Honestly thought that was a great clearance at first sight, but clearly way over the line.
6 goals for golden shoe winner, which should be par for that contest.
Stupid question but did it not used to be the golden boot? I heard one of the commentators talking about the golden shoe previously and I was trying to work out if I was having a "Mandela Effect" moment.
I doubt that. She is a story, and whether it is sympathetic or not we'll have to wait to find out.
I still find it astonishing the number of people who simultaneously believe 16 year olds are mature enough to choose governments but 15 year olds aren't mature enough to know that torturers and sex slavers are bad.
Previously, she was being used by a group of people for their own ends - she willingly participated, though
She is now being used by a group of people for their own ends - and she is still a willing participant.
Was she groomed more or less than the teenage girls of Rotherham?
What a fucking disgraceful analogy
Begum willingly joined a death cult of rapists and had a Yazidi sex slave in her house. And said she did not regret it years later
The girls of Rotherham and around the UK were raped and tortured continuously over many years as the police looked the other way
Indeed. And many victims of such horrific behaviour regard with disgust the whole "But I was a victim tooooo" stuff.
Many too refused to give evidence against their "boyfriends". Groomers suck people in and gaslight them.
Begum was certainly groomed, and it does seem as if our security services knew and turned a blind eye.
Whether she can ever be other than a damaged person and security risk we cannot know.
I’m more sympathetic than most to Shamima Begum but this analogy is really inappropriate.
Vulnerable kids get ‘groomed’ for many different purposes - criminal gangs being another one - but the institutional blind eye turned to the poor girls in Rotherham and all the many other places was a colossal failure of the state and society. There is still nowhere near enough outrage about this. There should be prison terms.
I actually suggested to one Home Sec, that she should put those in authority, who knew, on the appropriate sex offenders register.
I doubt that. She is a story, and whether it is sympathetic or not we'll have to wait to find out.
I still find it astonishing the number of people who simultaneously believe 16 year olds are mature enough to choose governments but 15 year olds aren't mature enough to know that torturers and sex slavers are bad.
Previously, she was being used by a group of people for their own ends - she willingly participated, though
She is now being used by a group of people for their own ends - and she is still a willing participant.
Was she groomed more or less than the teenage girls of Rotherham?
What a fucking disgraceful analogy
Begum willingly joined a death cult of rapists and had a Yazidi sex slave in her house. And said she did not regret it years later
The girls of Rotherham and around the UK were raped and tortured continuously over many years as the police looked the other way
Indeed. And many victims of such horrific behaviour regard with disgust the whole "But I was a victim tooooo" stuff.
Many too refused to give evidence against their "boyfriends". Groomers suck people in and gaslight them.
Begum was certainly groomed, and it does seem as if our security services knew and turned a blind eye.
Whether she can ever be other than a damaged person and security risk we cannot know.
I’m more sympathetic than most to Shamima Begum but this analogy is really inappropriate.
Vulnerable kids get ‘groomed’ for many different purposes - criminal gangs being another one - but the institutional blind eye turned to the poor girls in Rotherham and all the many other places was a colossal failure of the state and society. There is still nowhere near enough outrage about this. There should be prison terms.
I actually suggested to one Home Sec, that she should put those in authority, who knew, on the appropriate sex offenders register.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
I’m guessing you are one of those introverts with a proper house and garden and family at hand. Like so many of the lockdown fans
The psychological damage wrought by lockdown is enormous
I am an extrovert and the only socializing I did for about a year was sitting across the street from my neighbours in deckchairs. Yes, I have a family, but looking after a baby and a toddler with no parental or babysitter support made lockdown harder not easier.
I am not a "fan" of lockdown in the same way I would not have been a "fan" of blackouts during the Blitz. I do, however, accept that mental hardship is not a greater cost than being dead. Which is what people ranting at the state were happy for others to do rather than face some adversity themselves.
The dead would have been mainly old fat unhealthy people
We shattered and impoverished society to save a bunch of 80 year olds. It was a disastrous error
You're making a great case for killing a load of old people so you can have a better time.
