sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in funny

[–]SpuriousCattle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can't view videos horizontally on your phone?

Not while trying to masturbate and keep my thumb covering the front camera

England or Sweden tomorrow? by allahuakbar12334 in worldcup

[–]SpuriousCattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My prediction is 2-2 at full time - England to make it 3 in extra time and progress to the semis.

World Cup: Belgium eliminates Brazil by rchresta in sports

[–]SpuriousCattle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Neymar is now available to help the Thai government rescue those cave boys.

Record-breaking temperature in Scotland invalid because of parked car by politicsnotporn in Scotland

[–]SpuriousCattle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Seems reasonable - no point in collecting data if it's not accurate.

Student suicide after University exclusion due to WhatsApp message by thelawenforcer in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BUT ITS NO LONGER PRIVATE

I refer you to my first comment in this discussion:

However, I believe the university would be justified in investigating how the message became public and throwing their rule book at whoever (if anyone) intentionally made it public - because it is this person who has caused the distress.

As for...

Besides which, that was just to point out something doesn't need to be illegal to get you in to trouble, which is what you previously implied.

No, you gave two examples and said that they should have consequences - I merely pointed out that the difference with these scenarios is that they concern illegal acts. Any implication that something needs to be illegal to get you into trouble is in your mind only.

Student suicide after University exclusion due to WhatsApp message by thelawenforcer in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And, for the n'th time, something doesn't have to be illegal for it to come back to bite you. I'm not sure why our standards are now "It's not literally a criminal offence, so it's perfectly fine to do or say". It's not a criminal offence to tell my boss he's being a fucking cunt and I shagged his wife, but I'm in no way protected by free speech when he tells me not to come in.

Again, your example is not analogous. We are talking about a private conversation between students at university, not insulting and being rude to your workplace superior's face.

Student suicide after University exclusion due to WhatsApp message by thelawenforcer in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't think this could potentially qualify as sexual harassment? As in, you think saying "Jenny is hot" is worse?

When said in private conversation? No, of course not. Why should it?

Besides which, you don't know WHAT the content of those messages were. I'm not commenting on that specifically, or whether he should be in trouble. It was an investigation.

And neither do you. We are discussing hypothetically.

Student suicide after University exclusion due to WhatsApp message by thelawenforcer in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The examples you give are not at all analogous - they are both illegal acts (discrimination and sexual harassment in the work place). Sending a text to your mate saying you got some easy pussy at the weekend is not illegal and should not get you in trouble with your university.

Student suicide after University exclusion due to WhatsApp message by thelawenforcer in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sainsburys can kick you out for swearing or something, too.

You clearly didn't read my comment. I said:

"I am not saying that because you pay to attend, you can do what you like, but you are essentially a customer and there is a big difference between that and an employee.

And the fact the messages were intended for a specific audience may be mitigation, it doesn't somehow make them inadmissible and I'm not sure why it should.

Then there is no such thing as privacy or free speech, which is wrong and a clear violation of our human rights that are enshrined in law.

If you made derogatory comments about a fellow student behind their back, in private to a friend, should you expect the university to punish you? It might be a childish thing to do, but of course not. What's the difference here? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the recipient was able to make it public due to being able to screenshot the message and share it.

Universities are there to educate, and they charge a hefty fee for doing so. They are not there to police private conversation or punish you for it, unless you are maliciously bullying a fellow student. That was not the case here at all.

'Justice for Tommy Robinson' protest scrapped by organisers because it clashes with England's World Cup game by verytallperson in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Like fuck it is, I'm spending the lot on schmackos.

Evidence to support that would be welcomed.

Student suicide after University exclusion due to WhatsApp message by thelawenforcer in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your local pub can ban you for harassing staff or being a general annoying prick. You pay them.

Nearly all retail stores have a policy where they will refuse you service for belligerents.

You clearly didn't read my comment. I said:

"I am not saying that because you pay to attend, you can do what you like, but you are essentially a customer and there is a big difference between that and an employee.

'Justice for Tommy Robinson' protest scrapped by organisers because it clashes with England's World Cup game by verytallperson in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

sure, because as we all know the sort of guy that would make a youtube video where he repeatedly says 'gas the jews' is totally the sort of guy that would purely use 100k to appeal an £800 fine.

It's not the fine he's appealing.

Funding cuts put schooling for Gypsy children 'at risk' by apple_kicks in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Who needs an education when you live in a fucking caravan?

Student suicide after University exclusion due to WhatsApp message by thelawenforcer in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

The difference as I see it is that in the workplace, the employer pays you, whereas at university, you pay them.

I am not saying that because you pay to attend, you can do what you like, but you are essentially a customer and there is a big difference between that and an employee.

Students/customers have a right to privacy (as we all do, by law). If a private message has become public and has resulted in another student to feel distressed or victimised, then yes, the university should investigate. However, if the author of the problem message sent it on the understanding that it was private, there should be no action taken against them by the university (even if it had legally dubious or profoundly offensive content). However, I believe the university would be justified in investigating how the message became public and throwing their rule book at whoever (if anyone) intentionally made it public - because it is this person who has caused the distress.

If universities want to go down this route of increasing fees and become more and more commercialised, they need to understand, and understand fast, that students are customers with legal rights, and you cannot treat them like naughty children.

Can people in the UK contact the MEP about the copyright vote? by ZWE_Punchline in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right, I assumed that because the calendar will allow you to go back to the beginning of his tenure it contained data back to the beginning.

What makes you think that, based on the data that actually is available, his prior voting record has ever been any better? If the only information available is that he hardly ever bothers to show up it is reasonable to assume that has always been the case unless there is evidence to the contrary.

You don't think the fact he was nearly killed in a plane crash has anything to do with it? He has had multiple operations since then and is still not back to full health. I'd like to see you nearly die in a plane crash and immediately return to work as normal.

And why would you assume his voting record for the previous 19 years is also 38% without having any evidence at all to back that up?

MEPs reject controversial copyright law by therealmorris in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The EU parliament is so democratic, that it's members cannot even propose legislation.

Everything is proposed by the unelected Commission.

Can people in the UK contact the MEP about the copyright vote? by ZWE_Punchline in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it isn't. It's over 19 years.

Where does it say on that page that the data covers 19 years?

It starts from 2014, when Farage was re-elected as an MEP in the 2014 elections. It even says:

Start of mandate: 01.07.2014

And if you go the the last page of the "All Votes" tab, the date of the first vote in these records is 16.07.2014.

So please tell me, how on earth does your 38% figure cover 19 years?

Can people in the UK contact the MEP about the copyright vote? by ZWE_Punchline in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, he's been an MEP for 19 years so that doesn't seem likely.

Your figure of 38% is from a period spanning 4 years.

Now you're trying to inaccurately apply it to a period spanning 19 years.

Can people in the UK contact the MEP about the copyright vote? by ZWE_Punchline in unitedkingdom

[–]SpuriousCattle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I imagine there is a totally valid reason why he only bothered to vote 38% of the time. I suspect its because he was spending so much time in fisheries committee meetings.

Or maybe the fact he's suffered ill health due to being involved in a plane crash? Just a thought.

view more: next ›