>>>> other party then they would certainly not be taking the action
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Tory
>>>>>>>>>>>> scum say they are, and regardless, the current government is
>>>>>>>>>>>> *not* run
>>>>>>>>>>>> by any other party.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And this piece of s..t is deemed worthy of being a moderator in
>>>>>>>>>>> uk.legal.moderated
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He does appear to be somewhat immoderate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least he is not posting a constitutional legal question in a totally
>>>>>>>>> inappropriate newsgroup.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is constitutionally legal in that shithead posting inappropriate
>>>>>>>> personal comments in a newsgroup of which he is a moderator?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A personal comment would normally have to be about a specific person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps "Bryan Morris" is secretly Keir Starmer in disguise.
>>>>> Oh you're a Corbynista too?
>>>>
>>>> So you didn't even read the message that prompted your immoderate
>>>> outburst. Why am I not surprised?
>>>
>>> Yes I know you think Starmer is a shithead. No doubt you share Corbyn's
>>> views on matters that keep him outside the Labour whip

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

> I read OK, is English not your first language?

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

Since he *is* a moderator in ulm those doing the deeming seem to have begged
the question!

--
Roger Hayter

[Mike Fleming]

You are blindingly stupid, I'll give you that. Still no evidence
produced. Absolutely none. Not a sausage. Bugger-all.

[Fredxx]

Given you are accusing one person of being a "vexatious litigant"
without evidence, another "blindingly stupid" again without any
evidence, if the hats fit, best wear it.

[Mike Fleming]

The evidence of the former is provided by the absence of evidence
provided. The evidence of the latter is provided by every single posting
of the poster in question.

[Fredxx]

Nope, don't see any.

> The evidence of the latter is provided by every single posting
> of the poster in question.

There is none. Just copious amounts of denial on your part for an
observation.