OK, let's make it purely about health. It looks pretty likely to me that farore life years will be lost as a result of lockdowns - the opportunities missed, the impoverishment brought, the negative health impacts, the ability to fund a future health servuce forgone - than would havebeen lost directly as extra excess deaths from not locking down ( not least because lockdown was a pretty blunt tool for preventing deaths). I'venot seen any attempt at a thorough analysis, though.
The health service did not lockdown, it pivoted and redeployed. The adverse health impacts are because of the disease (and underlying capacity issues) not lockdown.
The psychiatrist working as an ICU nurse wasn't running a mental health service, but wasn't locked down.
I was thinking more of the adverse health impacts - mental and physical - from so many people, including children, from being largely confined to their houses. I'm certainly not saying the health service did nothing, and many health workers were heroic. I'd agree that one of the big negatives of not locking down at all could have been the negative health impacts of an overrun NHS. Though as we saw, the modelling used to predict that was at best questionable. Also worth noting lockdown is not binary. I don't think I'd argue that life should have carried on totally unchanged. I'd argue that lockdown was too much, not - really - that nothing at all should have happened.
I doubt that. She is a story, and whether it is sympathetic or not we'll have to wait to find out.
I still find it astonishing the number of people who simultaneously believe 16 year olds are mature enough to choose governments but 15 year olds aren't mature enough to know that torturers and sex slavers are bad.
Previously, she was being used by a group of people for their own ends - she willingly participated, though
She is now being used by a group of people for their own ends - and she is still a willing participant.
Was she groomed more or less than the teenage girls of Rotherham?
What a fucking disgraceful analogy
Begum willingly joined a death cult of rapists and had a Yazidi sex slave in her house. And said she did not regret it years later
The girls of Rotherham and around the UK were raped and tortured continuously over many years as the police looked the other way
Indeed. And many victims of such horrific behaviour regard with disgust the whole "But I was a victim tooooo" stuff.
Many too refused to give evidence against their "boyfriends". Groomers suck people in and gaslight them.
Begum was certainly groomed, and it does seem as if our security services knew and turned a blind eye.
Whether she can ever be other than a damaged person and security risk we cannot know.
What about the teenagers in 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend? Groomed certainly. Enthusiastic war criminals, equally certain.
Yes, as I said, reality is complicated.
The response to the 12th SS was quite simple. Especially so, in the case of one Highland Regiment, IIRC.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
I’m guessing you are one of those introverts with a proper house and garden and family at hand. Like so many of the lockdown fans
The psychological damage wrought by lockdown is enormous
I am an extrovert and the only socializing I did for about a year was sitting across the street from my neighbours in deckchairs. Yes, I have a family, but looking after a baby and a toddler with no parental or babysitter support made lockdown harder not easier.
I am not a "fan" of lockdown in the same way I would not have been a "fan" of blackouts during the Blitz. I do, however, accept that mental hardship is not a greater cost than being dead. Which is what people ranting at the state were happy for others to do rather than face some adversity themselves.
The dead would have been mainly old fat unhealthy people
We shattered and impoverished society to save a bunch of 80 year olds. It was a disastrous error
You're making a great case for killing a load of old people so you can have a better time.
OK, let's make it purely about health. It looks pretty likely to me that farore life years will be lost as a result of lockdowns - the opportunities missed, the impoverishment brought, the negative health impacts, the ability to fund a future health servuce forgone - than would havebeen lost directly as extra excess deaths from not locking down ( not least because lockdown was a pretty blunt tool for preventing deaths). I'venot seen any attempt at a thorough analysis, though.
The health service did not lockdown, it pivoted and redeployed. The adverse health impacts are because of the disease (and underlying capacity issues) not lockdown.
The psychiatrist working as an ICU nurse wasn't running a mental health service, but wasn't locked down.
