413
Do not (lemmy.nz)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] winkly@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago
[-] garibaldi_biscuit@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

Do not carry trees away in a pram

Do not heelstrike when running.

[-] itsjustachairmary@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Like to see you try and move a tree then

[-] AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

It's true, though. I did once, and I'm looking at 40+ years of jail time.

[-] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 6 days ago

_____, _____ to the IDF!

[-] dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago
[-] degen@midwest.social 5 points 6 days ago

I really read that in Butters' voice automatically

[-] Stock53809@lemmy.today 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

You wouldn't and then

[-] farmgineer@nord.pub 6 points 6 days ago

Huh, I apparently have illegal photographs from the late '90s.

(joking. I assume that having people unintentionally in the frame as I take a picture of some famous building, especially for photos that aren't put anywhere public, is fine since they're not the subject. Then again, Japan has some bonkers rules on that, so I dunno).

[-] honesthenery@thelemmy.club 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

What a templet hahaha Poor UK I know you all are not all turdz

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 points 6 days ago

For example, there's Scottish people.

For now.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Someday they'll form the United Republic of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland

[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 3 points 6 days ago

They did colonise Northern Ireland after all.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

poor turdus. has to put up with the slander

[-] boobookittyfrick@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 days ago
[-] Randelung@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

I ... may have in the past. I'm really sorry though, and I don't intend to do it again!

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Dear UK

I did the in a mocking manner. At the Queen.

Yes, I am aware of the year, her health and location. I just refuse to recognize Chuck.

[-] bookmeat@fedinsfw.app 3 points 6 days ago

I like the one about not taking photos of people in public. That's reserved for private corporations and the government.

[-] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

Social media is now full of a message that seemingly tells immigrants not to rape. Its everywhere and mainly shared by right winners and anyone slightly susceptible to their bullshit

[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

Mmmm...do not....gurgle...drool...

[-] drolex@sopuli.xyz 90 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 57 points 1 week ago
[-] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 week ago
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Wow, this is really in line with what I expect of Labour. Pissing off everyone to the right, left, and center in a way anyone with a brain could predict

[-] then_three_more@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

You should not take photos of people in public?

Since when did street photography become illegal over here? I know it is much of Europe, but I was under the impression that we worked under the assumption of no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.

Or is it just illegal for assilum seekers to do it?

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

In principle, targeting someone and taking photos of them should be illegal, under harassment law.
In practice, this will only apply if you are brown and don't speak very good English.

[-] then_three_more@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

So taking photos of people in general is still fine, but going after one person and taking lots of photos of just that person isn't.

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 5 points 6 days ago

Yes. The law is based on "expectation of privacy". If you're out in public, you're not in a place where you can reasonably assume privacy, so you are ok to be filmed/photographed.

[-] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 4 days ago

You can go after one person too, as long as they’re within sight of the public domain.

[-] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 4 days ago

It isn’t. They probably used ChatGPT to put any old shit together.

[-] then_three_more@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Or they hired a company that didn't actually read the brief....

and then used chatgpt to put any shit together

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] bad1080@piefed.social 22 points 1 week ago
[-] socsa@piefed.social 14 points 1 week ago

That's good because I cannot even

[-] dparticiple@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago
[-] tetris11@feddit.uk 9 points 6 days ago

On 10 September, 1976, dozens of children, including every single pupil from class 3, Scarfolk High School, vanished on their way to school. A police operation was launched but no clues were ever found. The children were pronounced dead the following Monday, a mere three days later.

Every year thereafter, the police commissioned their sketch artist to draw, in the style of a school photograph, how the missing children might have looked (albeit with their faces removed) had they not disappeared in mysterious circumstances. This was sent to the bereaved parents of class 3 at an exorbitant cost of £31.25.

In the 1979 class sketch, one parent noticed a small label on one of the faceless figure's clothes that contained a code word only their child could have known.

Under mounting pressure from parents, the police eventually raided their artist's studio and found 347 children in his cellar where many had been held captive for several years. The police immediately seized and confined the children as evidence in a crime investigation, which, after much dithering, ultimately never went to court leaving the families no choice but to pursue a private prosecution against the kidnapper.

As the children had already been pronounced dead and the cost of amending the relevant paperwork was high, they were given away as prizes in the Scarfolk police raffle, which helped pay the legal fees of their sketch artist, who, it turns out, was the son of Scarfolk's police commissioner.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
413 points (99.0% liked)

Casual UK

4747 readers
18 users here now

Casual UK

A casual place for banter and anything that doesn't fit in anywhere else.

Have chat and a natter. Talk about anything and everything that's not political!

Keep it casual.

Rules

Other communities:

Here:

Elsewhere:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS