A foggy day ...

[Fredxx]

The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a
moderator.

notify reject offtopic

You couldn't make it up!

Perhaps a moderator thinks lighting on cars doesn't have a legal aspect?

[Roger Hayter]

I quite agree. It would have given an opportunity for endless moaning (by me)
about other illegal activity, like using fog lights in good visibility. Is
motoring law too mundane for ulm? An odd rejection indeed.


--
Roger Hayter

[Jon Ribbens]

That does seem odd. I invite the original post author to resubmit it
if he wishes.

[Roger Hayter]

On 3 Dec 2023 at 15:45:45 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:

I do think that we are all ignoring the manual comment on the rejection, which
was objecting to a slightly snide comment on weaponised anti-semitism
accusations, but I can't see how that remark contravenes the moderation
policy, especially since it has itself a legal aspect. Especially people being
arrested for having wrongful political ideas in their pamphlets.


--
Roger Hayter

[Jon Ribbens]

I hadn't seen the rejection comment, but I had seen the final sentence.
I think the final sentence is a bit silly and unhelpful but I agree with
you that it isn't against the moderation policy.

If the post had no other content apart from that final sentence then
I would probably reject it too, but I don't think it makes the rest of
the post rejectable just by being there.

On the other hand, I think removing the final sentence would improve the
post so doing so and reposting would make everyone happy ;-)

[Simon Parker]

I know it is not customary to point fingers at the moderator
responsible, but I am happy to "out" myself on this occasion.

I rejected the post but clearly had a "fat finger" moment when choosing
the reason for rejection. I'd intended selecting "Repetition" rather
than "Off-Topic".

I thought the content of the post was excellent but the final sentence
had the potential to drag the thread off into a subject that was already
being discussed in detail in other threads and didn't, IMO, need
spreading to a new thread too, hence the request to repost without the
final sentence.

Something I still strongly invite the OP to do.

Alternatively, if the OP wishes to repost with the final sentence in
place, I'll leave it on the moderation pile for a different moderator to
action, although this is a one-time suggestion for this specific post
and is not to be taken as a general request to repost rejected articles
verbatim.

Regards

S.P.

[Jon Ribbens]

I don't disagree with the argument, but I don't think that we have the
option to reject posts based upon that line of reasoning.

[Roland Perry]

In message <kt3n89...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:04:25 on Sun, 3 Dec
2023, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>On 3 Dec 2023 at 15:45:45 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
>wrote:
>
>> On 2023-12-03, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>> The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a
>>> moderator.
>>>
>>> notify reject offtopic
>>>
>>> You couldn't make it up!
>>>
>>> Perhaps a moderator thinks lighting on cars doesn't have a legal aspect?
>>
>> That does seem odd. I invite the original post author to resubmit it
>> if he wishes.
>
>I do think that we are all ignoring the manual comment on the rejection, which
>was objecting to a slightly snide comment on weaponised anti-semitism
>accusations, but I can't see

And of course Fredxx literally can't see, because he chooses to use an
undeliverable email address.

Frankly, in the face of such wanton self-inflicted damage, why should we
be 'wasting our time'[tm] explaining it here?

>how that remark contravenes the moderation
>policy, especially since it has itself a legal aspect. Especially people being
>arrested for having wrongful political ideas in their pamphlets.
>
>

--

Roland Perry

[Fredxx]

On 06/12/2023 07:06, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <kt3n89...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:04:25 on Sun, 3 Dec
> 2023, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>> On 3 Dec 2023 at 15:45:45 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-12-03, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected
>>>> by a
>>>> moderator.
>>>>
>>>> notify reject offtopic
>>>>
>>>> You couldn't make it up!
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a moderator thinks lighting on cars doesn't have a legal
>>>> aspect?
>>>
>>> That does seem odd. I invite the original post author to resubmit it
>>> if he wishes.
>>
>> I do think that we are all ignoring the manual comment on the
>> rejection, which
>> was objecting to a slightly snide comment on weaponised anti-semitism
>> accusations, but I can't see
>
> And of course Fredxx literally can't see, because he chooses to use an
> undeliverable email address.