I was thinking more of the adverse health impacts - mental and physical - from so many people, including children, from being largely confined to their houses. I'm certainly not saying the health service did nothing, and many health workers were heroic. I'd agree that one of the big negatives of not locking down at all could have been the negative health impacts of an overrun NHS. Though as we saw, the modelling used to predict that was at best questionable. Also worth noting lockdown is not binary. I don't think I'd argue that life should have carried on totally unchanged. I'd argue that lockdown was too much, not - really - that nothing at all should have happened.
The other thing is that even with all the lockdowns all we really seem to have done is bring about the total collapse of the NHS anyway, just over a longer more extended period of time.
Well it's been a very good final, at lesst since I switched on three quarters of the way through. A pity if it's decided with penalties, though that's neither team's fault. Can't they just let it continue? It's not as if noone looks like scoring.
Honestly thought that was a great clearance at first sight, but clearly way over the line.
6 goals for golden shoe winner, which should be par for that contest.
Stupid question but did it not used to be the golden boot? I heard one of the commentators talking about the golden shoe previously and I was trying to work out if I was having a "Mandela Effect" moment.
Golden shoe sounds...stupid.
Officially, it's the "adidas Golden Shoe".
But it's just like "FIFA World Cup" - only people who are paid to talk about actually call it that.
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Honestly thought that was a great clearance at first sight, but clearly way over the line.
6 goals for golden shoe winner, which should be par for that contest.
Stupid question but did it not used to be the golden boot? I heard one of the commentators talking about the golden shoe previously and I was trying to work out if I was having a "Mandela Effect" moment.
Golden shoe sounds...stupid.
It does yeah - but it’s been a ‘shoe’ for ages I think.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
I’m guessing you are one of those introverts with a proper house and garden and family at hand. Like so many of the lockdown fans
The psychological damage wrought by lockdown is enormous
I am an extrovert and the only socializing I did for about a year was sitting across the street from my neighbours in deckchairs. Yes, I have a family, but looking after a baby and a toddler with no parental or babysitter support made lockdown harder not easier.
I am not a "fan" of lockdown in the same way I would not have been a "fan" of blackouts during the Blitz. I do, however, accept that mental hardship is not a greater cost than being dead. Which is what people ranting at the state were happy for others to do rather than face some adversity themselves.
The dead would have been mainly old fat unhealthy people
We shattered and impoverished society to save a bunch of 80 year olds. It was a disastrous error
You're making a great case for killing a load of old people so you can have a better time.
OK, let's make it purely about health. It looks pretty likely to me that farore life years will be lost as a result of lockdowns - the opportunities missed, the impoverishment brought, the negative health impacts, the ability to fund a future health servuce forgone - than would havebeen lost directly as extra excess deaths from not locking down ( not least because lockdown was a pretty blunt tool for preventing deaths). I'venot seen any attempt at a thorough analysis, though.
The health service did not lockdown, it pivoted and redeployed. The adverse health impacts are because of the disease (and underlying capacity issues) not lockdown.
The psychiatrist working as an ICU nurse wasn't running a mental health service, but wasn't locked down.
I was thinking more of the adverse health impacts - mental and physical - from so many people, including children, from being largely confined to their houses. I'm certainly not saying the health service did nothing, and many health workers were heroic. I'd agree that one of the big negatives of not locking down at all could have been the negative health impacts of an overrun NHS. Though as we saw, the modelling used to predict that was at best questionable. Also worth noting lockdown is not binary. I don't think I'd argue that life should have carried on totally unchanged. I'd argue that lockdown was too much, not - really - that nothing at all should have happened.
The other thing is that even with all the lockdowns all we really seem to have done is bring about the total collapse of the NHS anyway, just over a longer more extended period of time.
As I have pointed out many times, that was the impact of the pandemic, not of lockdown, because there was no NHS lockdown.
I appreciate it would have been better for the pandemic not to have happened, and I think we have learned lessons for any similar future event. Covid did happen though, and did loads of damage.
Honestly thought that was a great clearance at first sight, but clearly way over the line.
