Google abandons Windows
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Peter Ceresole on 6 Jun 2010 08:14 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Refusing to kowtow to your (incorrect) world view does not make someone > "obnoxious" however your frequent attacks do mark you out as a > hypocrite. Which just proves your incompetence in understanding *people* as opposed to systems. You obnoxiousness lies not in your opinions, but in your gratuitous rudeness. Which is on display at all times. -- Peter
From: James Jolley on 6 Jun 2010 08:21 On 2010-06-06 11:14:34 +0100, Bernard Peek <bap(a)shrdlu.com> said: > On 06/06/10 10:51, D.M. Procida wrote: >> Bernard Peek<bap(a)shrdlu.com> wrote: >> >>>> I'd have said that the chances of anything like that happening in this >>>> case would be vanishingly small. Courts are not totally unreasonable and >>>> an archive of Rowland's posts here would show a great deal. None of the >>>> bile directed at him is gratuitous in the slightest. >>> >>> I've only been subscribed a relatively short while, but that isn't the >>> impression that I have. >> >> I don't think it's true at all. >> >>> In any case there are quite a few steps before any action escalates as far >>> as a court. >> >> The legal status of disability hate crime (I don't think 'hate' is a >> useful word, but that's a different issue) is changing rapidly. > > The legislation against hate crime may or may not be applicable, but > other laws are. Rowland is entitled to equal access to the service, > with 'reasonable adjustments' being required to provide that. I expect > that a complaint to an ISP about someone's behaviour in this respect > would require them to act under the Disability Discrimination Act, > presumably by terminating the user's account. There is a much stronger > case for termination of the account than just for copyright violations > as failure to act could be a criminal rather then civil issue. > > If the same user opened a new account and did the same again then there > are further escalations available, ASBOs etc. > > > >> >> Concerted efforts by disability rights groups over the last five years >> have made a real and surprising difference to the way it's treated by >> the media, by the police, the CPS, and the courts. >> >> The CPS changed its guidelines to prosecutors on crimes against the >> disabled very recently. The Scottish Parliament brought in new >> legislation last year. The number of crimes against the disabled >> reported by the media seems to have risen exponentially in the last >> three years. >> >> What has changed principally is the notion of what constitutes culpable >> behaviour. >> >> Previously, prosecutors' idea of a crime was a major incident. >> >> Now, a pattern of abuse or harrassment, or a series of repeated attacks, >> even if each on its own is not a serious incident, can be (should be) >> treated as a serious crime. > > There has been recent case law and I believe one recent instance of > someone being charged with manslaughter for causing a suicide. > >> >> There's obviously a difference between merely being a party in an >> exchange of nasty abuse and mounting a hate campaign against a disabled >> person. >> >> Most of what goes on here looks like the former to me, but there is one >> person at least (who's thankfully not around right now) who seems to be >> doing something that looks more like the latter. Interesting idea, but again, it's all about the victim. He decides to carry on starting on folk, not us. We only react when he continues to call us shits or whatever he likes.
From: James Jolley on 6 Jun 2010 08:23 On 2010-06-06 11:56:57 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) said: > Bernard Peek <bap(a)shrdlu.com> wrote: > >> There has been recent case law and I believe one recent instance of >> someone being charged with manslaughter for causing a suicide. > > Yes, I completely agree with you. Rowland's blatant campaign of > vilification and harassment of someone who is disabled opens Rowland up > to prosecution for harassment or for Rowland to be issued with an ASBO. > Indeed Rowland has a long history of attacking the disabled in this > newsgroup and no doubt all of the politically right-on among you will > want to see him face the justice that is long overdue. > > Or, like others, are you of the opinion that it's OK for Rowland to > harass the blind, the dyslexic and others? Certainly several people here > seem to think that harassing the blind and those with dyslexia is fair > game. Look at the many nasty posts made by those preening themselves on > how "nice" they are to individuals who have those disabilities. True that. What really interests me is how this all begins. What starts as normal discussion always ends up the same here, lets gang up on the blind one who dishes back to Rowland.
From: James Jolley on 6 Jun 2010 08:44 On 2010-06-06 11:45:31 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said: > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > >> This is the warm, considerate not-nasty side of Peter Ceresole is it? If >> I've "flipped" then by your standards you have to be nice to me. Or are >> you being a hypocrite, again? > > Don't be more bloody stupid than you have to be. I have never attacked a > blind person here. Get a grip- if you're capable of doing so. > > In fact, I'm not sure that you are; over the years, I've seen you quite > incapable of understanding how people function. Systems, maybe; people > may hire you to interpret systems. But people and their motivations are > totally beyond you. Not good, or useful. Steve's always been fine towards me, certainly knows about ebooks and how to get hold of them. Seriously, I think some here are giving him a bad press. I admit, i've not been always helpful to Rowland but you know how it is, there's only so much you can take.
From: James Jolley on 6 Jun 2010 08:46
On 2010-06-06 12:29:29 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said: > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > >> Oh yes you have. Perhaps you don't see your attacks and constant >> undermining of a blind individual as attacks, but that is what they are. > > They certainly aren't. If you think that, you're simply demonstrating > your inadequacy at understanding human beings. > > Maybe you are physically blind? I have no idea. But it's never come up. Interesting, I always considred it more a physical disability, though people with my eye condition generally are slightly brain damaged. Never mind, I suppose it's one way of looking at it? Not sure. > > My infrequent attacks on you arise simply because you are the most > obnoxious person here. Is he though, or does he really just have the guts to stand up for what he believes in? I like someone like that, shows they've got balls and that's fine with me. |