I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this
morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >>https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >>rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >>extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this
morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >>https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >>rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >>extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this
morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on >Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >>https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >>rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >>extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
Good idea. Yes, I've just seen 2L73 use the UGL.
It was interesting watching Ely for a few minutes. A freight was
running an hour late and had delayed an EMR train and 2L73. The
freight did what you'd expect and used the UGL, not stopping there but
it's booked to be looped at Bury St. Edmunds. When I started watching
it had a route set all the way from Manea through Ely to just short of Newmarket.
The EMR was sent on the down line between Ely North Junction and the
station, then crossing to platform 2.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on >>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >>>https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >>>rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >>>extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
I think you can claim an exemption.
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/trains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on >Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >>https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >>rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >>extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
Good idea. Yes, I've just seen 2L73 use the UGL.
It was interesting watching Ely for a few minutes. A freight was
running an hour late and had delayed an EMR train and 2L73. The
freight did what you'd expect and used the UGL, not stopping there but
it's booked to be looped at Bury St. Edmunds. When I started watching
it had a route set all the way from Manea through Ely to just short of Newmarket.
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at 11:11:43 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on >>>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >>>>https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >>>>rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >>>>extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is >>>>occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill
which would have done back then, everything people today are still
"calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5 Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content controls.
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >> >>rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this
morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
Good idea. Yes, I've just seen 2L73 use the UGL.
It was interesting watching Ely for a few minutes. A freight was
running an hour late and had delayed an EMR train and 2L73. The
freight did what you'd expect and used the UGL, not stopping there but
it's booked to be looped at Bury St. Edmunds. When I started watching
it had a route set all the way from Manea through Ely to just short of
Newmarket.
The EMR was sent on the down line between Ely North Junction and the
station, then crossing to platform 2.
For 2E74 1000 Ipswich - Peterborough (LE):
Ely
Platform 1 as booked
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >> >>rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this
morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
Good idea. Yes, I've just seen 2L73 use the UGL.
It was interesting watching Ely for a few minutes. A freight was
running an hour late and had delayed an EMR train and 2L73. The
freight did what you'd expect and used the UGL, not stopping there but
it's booked to be looped at Bury St. Edmunds. When I started watching
it had a route set all the way from Manea through Ely to just short of
Newmarket.
This one?
https://www.opentraintimes.com/schedule/H55386/2026-06-15
Revovered well...
4Xyz container train trafic is believed to be low on Monday mornings...
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/trains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
2L75 returning now from 285 to 295 and preparing to go from
288 to 270 to 262...
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 11:38:03 GMT, Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/trains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
2L75 returning now from 285 to 295 and preparing to go from
288 to 270 to 262...
Missed it, but I see there's currently a train on the Ely West Curve.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at 11:11:43 on >>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on >>>>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >>>>>https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >>>>>rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >>>>>extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is >>>>>occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill
which would have done back then, everything people today are still
"calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5 Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content controls.
How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose
content controls?
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at 12:50:40 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at 11:11:43 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at
08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >>>>>> rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-todayI've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop.
This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day. >>>>>
morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill
which would have done back then, everything people today are still
"calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to
actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5ÿ Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content controls.
How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a
Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose
content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos
were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con.
Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
On 15/06/2026 15:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at 12:50:40 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at 11:11:43 on >>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at
08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/tI've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>> morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop.
This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day. >>>>>>
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill
which would have done back then, everything people today are still
"calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>> actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5? Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content controls. >>>
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
Really? If an American creates a US website with content which it is
legal to display in the US but not in the UK, then someone from Britain >happens to view the site, good luck extraditing the American owner and >prosecuting them here.
On 15/06/2026 15:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at 12:50:40
on Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at 11:11:43 on >>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at >>>>>>08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/tI've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>> morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. >>>>>>>This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day. >>>>>>
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill
which would have done back then, everything people today are still
"calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>> actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5? Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content controls. >>>
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
Really? If an American creates a US website with content which it is
legal to display in the US but not in the UK, then someone from Britain >happens to view the site, good luck extraditing the American owner and >prosecuting them here.
In message <110p5sm$etqn$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:34 on Mon, 15 Jun
2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 15/06/2026 15:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at 12:50:40
onÿ Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at
11:11:43 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>> wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at
08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t
rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. >>>>>>>> This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is >>>>>>>> occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the >>>>>>>> day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>>> morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill >>>>> which would have done back then, everything people today are still
"calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>>> actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5ÿ Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content
controls.
How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
ÿAlso delivered in UK so subject to our law.
Really?ÿ If an American creates a US website with content which it is
legal to display in the US but not in the UK, then someone from Britain
happens to view the site, good luck extraditing the American owner and
prosecuting them here.