6 goals for golden shoe winner, which should be par for that contest.
Stupid question but did it not used to be the golden boot? I heard one of the commentators talking about the golden shoe previously and I was trying to work out if I was having a "Mandela Effect" moment.
Golden shoe sounds...stupid.
Officially, it's the "adidas Golden Shoe".
But it's just like "FIFA World Cup" - only people who are paid to talk about actually call it that.
I might see if I can get together the money to sponsor it as the Golden Flip-Flop.
I doubt that. She is a story, and whether it is sympathetic or not we'll have to wait to find out.
I still find it astonishing the number of people who simultaneously believe 16 year olds are mature enough to choose governments but 15 year olds aren't mature enough to know that torturers and sex slavers are bad.
Previously, she was being used by a group of people for their own ends - she willingly participated, though
She is now being used by a group of people for their own ends - and she is still a willing participant.
Was she groomed more or less than the teenage girls of Rotherham?
What a fucking disgraceful analogy
Begum willingly joined a death cult of rapists and had a Yazidi sex slave in her house. And said she did not regret it years later
The girls of Rotherham and around the UK were raped and tortured continuously over many years as the police looked the other way
Indeed. And many victims of such horrific behaviour regard with disgust the whole "But I was a victim tooooo" stuff.
Many too refused to give evidence against their "boyfriends". Groomers suck people in and gaslight them.
Begum was certainly groomed, and it does seem as if our security services knew and turned a blind eye.
Whether she can ever be other than a damaged person and security risk we cannot know.
I’m more sympathetic than most to Shamima Begum but this analogy is really inappropriate.
Vulnerable kids get ‘groomed’ for many different purposes - criminal gangs being another one - but the institutional blind eye turned to the poor girls in Rotherham and all the many other places was a colossal failure of the state and society. There is still nowhere near enough outrage about this. There should be prison terms.
I actually suggested to one Home Sec, that she should put those in authority, who knew, on the appropriate sex offenders register.
Hahahah, that would have been *amazing*.
Among all the horror that a Home Sec can take your citizenship away, the fact that they can simply have your name written on a register that...
- stops you getting pretty much any job - can mean your children get taken into care.
...seems to have passed everyone by. Much like the police threatened use of anti-social neighbour orders against the... parents in Rotherham.
"Shut up, or we will claim you are racists and have you evicted from your council house."
This was done to several parents in Rotherham, to keep the lid on.
Honestly thought that was a great clearance at first sight, but clearly way over the line.
6 goals for golden shoe winner, which should be par for that contest.
Stupid question but did it not used to be the golden boot? I heard one of the commentators talking about the golden shoe previously and I was trying to work out if I was having a "Mandela Effect" moment.
Golden shoe sounds...stupid.
Officially, it's the "adidas Golden Shoe".
But it's just like "FIFA World Cup" - only people who are paid to talk about actually call it that.
According to The Athletic:
“The award for the World Cup's top goalscorer was first given out in 1982, under the name Golden Shoe. It was renamed Golden Boot in 2010. FIFA has since retroactively applied the title of top goalscorer to the tournaments that took place prior to 1982”
So it *is* the Boot! But weirdly, used to be the Shoe.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
How do you work that one out? Russian 'victory' even over the entirety of Ukraine would mean possession for Russia of a rebellious, resentful colony with a population that largely detests it. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome but not one where I can see any unthinkable strategic cost to UK interests.
Do you think the Russians would stop there?
I am sure factions within Russia would want to carry on invading places, and other factions would want to consolidate its gains. It is also highly probable in that instance that the West would sponsor a Ukrainian resistance movement and the status of Ukraine as Russian would not be settled for decades if ever. The nations surrounding Russian Ukraine would also end up being heavily garrisoned by NATO forces. None of that is satisfactory, but it isn't a doomsday scenario for Britain either.
What I am afraid is a doomsday scenario is energy prices at their current levels, which simply make our economy unworkable - unable to compete with other economies. That will just eviscerate us and leave us incapable of fighting Russia or anyone else.
