Fellow Scarfolk fans. Brilliant!
You wouldn’t and then
I really read that in Butters’ voice automatically
It’s true, though. I did once, and I’m looking at 40+ years of jail time.
Dear UK
I did the in a mocking manner. At the Queen.
Yes, I am aware of the year, her health and location. I just refuse to recognize Chuck.
Palestine ______
_____, _____ to the IDF!
I like the one about not taking photos of people in public. That’s reserved for private corporations and the government.
deleted by creator
Do not carry trees away in a pram
Do not heelstrike when running.
Like to see you try and move a tree then
depressing context: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceqe3y34e9eo
You should not take photos of people in public?
Since when did street photography become illegal over here? I know it is much of Europe, but I was under the impression that we worked under the assumption of no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.
Or is it just illegal for assilum seekers to do it?
It isn’t. They probably used ChatGPT to put any old shit together.
In principle, targeting someone and taking photos of them should be illegal, under harassment law.
In practice, this will only apply if you are brown and don’t speak very good English.So taking photos of people in general is still fine, but going after one person and taking lots of photos of just that person isn’t.
You can go after one person too, as long as they’re within sight of the public domain.
Yes. The law is based on “expectation of privacy”. If you’re out in public, you’re not in a place where you can reasonably assume privacy, so you are ok to be filmed/photographed.
Wow, this is really in line with what I expect of Labour. Pissing off everyone to the right, left, and center in a way anyone with a brain could predict
Oh.
How can a Labour government offer up such a freebie to the right? Now the right wing will feel even more justified in their bigotry.
I think the comment in this article from the Greens is pretty decent “We support consent education, but it needs to be universal.”
IIUC, the point of the leaflets is to extend consent education, so that instead of just covering the first group below it also covers the second.
- UK school pupils. They already receive it.
- Asylum seekers. AFAIK they did not previously receive it, which was a twofold problem: a. for the victims of the very small number of asylum seekers who committed crimes against consent, perhaps not knowing how seriously that would be viewed in the UK; and b. for the many innocent asylum seekers tarred with the same brush.
- Older adults in the UK. These may never have received consent education, but unfortunately are often reactionary enough to vote Reform if anyone tries to “nanny” them - so they will probably never receive it.
Labour needed to do something to stop the law-abiding majority of asylum seekers having their reputations tarnished by a tiny number of no-goodnik asylum seekers.
IMO, the booklets were a good move by Labour. They will make it easier for thicker members of the public to distinguish between the very few bad apples among asylum seekers (“This guy broke the rules, and can’t plead ignorance because he received the booklet in a language he reads fluently”) and the law-abiding majority.
They aren’t really left wing.
That’s good because I cannot even
Do not the cat
Excellent