I did see it, and I don't see the need for this type of censorship,
especially when snide remarks are made in other areas, typically by
moderators getting on their soap box.

> Frankly, in the face of such wanton self-inflicted damage, why should we
> be 'wasting our time'[tm] explaining it here?

Then set an example, stop making snide political comments if you wish
others to stop.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ukv0t4$1nrur$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:07:00 on Fri, 8 Dec
2023, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> remarked:

>On 06/12/2023 07:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <kt3n89...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:04:25 on Sun, 3
>>Dec 2023, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>>> On 3 Dec 2023 at 15:45:45 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-12-03, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been
>>>>>rejected by a moderator.
>>>>>
>>>>> notify reject offtopic
>>>>>
>>>>> You couldn't make it up!
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps a moderator thinks lighting on cars doesn't have a legal
>>>>>aspect?
>>>>
>>>> That does seem odd. I invite the original post author to resubmit it
>>>> if he wishes.
>>>
>>> I do think that we are all ignoring the manual comment on the
>>>rejection, which was objecting to a slightly snide comment on
>>>weaponised anti-semitism accusations, but I can't see

>> And of course Fredxx literally can't see, because he chooses to use
>>an undeliverable email address.
>
>I did see it,

So your email address isn't undeliverable, after all? I find that a bit
surprising.

>and I don't see the need for this type of censorship, especially when
>snide remarks are made in other areas, typically by moderators getting
>on their soap box.

And you, on your stack of soapboxes, what are we to make of that?

>> Frankly, in the face of such wanton self-inflicted damage, why should
>>we be 'wasting our time'[tm] explaining it here?
>
>Then set an example, stop making snide political comments if you wish
>others to stop.

What kind of snide remarks. Not about the Brexit shitshow, I hope,
because that's just putting the record straight.

>>> how that remark contravenes the moderation policy, especially since
>>>it has itself a legal aspect. Especially people being arrested for
>>>having wrongful political ideas in their pamphlets.

It's been explained to you, but if you won't listen, is that yet another
thing to put on your application form to be a moderator?
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

It is available on the "recent activity" page, for most rejection reasons.




--
Roger Hayter

[Fredxx]

1) It wasn't my post, so I would never have seen a reply to their email.
2) If you hadn't noticed, the reply is published on the moderation queue
website.

Perhaps you will be now less 'surprised'.

>> and I don't see the need for this type of censorship, especially when
>> snide remarks are made in other areas, typically by moderators getting
>> on their soap box.
>
> And you, on your stack of soapboxes, what are we to make of that?

Quite. You don't like my soapbox, many don't like yours.

>>> Frankly, in the face of such wanton self-inflicted damage, why should
>>> we  be 'wasting our time'[tm] explaining it here?
>>
>> Then set an example, stop making snide political comments if you wish
>> others to stop.
>
> What kind of snide remarks. Not about the Brexit shitshow, I hope,
> because that's just putting the record straight.

Again you show your true colours. It was no shit show. The shit show
started by John Major and Tony Bliar were put right.

>>>> how that remark contravenes the moderation  policy, especially since
>>>> it has itself a legal aspect. Especially  people being  arrested for
>>>> having wrongful political ideas in their pamphlets.
>
> It's been explained to you, but if you won't listen, is that yet another
> thing to put on your application form to be a moderator?

What has been explained to me? It is hardly worthy of moderator to snip
or not include what might have been "explained" to me.

[GB]

On 09/12/2023 12:21, Fredxx wrote:

>> What kind of snide remarks. Not about the Brexit shitshow, I hope,
>> because that's just putting the record straight.
>
> Again you show your true colours. It was no shit show. The shit show
> started by John Major and Tony Bliar were put right.

Surely, before calling Blair a liar, a little introspection is in order?