Except that energy prices are now falling on the world markets. Especially LNG futures.
I am pleased and relieved to hear that. I can only imagine how dynamic our economy would be if energy prices were at US levels. It is the crux of everything.
No, not everything. It is a considerable impact on short term economics though. Which is why depending on Russia is for lunatics.
The fall is caused by more US operations coming back on line, various LNG projects coming on line and a flood of new* LNG tanker are entering the market.
*The initial batches are reconditioned tankers and existing construction that has been accelerated. The first all new LNG tankers from the wave sparked by the Ukraine war are still building.
Depending on anyone else is lunacy. And unnecessary.
Glad you are onboard for some solar, wind and tide power. Not to mention nuclear.
There isn't enough oil or gas at any price, and the coal is inextracable at almost any price either.
I am very much on board with tidal.
Wind we must make the best of, as we now have so f***ing much of it. We need storage now, pumped hydro in Wales and Scotland for a start. Cut off contraint payments and watch how fast we get storage.
Nuclear I find concerning, given events in Ukraine, Japan etc.
Solar I'm happy with it on buildings etc., but solar farms I don't think have a future in the UK. I am pretty sure the only avowedly 'unsubsidised' solar farm in the UK just went tits up. Putting floating ones on reservoirs is quite a cute idea.
We also need more waste from energy - we should be burning 100% of non recyclable waste, not 75%.
Why do you think unsubsidised solar doesn't work? I was just qouted £350k per acre to install and £100k pa income. You take out a long term contract with an aggregator, eg 20 years at 20p kWh. Payback in less than 4 years and lifetime of 25 to 30 years. Only issue is the cost of grid connection which depends on location.
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Why should Twitter - privately owned - host people who are actively trying to bring down Twitter by promoting alternatives, and doing it on Twitter?
Let's say you own a pub. Are you morally obliged to let people into your pub who just stand there chanting "this pub is shit, and the owner is a freak, go to the Dog and Duck, we've got free doughnuts"?
No, you are not obliged to do that. And Musk is entitled to kick the Mastodon weirdos off the forum he owns
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Is it? It's not undermining those other platforms, just saying they cannot advertise on their platform. I'd think the key was how much the cross posting is still allowed, despite what they say.
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Why should Twitter - privately owned - host people who are actively trying to bring down Twitter by promoting alternatives, and doing it on Twitter?
Let's say you own a pub. Are you morally obliged to let people into your pub who just stand there chanting "this pub is shit, and the owner is a freak, go to the Dog and Duck, we've got free doughnuts"?
No, you are not obliged to do that. And Musk is entitled to kick the Mastodon weirdos off the forum he owns
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Why should Twitter - privately owned - host people who are actively trying to bring down Twitter by promoting alternatives, and doing it on Twitter?
Let's say you own a pub. Are you morally obliged to let people into your pub who just stand there chanting "this pub is shit, and the owner is a freak, go to the Dog and Duck, we've got free doughnuts"?
No, you are not obliged to do that. And Musk is entitled to kick the Mastodon weirdos off the forum he owns
I seemed to remember not that long ago when people defended banning of people on twitter under the guise of its a private company they can do what they want, it isn't the town square, now the same people seem upset that the same private company is doing the same things.
I am pretty sure other social media outlets have in the past (and present) have had policies about links to other social media and services e.g. pretty sure any mentions of an OnlyFans will get you the ban hammer from Instagram, SnapChat etc.
I believe Twitch are also very controlling of what you can and can't link to.
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Why should Twitter - privately owned - host people who are actively trying to bring down Twitter by promoting alternatives, and doing it on Twitter?
Let's say you own a pub. Are you morally obliged to let people into your pub who just stand there chanting "this pub is shit, and the owner is a freak, go to the Dog and Duck, we've got free doughnuts"?