Simple, just arrest the company's UK based staff, and get the UK ISPs to block access to the whole site.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 16:31:34 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 15/06/2026 15:04, Roland Perry wrote:Quite. I think this is the argument the BBC is deploying in the
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at 12:50:40 on >>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at 11:11:43 on >>>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>> wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at
08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/tI've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>>> morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. >>>>>>>> This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is >>>>>>>> occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day. >>>>>>>
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill >>>>> which would have done back then, everything people today are still
"calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>>> actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5ÿ Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content controls. >>>>
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
Really? If an American creates a US website with content which it is
legal to display in the US but not in the UK, then someone from Britain
happens to view the site, good luck extraditing the American owner and
prosecuting them here.
(civil) case by Trump.
Also, good luck fining a company there given it
is rumoured that the US Embassy refuses to pay parking fines.
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at 12:50:40 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at 11:11:43 on >>>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on >>>>>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >>>>>>https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t >>>>>>rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >>>>>>extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is >>>>>>occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day. >>>>>
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill >>>which would have done back then, everything people today are still >>>"calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5 Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content controls.
How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a
Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose
content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos
were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con.
Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
On 15/06/2026 17:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <110p5sm$etqn$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:34 on Mon, 15 Jun
2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 15/06/2026 15:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at 12:50:40
onÿ Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at
11:11:43 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at
08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t
rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. >>>>>>>>> This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is >>>>>>>>> occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the >>>>>>>>> day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>>>> morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill >>>>>> which would have done back then, everything people today are still >>>>>> "calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>>>> actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5ÿ Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about >>>>>>
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content
controls.
How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
ÿAlso delivered in UK so subject to our law.
Really?ÿ If an American creates a US website with content which it is
legal to display in the US but not in the UK, then someone from Britain
happens to view the site, good luck extraditing the American owner and
prosecuting them here.
Simple, just arrest the company's UK based staff, and get the UK ISPs to
block access to the whole site.
Yes, if you're happy for the UK to follow the lead of China, Iran etc.
in attempting to censor the internet, can deal with the resulting
migration to VPNs, Tor, etc. and are happy to get voted out.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 15:04:51 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at 12:50:40 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at 11:11:43 on >>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on >>>>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/tI've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>> morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >>>>>>> extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day. >>>>>>
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill
which would have done back then, everything people today are still
"calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>> actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5 Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content controls. >>>
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question
and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would
this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants
for my arrest then hand myself in?
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a
Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose
content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of
yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos
were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con.
Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of
websites?
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 15:04:51 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at 12:50:40 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at 11:11:43 on >>>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>> wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at 08:47:06 on >>>>>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/tI've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>>> morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is >>>>>>>> extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is >>>>>>>> occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day. >>>>>>>
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill >>>>> which would have done back then, everything people today are still
"calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>>> actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5 Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content controls. >>>>
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question
and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would
this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants
for my arrest then hand myself in?
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a
Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose
content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of
yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos
were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con.
Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of
websites?
It?ll be interesting to see what penalties there might be for U-16s
accessing material they aren?t allowed to.
On 15/06/2026 17:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <110p5sm$etqn$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:34 on Mon, 15 Jun >>2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 15/06/2026 15:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at
12:50:40 on? Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at >>>>>>11:11:43 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at >>>>>>>>08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-todayhttps://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. >>>>>>>>>This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is >>>>>>>>> occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of >>>>>>>>>the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>>>> morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill >>>>>> which would have done back then, everything people today are still >>>>>> "calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>>>> actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5? Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about >>>>>>
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content >>>>>>controls.
How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
?Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
Really?? If an American creates a US website with content which it is
legal to display in the US but not in the UK, then someone from Britain
happens to view the site, good luck extraditing the American owner and
prosecuting them here.
Simple, just arrest the company's UK based staff, and get the UK
ISPs to block access to the whole site.
Yes, if you're happy for the UK to follow the lead of China, Iran etc.
in attempting to censor the internet, can deal with the resulting
migration to VPNs, Tor, etc. and are happy to get voted out.
In message <110pa82$gh6u$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:45:54 on Mon, 15 Jun
2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 15/06/2026 17:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <110p5sm$etqn$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:34 on Mon, 15 Jun
2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 15/06/2026 15:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at
12:50:40 onÿ Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>> wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at
11:11:43 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>>> wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at >>>>>>>>> 08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t
rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. >>>>>>>>>> This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is >>>>>>>>>> occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of >>>>>>>>>> the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>>>>> morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill >>>>>>> which would have done back then, everything people today are still >>>>>>> "calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>>>>> actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5ÿ Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about >>>>>>>
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content
controls.
How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
ÿAlso delivered in UK so subject to our law.
Really?ÿ If an American creates a US website with content which it is
legal to display in the US but not in the UK, then someone from Britain >>>> happens to view the site, good luck extraditing the American owner and >>>> prosecuting them here.
