Best Of

Elon Musk is retweeting Rupert Lowe again:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2064396727344320767

Musk’s comment:

Only Restore Britain can save Britain.

It is the only way.

That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.

Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?

Eh?

So if Lord Sugar or Tony Robinson or other celebs who've endorsed Labour in the past make naked partisan comments, does that get counted against their budget?

Many ways to criticise Musk and Restore, but celebrities making comments is neither new nor actionable surely?

Elon Musk is retweeting Rupert Lowe again:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2064396727344320767

Musk’s comment:

Only Restore Britain can save Britain.

It is the only way.

That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.

Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?

I would have thought, given Musk's reputation in this country, that it would more be more valuable to everyone else than to Restore. Divide the benefit by the number of candidates and it probably works out OK.

The Whitehouse are very angry at Starmer's three months threat to the US social media organisations. They are suggesting it will disadvantage US social media Moguls.

Apparently threatening to stop children being groomed online is an infringement of freedom of speech. I can understand why Trump might conclude that. Kemi might have to U turn her online safety commitment if she doesn't want to upset the Donald.

So the first 2 people arrested in the protests outside Southampton police station have got 34 and 37 months each in prison

For what, exactly? Looks awfully “Two-tier” unless someone was seriously injured.

Throwing a bin, according to Twitter.

From the BBC...

Footage shown in Southampton Crown Court showed O'Leary "walking casually" in the crowd in front of the police cordon when he spots a smoke grenade on the ground, picks it up and throws it towards police.

O'Leary also admitted resisting a police officer and possession of an offensive weapon – a samurai sword in his bedroom - when officers came to arrest him in the early hours of 7 June.

The court heard he adopted a "fighting stance" at the top of the stairs and threatened officers who had to use pava spray to subdue him.

[...]

Meanwhile Connor Bishop, 24, from Southampton, was seen in footage [...] carrying a yellow traffic cone which he threw towards officers.

He was seen running with the cone, "pursuing officers for some time with it", prosecutor, Siobhan Linsley told the court.

"Once it's thrown he then follows it again, picks it up again," she said.

[...]

He also admitted throwing a box of screws and punching a wall which was not captured on footage.

Another grim irony given what the riot was ostensibly about.

Elon Musk is retweeting Rupert Lowe again:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2064396727344320767

Musk’s comment:

Only Restore Britain can save Britain.

It is the only way.

That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.

Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?

Eh?

So if Lord Sugar or Tony Robinson or other celebs who've endorsed Labour in the past make naked partisan comments, does that get counted against their budget?

Many ways to criticise Musk and Restore, but celebrities making comments is neither new nor actionable surely?

That’s a fair argument, that it’s the same as a newspaper endorsement coming from the proprietor or editorial team. But what if they’re foreigners widely read in the UK.

There’s plenty of both positives and negatives about Mr Lowe, but I was thinking it’s an issue that hasnn’t come up before, so might be worthy of somebody getting a ruling on what is or isn’t allowed.

The simple solution to most of our Social Media related woes is to make any platform that uses an alogorithm other than chronological liable as any other media publisher. It would cut them down to size very quickly if they didn't shape up.

A significant blow against DEI in the US:

https://x.com/TheJusticeDept/status/2064391410531389706

The Department of Justice has issued an opinion to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) that its guidelines about disparate-impact liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional. The Office of Legal Counsel found that EEOC’s guidelines pressured employers to engage in racial discrimination.

"Despite trying to promote equality, EEOC's disparate impact liability interpretation under Title VII actually fosters the very discrimination its guidelines seek to address," said Acting Attorney General @DAGToddBlanche. "This opinion will now allow businesses to hire based on performance, restoring equal opportunities in the American workplace."

Elon Musk is retweeting Rupert Lowe again:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2064396727344320767

Musk’s comment:

Only Restore Britain can save Britain.

It is the only way.

That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.

Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?

I would have thought, given Musk's reputation in this country, that it would more be more valuable to everyone else than to Restore. Divide the benefit by the number of candidates and it probably works out OK.

The Whitehouse are very angry at Starmer's three months threat to the US social media organisations. They are suggesting it will disadvantage US social media Moguls.

Apparently threatening to stop children being groomed online is an infringement of freedom of speech. I can understand why Trump might conclude that. Kemi might have to U turn her online safety commitment if she doesn't want to upset the Donald.

Barefaced lies = Noble free speech

Requesting evidence for barefaced lies = Conspiracy to suppress the Truth

This is how it is.

TPSI poll | 6/8 LV

US Senate Maine 2026
🟥Susan Collins 43.7% (incumbent)
🟦Graham Platner 43.1%
Undecided 13.2%
—
When voters are informed of Graham Platner’s scandals
🟦Graham Platner 48.2%
🟥Susan Collins 40.1% (incumbent)
Undecided 11.7%
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2064338493321466318

Huh. Is it even a scandal if it helps?

An investigative journalist wrote an expose of the book and film "The Salt Path", pointing out that the couple had made up a lot of the facts from whole cloth.
The expose was published.
Sales of the book went up.

People are weird.

This sounds like a retrospective analysis of why Labour's campaign against Robert Kenyon failed.