No, you are not obliged to do that. And Musk is entitled to kick the Mastodon weirdos off the forum he owns
I seemed to remember not that long ago when people defended banning of people on twitter under the guise of its a private company they can do what they want, it isn't the town square, now the same people seem upset that the same private company is doing the same things.
I am pretty sure other social media outlets have in the past (and present) have had policies about links to other social media and services e.g. pretty sure any mentions of an OnlyFans will get you the ban hammer from Instagram, SnapChat etc.
I believe Twitch are also very controlling of what you can and can't link to.
This is right - and Twitter can indeed do this. But surely that Musky bollocks about ‘humanity’s town square’ is beyond credibility now.
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Why should Twitter - privately owned - host people who are actively trying to bring down Twitter by promoting alternatives, and doing it on Twitter?
Let's say you own a pub. Are you morally obliged to let people into your pub who just stand there chanting "this pub is shit, and the owner is a freak, go to the Dog and Duck, we've got free doughnuts"?
No, you are not obliged to do that. And Musk is entitled to kick the Mastodon weirdos off the forum he owns
I seemed to remember not that long ago when people defended banning of people on twitter under the guise of its a private company they can do what they want, it isn't the town square, now the same people seem upset that the same private company is doing the same things.
I am pretty sure other social media outlets have in the past (and present) have had policies about links to other social media and services e.g. pretty sure any mentions of an OnlyFans will get you the ban hammer from Instagram, SnapChat etc.
I believe Twitch are also very controlling of what you can and can't link to.
Yes, it would be quite bizarre and self-harming if Twitter did NOT do this, There are lefty wankers on Twitter every day denouncing Musk and telling everyone "come to Mastodon, this place is evil". I can't see any reason - commercial or moral - why Musk is obliged to tolerate that
And yes the hypocrisy is off the dial. I see that the Queen of Cancellers, Taylor Lorenz, who loves to get people abolished, is now calling out "cancel culture" as she has now herself been cancelled by Musk. What a palaver of absurdity
I find it interesting how so many of these journalists who live on twitter, can't wait to write a story about a few employees kipping in the office after a long day of work, but seem totally uninterested in any of the "twitter files"...now a lot of that isn't exactly news and obviously coming from new management one needs to be careful, but there does seem some interesting titbits in there about how twitter made decisions and how prompted them to make those. Certainly if writing stories about people taking a nap in the office is your bar, how people's accounts were banned / restricted seems to warrant at least a few words.
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Why should Twitter - privately owned - host people who are actively trying to bring down Twitter by promoting alternatives, and doing it on Twitter?
Let's say you own a pub. Are you morally obliged to let people into your pub who just stand there chanting "this pub is shit, and the owner is a freak, go to the Dog and Duck, we've got free doughnuts"?
No, you are not obliged to do that. And Musk is entitled to kick the Mastodon weirdos off the forum he owns
I seemed to remember not that long ago when people defended banning of people on twitter under the guise of its a private company they can do what they want, it isn't the town square, now the same people seem upset that the same private company is doing the same things.
I am pretty sure other social media outlets have in the past (and present) have had policies about links to other social media and services e.g. pretty sure any mentions of an OnlyFans will get you the ban hammer from Instagram, SnapChat etc.
I believe Twitch are also very controlling of what you can and can't link to.
I seemed to remember not that long ago people getting upset about the banning of people on twitter and bellowing about censorship, now the same people are defending the banning of people on twitter cos it's a private company.
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Why should Twitter - privately owned - host people who are actively trying to bring down Twitter by promoting alternatives, and doing it on Twitter?
Let's say you own a pub. Are you morally obliged to let people into your pub who just stand there chanting "this pub is shit, and the owner is a freak, go to the Dog and Duck, we've got free doughnuts"?
No, you are not obliged to do that. And Musk is entitled to kick the Mastodon weirdos off the forum he owns
I seemed to remember not that long ago when people defended banning of people on twitter under the guise of its a private company they can do what they want, it isn't the town square, now the same people seem upset that the same private company is doing the same things.