Simple, just arrest the company's UK based staff, and get the UK
ISPs to block access to the whole site.
Yes, if you're happy for the UK to follow the lead of China, Iran etc.
in attempting to censor the internet, can deal with the resulting
migration to VPNs, Tor, etc. and are happy to get voted out.
Blah blah blah. I'm not a great fan of Starmer, but I do think he hit
the right note yesterday saying that we don't legalise underage
drinking, just because some youngsters can get find ways to get their
hands on alcohol.
The bigger picture is, and always has been, the equivalent of Free
Speech versus shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Online platforms
don't *have* to be the wild west.
See this video from 1996, featuring my late wife, and a very
uncomfortable looking publishers' apologist. (I'm in the background
with our PR person).
https://youtu.be/SWKEST8ZR0s
I'm pretty sure that if it was still in business (the remains are now
part of what's known as Sky Broadband), UKOnline would not be one of the banned-for-under-16's social media platforms.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 15/06/2026 17:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <110p5sm$etqn$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:34 on Mon, 15 Jun
2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 15/06/2026 15:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at 12:50:40 >>>>> onÿ Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>> wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at
11:11:43 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>>> wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at
08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t
rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. >>>>>>>>>> This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is >>>>>>>>>> occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the >>>>>>>>>> day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>>>>> morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill >>>>>>> which would have done back then, everything people today are still >>>>>>> "calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>>>>> actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5ÿ Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about >>>>>>>
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content
controls.
How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction,
given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore
subject to US law?
ÿAlso delivered in UK so subject to our law.
Really?ÿ If an American creates a US website with content which it is
legal to display in the US but not in the UK, then someone from Britain >>>> happens to view the site, good luck extraditing the American owner and >>>> prosecuting them here.
Simple, just arrest the company's UK based staff, and get the UK ISPs to >>> block access to the whole site.
Yes, if you're happy for the UK to follow the lead of China, Iran etc.
in attempting to censor the internet, can deal with the resulting
migration to VPNs, Tor, etc. and are happy to get voted out.
The route is to prosecute the UK branches of any company advertising on the >allegedly infringing websites. That?s how pirate radio was shut down.
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question
and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would
this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants
for my arrest then hand myself in?
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a
Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos
were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con.
Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of
websites?
It?ll be interesting to see what penalties there might be for U-16s
accessing material they aren?t allowed to.
It?ll be interesting to see what penalties there might be for U-16s
accessing material they aren?t allowed to.
None. They'll fine Big Tech millions, which is a few seconds' profit,
or more likely only prosecute if there's a high-profile case where a
young person is actually affected by the adult material.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <110pa82$gh6u$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:45:54 on Mon, 15 Jun
2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 15/06/2026 17:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <110p5sm$etqn$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:34 on Mon, 15 Jun
2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
On 15/06/2026 15:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <rfpv2lt79ipt7nrgn3421sg2pethtr9722@4ax.com>, at
12:50:40 on? Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
In message <dujv2l1pin3k72t5sl7mapkof5tpkornos@4ax.com>, at
11:11:43 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:01:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
In message <98bv2ll5kp7cqj5krsnqc786r5moih0673@4ax.com>, at >>>>>>>>>> 08:47:06 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>>
rains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-todayhttps://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/t
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and >>>>>>>>>>> off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. >>>>>>>>>>> This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is >>>>>>>>>>> occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of >>>>>>>>>>> the day.
I've been a bit distracted by the Social Media ban in the news this >>>>>>>>>> morning, but opentraintimes mapping might be worth a look.
I think you can claim an exemption.
It's ten years and three months since I researched and drafted a bill >>>>>>>> which would have done back then, everything people today are still >>>>>>>> "calling for". And which Starmer says is going to take another year to >>>>>>>> actually put in place.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/1754
5(3)(f) in particular wrt today's news.
5? Providers of digital services
...
(3)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about >>>>>>>>
(f) encouraging providers to establish age-appropriate content >>>>>>>> controls.
How you define a 'provider' in a way that founds UK jurisdiction, >>>>>>> given that the service may be 'provided' in the USA and therefore >>>>>>> subject to US law?
?Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
Really?? If an American creates a US website with content which it is >>>>> legal to display in the US but not in the UK, then someone from Britain >>>>> happens to view the site, good luck extraditing the American owner and >>>>> prosecuting them here.
Simple, just arrest the company's UK based staff, and get the UK
ISPs to block access to the whole site.
Yes, if you're happy for the UK to follow the lead of China, Iran etc.
in attempting to censor the internet, can deal with the resulting
migration to VPNs, Tor, etc. and are happy to get voted out.
Blah blah blah. I'm not a great fan of Starmer, but I do think he hit
the right note yesterday saying that we don't legalise underage
drinking, just because some youngsters can get find ways to get their
hands on alcohol.
The bigger picture is, and always has been, the equivalent of Free
Speech versus shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Online platforms
don't *have* to be the wild west.
