# Even the French can get it right for protecting their national flag....



## 1feral1 (23 Jul 2010)

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/french-law-protects-flag-after-bottom-wiping-incident/story-e6frfku0-1225896329239

Flag bum wipers beware   :nod:

French law protects flag after bottom-wiping incident

From: AFP July 24, 2010 12:34AM 

FRANCE has introduced a new law to protect its national flag from insult after a photo of a man wiping his bottom with the tricolour prompted outrage. 

Courts will impose a €1500 ($2153) fine on anyone caught trying to "destroy, damage or use the flag in a degrading manner", according to the law published in the official gazette.

Publishing photographs of attacks on the flag, even if the attacks were carried out in a private place, will also be punished, it said.

The new law came after an incident in March in which the backside-wiping picture won a prize in a photo contest organised by a book and record shop in Nice.

When it was later published in a free national newspaper, it sparked outrage, with Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie calling for criminal proceedings to be launched against what her spokesman called "this unacceptable act."

Insulting the French national anthem or the flag during a publicly-organized event was previously punishable by up to six months' imprisonment and a fine of €7500.

To count as an offence, the insult had to be committed during an event organised or regulated by the public authorities, which was not the case with the bottom photograph



Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/french-law-protects-flag-after-bottom-wiping-incident/story-e6frfku0-1225896329239#ixzz0uXLkxjC4


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jul 2010)

Now I can read it and make some sense of it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2010)

CC,

I know you've been asked already, but perhaps missed it. Can you please delete the extraneous stuff from your cut and pastes?. It makes them really difficult to read, and follow otherwise.

For example, the stuff highlighted, from your above post, didn't need inclusion:



			
				Carcharodon Carcharias said:
			
		

> http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/french-law-protects-flag-after-bottom-wiping-incident/story-e6frfku0-1225896329239
> 
> Flag bum wipers beware   :nod:
> 
> ...


Which would have resulted in this, much easier to read, version.



> FRANCE has introduced a new law to protect its national flag from insult after a photo of a man wiping his bottom with the tricolour prompted outrage.
> 
> Courts will impose a €1500 ($2153) fine on anyone caught trying to "destroy, damage or use the flag in a degrading manner", according to the law published in the official gazette.
> 
> ...



Cheers


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Jul 2010)

Since this site has been upgraded, once a certain number of lines has been reached in a post, my computer  will not allow me to cut and paste, and if I try, for some reason, the whole article becomes highlighted above and below what I was trying to edit, so I can't unless the article is a small paragraph long.

Its only this site.

So there ya go.

EDITs to add -No, I am NOT BSing you either.

Perhaps someone else is having the same problem


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Jul 2010)

Try creating your post in a text editor or word processor - and then after you have cleaned it up, cut and paste the clean version into the post edit window.

There is your solution.


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Jul 2010)

I am not that computer savvy


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Jul 2010)

If you are "savvy" enough to copy and paste new articles into this forum, then you should be "savvy" enough to copy and paste them into MS Word (or some other text program) to clean them up first.

I'm sure you can figure it out if you try, you have now been asked a few times to clean up your pasted news articles.  Your other alternative is to not paste them at all.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Jul 2010)

Wes

Try copying the article into the box on this means and then deleting the extra stuff. That's how I do it with articles I post.


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Jul 2010)

Oh, I see.

 I'll just post the links the if thats okay, I don't want to get on the warning ladder for something as miniscule as a few extra lines in a link. 

Is that okay?

OS, thanks for the tip I'll experiment as best I can, but if I am having problems, I'll revert to just the link only, as I certainly don't want to get into trouble on here, especially over nothing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2010)

Carcharodon Carcharias said:
			
		

> Oh, I see.
> 
> I'll just post the links the if thats okay, I don't want to get on the warning ladder for something as miniscule as a few extra lines in a link.
> 
> ...



So even when I genuinely try help you out you have to be a smart ass about it? Then you wonder why you get in shit.

I give up.


----------



## bdave (26 Jul 2010)

First the Burqas and now this.
I applaud the French, they don't mess around.
I wonder what the next thing will be.


----------



## 2 Cdo (3 Aug 2010)

Banning Wes for his "sins" in this thread is why I don't frequent this site very often. Some of the mods here seem to suffer "little man syndrome". :


----------



## Scott (3 Aug 2010)

Perhaps you should investigate a little more before jumping to conclusions. Or you could PM one of us to ask. Posting your assumptions in the open does nothing to add to the site you rarely visit. But thanks for jumping on the "mods MUST be to blame" bandwagon...you'd be surprised to hear you're one of the few occupants.

Have a nice day.


----------



## 2 Cdo (3 Aug 2010)

Scott said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should investigate a little more before jumping to conclusions. Or you could PM one of us to ask. Posting your assumptions in the open does nothing to add to the site you rarely visit. But thanks for jumping on the "mods MUST be to blame" bandwagon...you'd be surprised to hear you're one of the few occupants.
> 
> Have a nice day.



I'd be surprised too, as anyone with any conflicting views finds themselves censored on here, but thanks for the input.


----------



## Scott (3 Aug 2010)

So, instead of noting the reference I made to PM's (*personal messages*), i.e. that you could PM a member of the Staff with your gripes, you're fine with continuing to simply state that there is a problem yet offer no solution to the problem. Okay, I am fine with that, but your complaints aren't going to carry a whole lot of weight around here when you just throw them out there but offer no solutions or examples.

You do not know what happened with Wes, nor do you know how long the problem persisted, so you've got precious little to go on other than _assumptions_ and since you've made _assumptions_ on why Wes was banned you decide to step it up another notch and _assume_ there's a big load of unhappy members here...then not to outdo it all you _assume_ it's because some of the Staff have little man syndrome.

It doesn't take much to see that you've got precious few facts on your side and also that you don't sem to care to try. One look at the member's posting history would reveal a long history of issues, not just one as you try to point out.

And there are plenty of conflicting views put across here, we encourage them. The problem sometimes lies with _how_ such a view is put across which seems to be an issue for almost everyone who does land themselves in hot water. But they don't see it that way. I wonder why? No, they'd rather insert rolling eyes smileys and snipe from the sidelines.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Aug 2010)

Too late Mods; it was just another drive-by bitchin'  


...and he sure told you!


----------