I am pretty sure other social media outlets have in the past (and present) have had policies about links to other social media and services e.g. pretty sure any mentions of an OnlyFans will get you the ban hammer from Instagram, SnapChat etc.
I believe Twitch are also very controlling of what you can and can't link to.
This is right - and Twitter can indeed do this. But surely that Musky bollocks about ‘humanity’s town square’ is beyond credibility now.
Did anybody truly believe that? It seems to be a lot of this stuff is trying to ape the Trump approach to keep drumming up controversy every day and get people talking about what is going on, on twitter.
If he has a plan beyond that, now that's a different question. The US / EU won't let him make a WeChat even if its a good business idea, doable and could make a lot of money.
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Why should Twitter - privately owned - host people who are actively trying to bring down Twitter by promoting alternatives, and doing it on Twitter?
Let's say you own a pub. Are you morally obliged to let people into your pub who just stand there chanting "this pub is shit, and the owner is a freak, go to the Dog and Duck, we've got free doughnuts"?
No, you are not obliged to do that. And Musk is entitled to kick the Mastodon weirdos off the forum he owns
I seemed to remember not that long ago when people defended banning of people on twitter under the guise of its a private company they can do what they want, it isn't the town square, now the same people seem upset that the same private company is doing the same things.
I am pretty sure other social media outlets have in the past (and present) have had policies about links to other social media and services e.g. pretty sure any mentions of an OnlyFans will get you the ban hammer from Instagram, SnapChat etc.
I believe Twitch are also very controlling of what you can and can't link to.
I seemed to remember not that long ago people getting upset about the banning of people on twitter and bellowing about censorship, now the same people are defending the banning of people on twitter cos it's a private company.
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Why should Twitter - privately owned - host people who are actively trying to bring down Twitter by promoting alternatives, and doing it on Twitter?
Let's say you own a pub. Are you morally obliged to let people into your pub who just stand there chanting "this pub is shit, and the owner is a freak, go to the Dog and Duck, we've got free doughnuts"?
No, you are not obliged to do that. And Musk is entitled to kick the Mastodon weirdos off the forum he owns
I seemed to remember not that long ago when people defended banning of people on twitter under the guise of its a private company they can do what they want, it isn't the town square, now the same people seem upset that the same private company is doing the same things.
I am pretty sure other social media outlets have in the past (and present) have had policies about links to other social media and services e.g. pretty sure any mentions of an OnlyFans will get you the ban hammer from Instagram, SnapChat etc.
I believe Twitch are also very controlling of what you can and can't link to.
I seemed to remember not that long ago people getting upset about the banning of people on twitter and bellowing about censorship, now the same people are defending the banning of people on twitter cos it's a private company.
A chacun ses souvenirs.
Yes, but they started it
This is like Germans complaining about British bombers over Hamburg
No unbeaten teams at this WC then. No New Zealand for the trivia fans.
only about one in 40 games yields a hat-trick - Given 9 times out of 10 when you score a hat-trick you win the game we will have to wait 400 more world cup finals before we see Mbeppe being toppled as the only player to score a hat trick in the final and lose - so about 1600 years
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
I think you've misrepresented the reaction - there were multiple comments pointing out an issue with it was not any form analysis in itself, but that some of the benefits (and you would probably claim, negatives) are not tangible or measurable in a simple way. So if one relies on some kind of spreadsheet accounting of it you get the kind of bullcrap like criticising the cost of a missle versus the cost of what it blew up (even though what they hit varies and some will be more or less the cost of the missle, before you even get to the intangible analysis of the benefits of helping prevent invasion).
As for the Afghan question, life is unfair. But that's nothing more than an argument to never do anything anywhere ever, because states are not consistently moral, that if we cannot or do not do everything we should not do anything.
Missiles do cost money. Of course the value of the ordinance sent to Ukraine needs at least to be monitored - presumably most of it requires replacing, or its absence reduces the UK's military capability.
.