See this video from 1996, featuring my late wife, and a very
uncomfortable looking publishers' apologist. (I'm in the background
with our PR person).
https://youtu.be/SWKEST8ZR0s
I'm pretty sure that if it was still in business (the remains are now
part of what's known as Sky Broadband), UKOnline would not be one of the
banned-for-under-16's social media platforms.
Do you have to derail every thread?
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question
and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would
this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants
for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that
track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were
expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a
Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of
websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants
for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that >>track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were
expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a >>>>Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>>yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>>Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of
websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content
controls
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate
social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close
the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US
and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at 09:06:29 on
Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a >>>>government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>>and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>>this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants >>>>for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that >>>track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were >>>expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a >>>>>Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>>content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>>>yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>>were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>>>Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of >>>>websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content
controls
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate
social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close
the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US
and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
They would regulate it by requiring UK-based connectivity providers (so >perhaps not including Starlink) to block content providers who refused
to play ball.
In message <110pp74$lc12$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:01:24 on Mon, 15 Jun
2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
ÿIt?ll be interesting to see what penalties there might be for U-16s
accessing material they aren?t allowed to.
None.ÿ They'll fine Big Tech millions, which is a few seconds' profit,
or more likely only prosecute if there's a high-profile case where a
young person is actually affected by the adult material.
It's not "Adult" material in the usual sense, unless you think only
adults look on the Internet for ways to commit suicide.
Back in the day it did used to be illegal to commit suicide, but
encouraging it has been illegal ever since the Suicide Act 1961, as
amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. But online content
providers appear to think that law doesn't apply to them.
A bit like the drivers of overheight vans at Ely, who don't think the signage applies to them.
In both cases, eventually they have a rude awakening.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at 09:06:29 on
Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>>> and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>>> this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants >>>>> for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that >>>> track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were
expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a >>>>>> Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>>> content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>>>> yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>>> were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>>>> Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of
websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content
controls
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
No, but I am only asking if it would be possible to achieve the goal technologically within the UK rather than legally on a multinational
basis. Does Cleanfeed have the ability to restrict access to under 16s without blocking those over 16?
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate
social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close
the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US
and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
They would regulate it by requiring UK-based connectivity providers (so
perhaps not including Starlink) to block content providers who refused
to play ball.
If a site is worldwide, are you saying the social media company can
and should produce a special UK version that includes age verification appropriate to the UK (eg UK driving licence)? Would this be based on
IP address? Would it not be the easiest thing in the world to install
VPN? I am sure there were people at my school would would have offered consultancy services (maybe the same guy that ran a trade in forged
dinner tickets then joined the Bank of England or the guy who ran a
pirate radio station on medium wave).
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at 09:06:29 on >>Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>>>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a >>>>>government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>>>and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>>>this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants >>>>>for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that >>>>track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were >>>>expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a >>>>>>Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>>>content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>>>>yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>>>were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>>>>Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of >>>>>websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content >>>controls
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
No,
but I am only asking if it would be possible to achieve the goal >technologically within the UK rather than legally on a multinational
basis. Does Cleanfeed have the ability to restrict access to under 16s >without blocking those over 16?
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate
social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close >>>the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US
and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
They would regulate it by requiring UK-based connectivity providers (so >>perhaps not including Starlink) to block content providers who refused
to play ball.
If a site is worldwide, are you saying the social media company can
and should produce a special UK version that includes age verification >appropriate to the UK (eg UK driving licence)?
Would this be based on IP address?
Would it not be the easiest thing in the world to install VPN?
I am sure there were people at my school would would have offered >consultancy services (maybe the same guy that ran a trade in forged
dinner tickets then joined the Bank of England or the guy who ran a
pirate radio station on medium wave).
On 16/06/2026 08:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <110pp74$lc12$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:01:24 on Mon, 15 Jun >>2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
ÿIt?ll be interesting to see what penalties there might be for
U-16s
accessing material they aren?t allowed to.
None.ÿ They'll fine Big Tech millions, which is a few seconds' profit,
or more likely only prosecute if there's a high-profile case where a
young person is actually affected by the adult material.
It's not "Adult" material in the usual sense, unless you think only >>adults look on the Internet for ways to commit suicide.
Back in the day it did used to be illegal to commit suicide, but >>encouraging it has been illegal ever since the Suicide Act 1961, as >>amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. But online content
providers appear to think that law doesn't apply to them.
A bit like the drivers of overheight vans at Ely, who don't think
the signage applies to them.
In both cases, eventually they have a rude awakening.
I meant "adult" in the most generic sense, including things like ads for >alcohol, rather than just a euphemism for porn.