[Roger Hayter]

I am not sure how introspection works; even if I am a liar and a hypocrite it
doesn't change the fact that Blair was a liar and a war criminal. Whether from
the desire for personal advancement, religious fundamentalism or a wish to be
liked by important Americans doesn't really matter. We rarely know *why*
violent criminals commit certain crimes.


--
Roger Hayter

[Fredxx]

I didn't lie and say there were weapons of mass destruction that could
be aimed and land in the UK with just 45 minutes warning.

I didn't support the killing of 1 million Iraqis.

I would suggest it is not me who needs a 'little introspection'. I can
only suggest you look closer to home.

[The Todal]

On 09/12/2023 13:33, Fredxx wrote:
> On 09/12/2023 13:00, GB wrote:
>> On 09/12/2023 12:21, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>>> What kind of snide remarks. Not about the Brexit shitshow, I hope,
>>>> because that's just putting the record straight.
>>>
>>> Again you show your true colours. It was no shit show. The shit show
>>> started by John Major and Tony Bliar were put right.
>>
>> Surely, before calling Blair a liar, a little introspection is in order?
>
> I didn't lie and say there were weapons of mass destruction that could
> be aimed and land in the UK with just 45 minutes warning.

Actually nor did Blair. But when our Press made the claims about a 45
minute warning, it suited Blair to remain silent and not to correct the
record. Alastair Campbell said at one of the subsequent Inquiries
(probably Chilcott) that it was no business of his to tell the Press
when they've got the facts wrong. Odd, considering how he regularly
demanded retractions when it suited him.

Blair's lies were to say that the evidence about WMDs was unequivocal,
when it wasn't, and that his Attorney General was satisfied that we
could proceed without another UN resolution, when that wasn't true either.

Mainly he lied to his cabinet and his political supporters. He would say
it wasn't lies when he genuinely believed what he was saying. I think
Trump used the same excuse when claiming that the US election was
fraudulent.

[Roger Hayter]

On 9 Dec 2023 at 15:18:05 GMT, "The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:

> On 09/12/2023 13:33, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 09/12/2023 13:00, GB wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2023 12:21, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What kind of snide remarks. Not about the Brexit shitshow, I hope,
>>>>> because that's just putting the record straight.
>>>>
>>>> Again you show your true colours. It was no shit show. The shit show
>>>> started by John Major and Tony Bliar were put right.
>>>
>>> Surely, before calling Blair a liar, a little introspection is in order?
>>
>> I didn't lie and say there were weapons of mass destruction that could
>> be aimed and land in the UK with just 45 minutes warning.
>
> Actually nor did Blair. But when our Press made the claims about a 45
> minute warning, it suited Blair to remain silent and not to correct the
> record. Alastair Campbell said at one of the subsequent Inquiries
> (probably Chilcott) that it was no business of his to tell the Press
> when they've got the facts wrong. Odd, considering how he regularly
> demanded retractions when it suited him.

The 45min story came from an unattributable briefing by either the US or UK.
Spreading lies clandestinely and not disavowing them is lying as far as I can
see. Rather more obviously so if you are prime minister at the time.

>
> Blair's lies were to say that the evidence about WMDs was unequivocal,
> when it wasn't, and that his Attorney General was satisfied that we
> could proceed without another UN resolution, when that wasn't true either.
>
> Mainly he lied to his cabinet and his political supporters. He would say
> it wasn't lies when he genuinely believed what he was saying. I think
> Trump used the same excuse when claiming that the US election was
> fraudulent.

If it wasn't lies why did scientists who told the truth have to be silenced?
Anyway, I don't believe for a moment he didn't know what he was saying was
untrue. Our security services have leaked since that they didn't believe it.
Strangely, I think he is much more evil lier than Boris Johnson who just
behaves like a 4 year old and can't help it.

