Tyke02

If what you have is an AV600 powerline extender it doesn't make a wifi connection with the router, but connects via house wiring. For that to happen there needs to be a second item plugged in to mains near the router, and connected to the router by a network cable. If so, when the router was changed it might be that either the network cable wasn't connected to the new router, or the plug in adapter isn't powered up, or it needs to be reset . Pictures of what to look for to check this out here: https://www.tp-link.com/uk/home-networking/powerline/tl-wpa4220-kit/

I don't think it's possible to strictly define what constitutes abuse, as it is so dependent on context. The "victim" will have a view on whether they have been abused, but that's not the end of the story, there would be subsequent checks and balances. Perhaps zero tolerance here means that JL will by default support their staff in pursuing any such complaints. That would presumably be by way of a complaint to the police, who will take a view on whether they agree, given the specific context of what was said and how it was put across. If they do agree then they would submit the case to CPS for a similar decision on whether they agree too and want to prosecute. If they do, it will then be a Magistrate or Judge and Jury who then get to evaluate and decide on whether what happened crossed the line. Then there's the appeals system...

True enough in 2016. Recent polls suggest that the majority are no longer supporters of the current government, and I doubt that the majority are followers of coronavirus conspiracies, which probably impacts the appeal of the channel to many.

Third paragraph. Given that Ofcom's investigation of Fox is the seventh that they have underway at the moment I think that ship may already have sailed. Given that it is staffed by a range of right wing , pro-government, pro-Brexit and covid conspiracist presenters I doubt there is much they can do that would appeal to those on the left.

You felt a line was crossed when a customer threatened to come round and lay you out, but didn't do it. However in the example I gave there was a telephone threat of violence coupled with a demonstration that they knew where to find him. If a verbal threat to you crosses a line, why do others need to take a beating before they can be concerned? Typical woke lefty broadcaster cancelling people. Oh, hang on a minute...

Here's an example of Wootton's comments on his show leading to cyber attacks, threatening phone calls and emails and a journalists windscreen apparently being smeared with blood. What is said on TV/online can have consequences. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/blood-smeared-on-windscreen-as-reporters-threatened-over-dan-wootton-investigation-135621431.html

This is also stated in exactly those words by Ofcom in the report that I referenced. They agree with that. The fact that you won't read published sources even when pointed out to you could seriously damage your credibility. If you had any. You mentioned that you had been afflicted in that way. Maybe you might heal if you found a way to get over your obsession.

Seems pretty clear that you didn't read either the definition I told you about or examples that you asked for. You may think of them as a woke QUANGO (how are you defining that by the way), but they are the Regulator tasked by Parliament to regulate this stuff, and have automony to fine transgressors up to £18 million for some offences, or withdraw permission to operate, so media organisations can't dismiss them as nothing to worry about. Sure there is going to be some subjectivity in interpretation, and they accept this and carry out large scale public surveys to give a view on the range of boundaries of acceptability as far as the general population are concerned. By the way those examples are only part of their role which also includes ensuring freedom of expression for minority and fringe views. You might need them some day. They say as an introduction to one of their latest reports: "At Ofcom, one of our primary responsibilities is to set and enforce rules for broadcast television and radio – to protect audiences from harmful and offensive content, while respecting rights to freedom of expression. Viewers and listeners are at the centre of what we do. For our rules to remain relevant and effective, it’s important that we listen and understand first-hand what people find offensive and how attitudes change over time. Since our last wave of similar research five years ago, it’s been fascinating to see how tastes and tolerances have shifted or, indeed, stayed the same." Despite your preferences, the only thing that tends to stay the same is that everything will, eventually, change.

Ofcom have a definition of hate speech in their broadcasting code, and have fined some broadcasting organisations and removed others licences on the basis of it, for example: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-ahlebait-tv-networks https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-up-and-coming-tv https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/updated-decision-and-surrender-ktv https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-link-fm https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-adjudications/decision-rinse-fm Some groups have used the same rules to lobby for Ofcom to take action on the basis that they think they have been broken, for example: https://www.thejc.com/news/news/mps-and-board-of-deputies-slam-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-on-gbnews-7034XOJGx29iU82NfNSPfq If you don't like their definition, I suggest that you take it up with them.

I agree, and that was how things were until recently, but the current government changed that.

My last dog used to howl only in response to ice cream vans that passed the house playing their jingle. A rescue, so who knows why.

I spoke to the landlord of my local pub about this because I wouldn't want him to lose money based on my payment preference, and he said he's not bothered as he pays 0.2% on card transactions versus 0,15% for paying in cash to bank, and it saves having cash on the premises overnight. Maybe you haven't got the best deal?

Belief in press reports without critical examination of the original sources is, as I said on this or another thread, unwise.

I was merely giving you the gift of publicly available data that you didn't seem able to find to save you making up your own for a change. As I said, there is a lot of information out there, just a shame you don't seem willing to go look for it and build your opinions off information rather than your preconceptions. Unlike you, I'm not arguing a particular position, but pointing out instances where your arguments don't work or aren't supported by the "evidence" you present. When your opinions are based on logic and evidence (and there's no contradictory data you're ignoring) I'll happily leave you to it. You need to do better if you want to be convincing, in the ways I have explained. If you don't want to be convincing, but just to scratch your obsessional itch, that seems like a waste of oxygen. By the way did you miss the part of the ONS link that said thinks you liked about 2020 that said the pandemic was no longer a factor in reduced GDP by Q1 2022.

Merely pointing out that you have to avoid a lot of available information to persist with your position that selectively quoted press reports and anecdotes are something to be relied upon. I think I've pointed this out before in various ways, and you've never addressed it.