On 16/06/2026 09:38, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at 09:06:29
on
Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>>>> and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>>>> this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants >>>>>> for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that >>>>> track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were
expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a >>>>>>> Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>>>> content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>>>>> yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>>>> were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>>>>> Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of
websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content
controls
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
No, but I am only asking if it would be possible to achieve the goal
technologically within the UK rather than legally on a multinational
basis. Does Cleanfeed have the ability to restrict access to under 16s
without blocking those over 16?
They can attempt wholesale blocking of websites for everyone. This is >usually applied to sites like The Pirate Bay which put corporate income
at risk.
There was also one farcical attempt to block Wikipedia, on the
grounds that one of its 7,000,000 articles is illustrated by a low- >resolution image of an album cover which includes a naked teenager.
That was quickly reversed.
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/trains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
On 15 Jun 2026 08:47, Trolleybus wrote:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/trains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
New disruption today - SPAD of 4M23 in Platform 1. Luckily didn't get
very far past. So platform 2 and 3 still usable. It isn't clear, from
here, if the Down Main is usable past the Cutter Bridge.
On 16 Jun 2026 13:13, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
On 15 Jun 2026 08:47, Trolleybus wrote:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/trains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
New disruption today - SPAD of 4M23 in Platform 1. Luckily didn't get
very far past. So platform 2 and 3 still usable. It isn't clear, from
here, if the Down Main is usable past the Cutter Bridge.
Update. The Down Main does seem to be being used. So just the platform
is OOU and, the Reception sidings are less useful for the moment.
On 15 Jun 2026 08:47, Trolleybus wrote:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/trains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
New disruption today - SPAD of 4M23 in Platform 1. Luckily didn't get
very far past. So platform 2 and 3 still usable. It isn't clear, from
here, if the Down Main is usable past the Cutter Bridge.
On 15 Jun 2026 08:47, Trolleybus wrote:
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/service-disruptions/trains-peterborough-ipswich-will-not-call-ely-today
I can only think that the points failure means that services on and
off the Chippenham branch are having to use the Up Goods Loop. This is
extremely unusual when it comes to passenger services.
It must also be disrupting the busy freight flow as the loop is
occupied by class 66s hauling containers for large parts of the day.
New disruption today - SPAD of 4M23 in Platform 1. Luckily didn't get
very far past. So platform 2 and 3 still usable. It isn't clear, from
here, if the Down Main is usable past the Cutter Bridge.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at 09:06:29 on >>Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>>>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a >>>>>government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>>>and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>>>this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants >>>>>for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that >>>>track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were >>>>expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a >>>>>>Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>>>content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>>>>yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>>>were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>>>>Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of >>>>>websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content >>>controls
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
No, but I am only asking if it would be possible to achieve the goal >technologically within the UK rather than legally on a multinational
basis. Does Cleanfeed have the ability to restrict access to under 16s >without blocking those over 16?
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate
social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close >>>the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US
and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
They would regulate it by requiring UK-based connectivity providers (so >>perhaps not including Starlink) to block content providers who refused
to play ball.
If a site is worldwide, are you saying the social media company can
and should produce a special UK version that includes age verification >appropriate to the UK (eg UK driving licence)? Would this be based on
IP address? Would it not be the easiest thing in the world to install
VPN? I am sure there were people at my school would would have offered >consultancy services (maybe the same guy that ran a trade in forged
dinner tickets then joined the Bank of England or the guy who ran a
pirate radio station on medium wave).
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:38:03 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>Sites already have territory-specific controls on offered content such
wrote:
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at 09:06:29 on >>>Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>>>>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a >>>>>>government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>>>>and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>>>>this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants >>>>>>for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that >>>>>track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were >>>>>expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a >>>>>>>Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>>>>content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>>>>>yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>>>>were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>>>>>Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of >>>>>>websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content >>>>controls
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
No, but I am only asking if it would be possible to achieve the goal >>technologically within the UK rather than legally on a multinational
basis. Does Cleanfeed have the ability to restrict access to under 16s >>without blocking those over 16?
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate
social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close >>>>the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US >>>>and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
They would regulate it by requiring UK-based connectivity providers (so >>>perhaps not including Starlink) to block content providers who refused >>>to play ball.
If a site is worldwide, are you saying the social media company can
and should produce a special UK version that includes age verification >>appropriate to the UK (eg UK driving licence)? Would this be based on
IP address? Would it not be the easiest thing in the world to install
VPN? I am sure there were people at my school would would have offered >>consultancy services (maybe the same guy that ran a trade in forged
dinner tickets then joined the Bank of England or the guy who ran a
pirate radio station on medium wave).
as e.g. google.co.uk referring you to google.com if you try to access
some content subject to legal controls (usually GDPR-related rather
than subject matter related) in the UK. I have in the past had
Facebook posts referring to a linked photograph being
territory-restricted for copyright reasons.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question
and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would
this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants
for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that
track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were
expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a
Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose
content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of
yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos
were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>> Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of
websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content
controls (Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate
social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close
the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US
and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 19:40:30 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:38:03 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>Sites already have territory-specific controls on offered content such
wrote:
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at 09:06:29 on >>>> Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>>>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>>>>> and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>>>>> this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants >>>>>>> for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that >>>>>> track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were
expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a >>>>>>>> Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>>>>> content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>>>>>> yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>>>>> were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>>>>>> Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of
websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content
controls
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
No, but I am only asking if it would be possible to achieve the goal
technologically within the UK rather than legally on a multinational
basis. Does Cleanfeed have the ability to restrict access to under 16s
without blocking those over 16?
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate
social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close >>>>> the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US >>>>> and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
They would regulate it by requiring UK-based connectivity providers (so >>>> perhaps not including Starlink) to block content providers who refused >>>> to play ball.
If a site is worldwide, are you saying the social media company can
and should produce a special UK version that includes age verification
appropriate to the UK (eg UK driving licence)? Would this be based on
IP address? Would it not be the easiest thing in the world to install
VPN? I am sure there were people at my school would would have offered
consultancy services (maybe the same guy that ran a trade in forged
dinner tickets then joined the Bank of England or the guy who ran a
pirate radio station on medium wave).
as e.g. google.co.uk referring you to google.com if you try to access
some content subject to legal controls (usually GDPR-related rather
than subject matter related) in the UK. I have in the past had
Facebook posts referring to a linked photograph being
territory-restricted for copyright reasons.
But does this take account of the fact that content may be legitimate
for persons over 16 but not for persons under 16? This seems to be the difficulty. How does Google know the age of the user?
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 19:40:30 +0100, Charles Ellson ><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:38:03 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>Sites already have territory-specific controls on offered content such
wrote:
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at 09:06:29 on >>>>Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>>>>>Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a >>>>>>>government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>>>>>and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>>>>>this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants >>>>>>>for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that >>>>>>track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were >>>>>>expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a >>>>>>>>Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>>>>>content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>>>>>>yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>>>>>were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>>>>>>Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of >>>>>>>websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content >>>>>controls
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
No, but I am only asking if it would be possible to achieve the goal >>>technologically within the UK rather than legally on a multinational >>>basis. Does Cleanfeed have the ability to restrict access to under 16s >>>without blocking those over 16?
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate >>>>>social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close >>>>>the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US >>>>>and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
They would regulate it by requiring UK-based connectivity providers (so >>>>perhaps not including Starlink) to block content providers who refused >>>>to play ball.
If a site is worldwide, are you saying the social media company can
and should produce a special UK version that includes age verification >>>appropriate to the UK (eg UK driving licence)? Would this be based on
IP address? Would it not be the easiest thing in the world to install >>>VPN? I am sure there were people at my school would would have offered >>>consultancy services (maybe the same guy that ran a trade in forged >>>dinner tickets then joined the Bank of England or the guy who ran a >>>pirate radio station on medium wave).
as e.g. google.co.uk referring you to google.com if you try to access
some content subject to legal controls (usually GDPR-related rather
than subject matter related) in the UK. I have in the past had
Facebook posts referring to a linked photograph being
territory-restricted for copyright reasons.
But does this take account of the fact that content may be legitimate
for persons over 16 but not for persons under 16? This seems to be the >difficulty. How does Google know the age of the user?
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>> and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>> this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants
for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that
track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were
expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a
Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>> content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of
yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>> were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con. >>>>> Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of
websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated.
I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content
controls (Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
I?ve not had occasion to investigate it, but I believe my ISP (Virgin) can
or does apply some kind of parental control.
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate
social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close
the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US
and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
Indeed.
Sam
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 19:55:00 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 19:40:30 +0100, Charles EllsonGoogle itself only indexes sites rather than relays them. Having tried
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:38:03 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>Sites already have territory-specific controls on offered content such
wrote:
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at 09:06:29 on >>>>> Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>> wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>>>>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content >>>>>> controls
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>>>>>> and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>>>>>> this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants >>>>>>>> for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that >>>>>>> track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were
expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a >>>>>>>>> Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>>>>>> content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>>>>>>> yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>>>>>> were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con.
Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of >>>>>>>> websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated. >>>>>>
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
No, but I am only asking if it would be possible to achieve the goal
technologically within the UK rather than legally on a multinational
basis. Does Cleanfeed have the ability to restrict access to under 16s >>>> without blocking those over 16?
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate
social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close >>>>>> the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US >>>>>> and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
They would regulate it by requiring UK-based connectivity providers (so >>>>> perhaps not including Starlink) to block content providers who refused >>>>> to play ball.