>
>
>>
>> I didn't support the killing of 1 million Iraqis.
>>
>> I would suggest it is not me who needs a 'little introspection'. I can
>> only suggest you look closer to home.
>>

--
Roger Hayter

[Spike]

You might find of interest this summary of the adventures of the 45-minute
claim:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3466005.stm>

--
Spike

[The Todal]

Interesting. The question of whether the weapons could land "in the UK"
with only a 45 minute warning hinges on whether they were battlefield
weapons or strategic weapons.

Mr Hoon tells the inquiry it was suggested to him that the claim only
referred to battlefield arms, not strategic weapons.

Asked about why he had not corrected newspapers' interpretation of the
claim, Mr Hoon said it was hard to get the press to make corrections.

(Hardest of all, I suppose, if you never even try!)

[GB]

On 09/12/2023 13:33, Fredxx wrote:

> I would suggest it is not me who needs a 'little introspection'. I can
> only suggest you look closer to home.
>

Are you seriously suggesting that you haven't lied?

[Fredxx]

And the relevance to my post? Do really hate so much it being pointed
out to you of the ethnic cleansing of Gazza that you take every
opportunity to put me down?

Do you endorse the shrinking of the areas civilians are now allowed to
occupy as well as non-jews being evicted by settlers in the West Bank,
aided by the local police?

Just to remind you, the bit you snipped, "I didn't lie and say there

were weapons of mass destruction that could be aimed and land in the UK

with just 45 minutes warning". I can assure you someone else said that.

It seems you can't accept the truth.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ul1m4l$26oug$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:42 on Sat, 9 Dec

I'm surprised at the wording "that *you* submitted". [My emphasis]

>>> and I don't see the need for this type of censorship, especially
>>>when snide remarks are made in other areas, typically by moderators
>>>getting on their soap box.

>> And you, on your stack of soapboxes, what are we to make of that?
>
>Quite. You don't like my soapbox, many don't like yours.

Are moderators not allowed to contribute to discussions?

>>>> Frankly, in the face of such wanton self-inflicted damage, why
>>>>should we  be 'wasting our time'[tm] explaining it here?
>>>
>>> Then set an example, stop making snide political comments if you
>>>wish others to stop.

>> What kind of snide remarks. Not about the Brexit shitshow, I hope,
>>because that's just putting the record straight.
>
>Again you show your true colours. It was no shit show. The shit show
>started by John Major and Tony Bliar were put right.

Unfortunately the cure was worse than the disease.

>>>>> how that remark contravenes the moderation  policy, especially
>>>>>since it has itself a legal aspect. Especially  people being 
>>>>>arrested for having wrongful political ideas in their pamphlets.

>> It's been explained to you, but if you won't listen, is that yet
>>another thing to put on your application form to be a moderator?
>
>What has been explained to me?

That your interpretation of the charter is incorrect.

>It is hardly worthy of moderator to snip or not include what might have
>been "explained" to me.

It's been explained to you so many times I've grown weary of repeating
it.
--
Roland Perry

[GB]

On 10/12/2023 13:31, Fredxx wrote:
> On 09/12/2023 22:03, GB wrote:
>> On 09/12/2023 13:33, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> I would suggest it is not me who needs a 'little introspection'. I
>>> can only suggest you look closer to home.
>>>
>>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that you haven't lied?
>
> And the relevance to my post?

It's obvious what the relevance is, and it's perfectly reasonable to
point out your hypocrisy.

[Fredxx]

I have made no lies that resulted in the deaths of 1 million people. In
years to come it might be rightly called the Iraqi holocaust.

There is no hypocrisy. I never supported the second Iraq war.

Perhaps you do support the killing of 1 million Iraqis? You seem to
support the genocide in Gaza. Remind us, how big is Gaza? How many are
now squeezed into a small area? How many are now starving?

[GB]

On 12/12/2023 17:54, Fredxx wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 12:24, GB wrote:
>> On 10/12/2023 13:31, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2023 22:03, GB wrote:
>>>> On 09/12/2023 13:33, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest it is not me who needs a 'little introspection'. I
>>>>> can only suggest you look closer to home.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you seriously suggesting that you haven't lied?
>>>
>>> And the relevance to my post?
>>
>> It's obvious what the relevance is, and it's perfectly reasonable to
>> point out your hypocrisy.
>
> I have made no lies that resulted in the deaths of 1 million people. In
> years to come it might be rightly called the Iraqi holocaust.