If a site is worldwide, are you saying the social media company can
and should produce a special UK version that includes age verification >>>> appropriate to the UK (eg UK driving licence)? Would this be based on
IP address? Would it not be the easiest thing in the world to install
VPN? I am sure there were people at my school would would have offered >>>> consultancy services (maybe the same guy that ran a trade in forged
dinner tickets then joined the Bank of England or the guy who ran a
pirate radio station on medium wave).
as e.g. google.co.uk referring you to google.com if you try to access
some content subject to legal controls (usually GDPR-related rather
than subject matter related) in the UK. I have in the past had
Facebook posts referring to a linked photograph being
territory-restricted for copyright reasons.
But does this take account of the fact that content may be legitimate
for persons over 16 but not for persons under 16? This seems to be the
difficulty. How does Google know the age of the user?
the first three web site choices offered for the word "porn", they all
arrive at an age verification message, however the results for an
image search produce responses a bit more explicit then Health and
Efficiency used to be and possibly enough for someone to decide that
they are mongering porn to children.
On 2026-06-16 5:12 p.m., Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 19:55:00 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 19:40:30 +0100, Charles EllsonGoogle itself only indexes sites rather than relays them. Having tried
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:38:03 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>Sites already have territory-specific controls on offered content such >>>> as e.g. google.co.uk referring you to google.com if you try to access
wrote:
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at
09:06:29 on
Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, atI was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content >>>>>>> controls
18:19:08 on
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>>
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a >>>>>>>>> government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in >>>>>>>>> question
and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? >>>>>>>>> How would
this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any >>>>>>>>> warrants
for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist
with that
track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were >>>>>>>> expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, >>>>>>>>>> to a
Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply? >>>>>>>>>>I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution. >>>>>>>>>>
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to >>>>>>>>>>> impose
content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up
photos of
yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the >>>>>>>>>> photos
were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, >>>>>>>>>> it's a con.
Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of >>>>>>>>> websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated. >>>>>>>
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
No, but I am only asking if it would be possible to achieve the goal >>>>> technologically within the UK rather than legally on a multinational >>>>> basis. Does Cleanfeed have the ability to restrict access to under 16s >>>>> without blocking those over 16?
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate >>>>>>> social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would >>>>>>> close
the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in
the US
and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
They would regulate it by requiring UK-based connectivity
providers (so
perhaps not including Starlink) to block content providers who
refused
to play ball.
If a site is worldwide, are you saying the social media company can
and should produce a special UK version that includes age verification >>>>> appropriate to the UK (eg UK driving licence)? Would this be based on >>>>> IP address? Would it not be the easiest thing in the world to install >>>>> VPN? I am sure there were people at my school would would have offered >>>>> consultancy services (maybe the same guy that ran a trade in forged
dinner tickets then joined the Bank of England or the guy who ran a
pirate radio station on medium wave).
some content subject to legal controls (usually GDPR-related rather
than subject matter related) in the UK. I have in the past had
Facebook posts referring to a linked photograph being
territory-restricted for copyright reasons.
But does this take account of the fact that content may be legitimate
for persons over 16 but not for persons under 16? This seems to be the
difficulty. How does Google know the age of the user?
the first three web site choices offered for the word "porn", they all
arrive at an age verification message, however the results for an
image search produce responses a bit more explicit then Health and
Efficiency used to be and possibly enough for someone to decide that
they are mongering porn to children.
Presuming you mean 'than' (why do Modern People confuse then/than?), qu'est-ce que c'est 'Health and Efficiency'?
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 19:40:30 +0100, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:38:03 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>Sites already have territory-specific controls on offered content such
wrote:
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at 09:06:29 on >>>>> Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>> wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at 18:19:08 on >>>>>>> Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>I was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content >>>>>> controls
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a
government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in question >>>>>>>> and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? How would >>>>>>>> this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any warrants >>>>>>>> for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist with that >>>>>>> track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were
expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, to a >>>>>>>>> Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply?
I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution.
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to impose >>>>>>>>>> content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up photos of >>>>>>>>> yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of the photos >>>>>>>>> were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, it's a con.
Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of >>>>>>>> websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated. >>>>>>
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
No, but I am only asking if it would be possible to achieve the goal
technologically within the UK rather than legally on a multinational
basis. Does Cleanfeed have the ability to restrict access to under 16s >>>> without blocking those over 16?
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.)
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate
social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would close >>>>>> the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in the US >>>>>> and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
They would regulate it by requiring UK-based connectivity providers (so >>>>> perhaps not including Starlink) to block content providers who refused >>>>> to play ball.
If a site is worldwide, are you saying the social media company can
and should produce a special UK version that includes age verification >>>> appropriate to the UK (eg UK driving licence)? Would this be based on
IP address? Would it not be the easiest thing in the world to install
VPN? I am sure there were people at my school would would have offered >>>> consultancy services (maybe the same guy that ran a trade in forged
dinner tickets then joined the Bank of England or the guy who ran a
pirate radio station on medium wave).
as e.g. google.co.uk referring you to google.com if you try to access
some content subject to legal controls (usually GDPR-related rather
than subject matter related) in the UK. I have in the past had
Facebook posts referring to a linked photograph being
territory-restricted for copyright reasons.
But does this take account of the fact that content may be legitimate
for persons over 16 but not for persons under 16? This seems to be the
difficulty. How does Google know the age of the user?
Google might know because your IS . . .
. . . might know. Some of the previous
articles referenced are also interesting. Apple may be trialling this at present. <https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/03/24/age-checks-creep-into-linux-as-systemd-gets-a-dob-field/5229495>
On 17/06/2026 02:03, Nobody wrote:
On 2026-06-16 5:12 p.m., Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 19:55:00 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 19:40:30 +0100, Charles EllsonGoogle itself only indexes sites rather than relays them. Having tried
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:38:03 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 09:15:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>> wrote:Sites already have territory-specific controls on offered content such >>>>> as e.g. google.co.uk referring you to google.com if you try to access >>>>> some content subject to legal controls (usually GDPR-related rather
In message <cj023l5jf084ch1ng3b8uprf4c6kq3k9q6@4ax.com>, at
09:06:29 on
Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:44:42 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>>> wrote:
In message <sjc03l962b6b7r87o260qv96bqmg4l465m@4ax.com>, at >>>>>>>>> 18:19:08 onI was querying your earlier suggestion that ISPs can apply content >>>>>>>> controls
Mon, 15 Jun 2026, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>>>
Also delivered in UK so subject to our law.
If I post a comment on this Newsgroup about the policies of a >>>>>>>>>> government that could be seen as treasonous in the country in >>>>>>>>>> question
and is read in that country, could I be fined or imprisoned? >>>>>>>>>> How would
this work - do I contact the embassy to see if there are any >>>>>>>>>> warrants
for my arrest then hand myself in?
There are some countries where if you turned up as a tourist >>>>>>>>> with that
track record you might not see as much of the beach as you were >>>>>>>>> expecting.
Could be anything from a sophisticated social media platform, >>>>>>>>>>> to a
Usenet server stuffed with images of kiddy-fiddling.
What if the 'provider' claims First Amendment rules apply? >>>>>>>>>>>I'm not aware of a first amendment to the Uk Constitution. >>>>>>>>>>>
If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the capability to >>>>>>>>>>>> impose
content controls?
Of course they do. Asking for a friend, I was looking up >>>>>>>>>>> photos of
yesterday's naked bike ride in London, and the majority of >>>>>>>>>>> the photos
were blocked until I said "unblock". Don't bother looking, >>>>>>>>>>> it's a con.
Most of the riders weren't naked, especially the ladies.
In that case, why do we need new laws to criminalise owners of >>>>>>>>>> websites?
Because they allow extremely harmful material to be disseminated. >>>>>>>>
Have you never heard of BT's Cleanfeed?
No, but I am only asking if it would be possible to achieve the goal >>>>>> technologically within the UK rather than legally on a multinational >>>>>> basis. Does Cleanfeed have the ability to restrict access to under >>>>>> 16s
without blocking those over 16?
(Q - If the 'provider' is the ISP, do they have the
capability to impose content controls? A - Of course they do.) >>>>>>>>
Some of us are just wondering how the UK government can regulate >>>>>>>> social media companies based outside the UK. I assume they would >>>>>>>> close
the UK office as a precaution, place the 'controlling mind' in >>>>>>>> the US
and decline to pay any fines imposed by Ofcom.
They would regulate it by requiring UK-based connectivity
providers (so
perhaps not including Starlink) to block content providers who
refused
to play ball.
If a site is worldwide, are you saying the social media company can >>>>>> and should produce a special UK version that includes age
verification
appropriate to the UK (eg UK driving licence)? Would this be based on >>>>>> IP address? Would it not be the easiest thing in the world to install >>>>>> VPN? I am sure there were people at my school would would have
offered
consultancy services (maybe the same guy that ran a trade in forged >>>>>> dinner tickets then joined the Bank of England or the guy who ran a >>>>>> pirate radio station on medium wave).
than subject matter related) in the UK. I have in the past had
Facebook posts referring to a linked photograph being
territory-restricted for copyright reasons.
But does this take account of the fact that content may be legitimate
for persons over 16 but not for persons under 16? This seems to be the >>>> difficulty. How does Google know the age of the user?
the first three web site choices offered for the word "porn", they all
arrive at an age verification message, however the results for an
image search produce responses a bit more explicit then Health and
Efficiency used to be and possibly enough for someone to decide that
they are mongering porn to children.
Presuming you mean 'than' (why do Modern People confuse then/than?),
qu'est-ce que c'est 'Health and Efficiency'?
A monthly naturist magazine, m'lud, which I thought was long defunct but apparently still has a strong showing of members.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%26E_naturist>
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 494929:44:08 |
| Calls: | 162 |
| Files: | 568 |
| D/L today: |
14 files (349K bytes) |
| Messages: | 74,982 |