So, your point is that you are a liar, but your lies have never resulted
in the deaths of 1m people. Fair enough.

[Fredxx]

My point is that that you read into words some expression you are
desperate to see that is simply not there. There is no hypocrisy.

I have never met anyone who can say they have never lied. Do you claim
to be the exception and morally above anyone else?

It is evident you do not deny that you support the killing of 1 million
Iraqis? You now seem to support the genocide in Gaza. Remind us, how big

[GB]

On 13/12/2023 00:08, Fredxx wrote:

> It is evident you do not deny that you support the killing of 1 million
> Iraqis?

I haven't denied it, because nobody has asked me.

Besides that, it wouldn't matter whether I am the worst mass murderer in
history, say. In what way would that make you less of a liar and a
hypocrite?

[Fredxx]

On 13/12/2023 09:52, GB wrote:
> On 13/12/2023 00:08, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> It is evident you do not deny that you support the killing of 1
>> million Iraqis?
>
> I haven't denied it, because nobody has asked me.

I asked you, and as expected, you don't deny it.

> Besides that, it wouldn't matter whether I am the worst mass murderer in
> history, say. In what way would that make you less of a liar and a
> hypocrite?

Than who, you? Tony Bliar?

[GB]

On 13/12/2023 11:45, Fredxx wrote:
> On 13/12/2023 09:52, GB wrote:
>> On 13/12/2023 00:08, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> It is evident you do not deny that you support the killing of 1
>>> million Iraqis?
>>
>> I haven't denied it, because nobody has asked me.
>
> I asked you, and as expected, you don't deny it.

Fine, whatever you want, but it doesn't make you one iota less of a liar
and hypocrite.

>
>> Besides that, it wouldn't matter whether I am the worst mass murderer
>> in history, say. In what way would that make you less of a liar and a
>> hypocrite?
>
> Than who, you? Tony Bliar?

No, it's not comparative; it's binary. You either are a liar, or you are
not. You are.

Similarly, you are a hypocrite, and the fact that others are also
hypocrites does not change that.

[Fredxx]

On 13/12/2023 12:37, GB wrote:
> On 13/12/2023 11:45, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 13/12/2023 09:52, GB wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2023 00:08, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is evident you do not deny that you support the killing of 1
>>>> million Iraqis?
>>>
>>> I haven't denied it, because nobody has asked me.
>>
>> I asked you, and as expected, you don't deny it.
>
> Fine, whatever you want, but it doesn't make you one iota less of a liar
> and hypocrite.

Than who, you?

>>> Besides that, it wouldn't matter whether I am the worst mass murderer
>>> in history, say. In what way would that make you less of a liar and a
>>> hypocrite?
>>
>> Than who, you? Tony Bliar?
>
> No, it's not comparative; it's binary. You either are a liar, or you are
> not. You are.

I see, so everything is black or white, you cannot accept that you might
have told the odd fib or white lie and therefore, b7y your definition, a
liar? If you have no empathy with others then that perhaps that becomes
plausible. Or perhaps you feel you can get some form of complete
absolution from your creator? I certainly don't have that luxury.

> Similarly, you are a hypocrite, and the fact that others are also
> hypocrites does not change that.

No, you just want me to be a hypocrite but one thing I try is to be
consistent and I'm not racist.

I suppose your accusation is because you claimed I called you a racist
which as you know is a complete lie. By the way that makes you a liar,
by definition.

Just to remind you and others what I said was "If, however, anyone feels
it is right to discriminate against others on the basis of race, then
all I can say if the cap fits, best wear it. After all most will agree
that discrimination on the basis of race is the very definition of
racism. Some are in denial of course, and say that racism only applies
to others."