Congratulations on missing the point - the objection I made, and it was very clear, was not about the counting the cost of a missle, but doing so in a way which is patently bullshit. Eg, someone complainaing about blowing up a 10k truck with a 50k missle (and someone did do that), even though another one might concievably blow up a tank worth 200k (these are not real numbers) as well, so simply looking at these things on a line by line financial basis doesn't make sense without looking at the whole picture, and the whole picture also includes the non financial context
In any case this is a bit of a red herring, as you're still not arguing on a cost benefit way either, though you are trying to present it that way, you are just arguing that no one should ever do anything in these situations because it is not consistently applied.
Why not just say that, instead of pretending it is about cost/benefit analysis? That's logically coherent, perhaps more so than those arguing occasional intervention. Muddling yourself up by introducing a suggestion it might be ok if the costs were different just confuses your message.
Am I to believe if we didn't face a cost of living crisis and if we had stayed in Afghanistan you'd support Ukrainian intervention? Come on, that't not believable.
Japan has taken a look at what’s happened in Ukraine, conducted a CBA, and has doubled its defence budget overnight. Rishi’s a bit slow off the mark.
Comments
Golden shoe sounds...stupid.
Say this will definitely go to penalties.
I'm certainly not saying the health service did nothing, and many health workers were heroic.
I'd agree that one of the big negatives of not locking down at all could have been the negative health impacts of an overrun NHS. Though as we saw, the modelling used to predict that was at best questionable.
Also worth noting lockdown is not binary. I don't think I'd argue that life should have carried on totally unchanged. I'd argue that lockdown was too much, not - really - that nothing at all should have happened.
It wasn't a contest for 80 minutes either.
But it's just like "FIFA World Cup" - only people who are paid to talk about actually call it that.
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1604531272226832387
I appreciate it would have been better for the pandemic not to have happened, and I think we have learned lessons for any similar future event. Covid did happen though, and did loads of damage.
Funny game, football. Turns out the only way to enjoy it is not to care about it.
- stops you getting pretty much any job
- can mean your children get taken into care.
...seems to have passed everyone by. Much like the police threatened use of anti-social neighbour orders against the... parents in Rotherham.
"Shut up, or we will claim you are racists and have you evicted from your council house."
This was done to several parents in Rotherham, to keep the lid on.
“The award for the World Cup's top goalscorer was first given out in 1982, under the name Golden Shoe. It was renamed Golden Boot in 2010. FIFA has since retroactively applied the title of top goalscorer to the tournaments that took place prior to 1982”
So it *is* the Boot! But weirdly, used to be the Shoe.
They were the best team.
Entertaining game of football, though!
Dominated for the vast majority of the match.
*stary face emoji*
????
That was stunning sporting drama. On the biggest stage in world sport. Phenomenal
And it had the perfect ending. A cruel French defeat
Though as a neutral my favourite game of football ever is Liverpool 5 - 4 Alaves after golden goal extra time, UEFA Cup Final 2001.
DJ Tim Westwood will perform a huge Christmas gig in Lagos
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11551499/Shamed-DJ-Tim-Westwood-perform-huge-Christmas-gig-Lagos.html
Why should Twitter - privately owned - host people who are actively trying to bring down Twitter by promoting alternatives, and doing it on Twitter?
Let's say you own a pub. Are you morally obliged to let people into your pub who just stand there chanting "this pub is shit, and the owner is a freak, go to the Dog and Duck, we've got free doughnuts"?
No, you are not obliged to do that. And Musk is entitled to kick the Mastodon weirdos off the forum he owns
Stockport’s current away kit is v similar to Argentina’s sky-blue and white stripes, funnily enough.
Whether its wise or not is a secondary matter.
I am pretty sure other social media outlets have in the past (and present) have had policies about links to other social media and services e.g. pretty sure any mentions of an OnlyFans will get you the ban hammer from Instagram, SnapChat etc.
I believe Twitch are also very controlling of what you can and can't link to.
And yes the hypocrisy is off the dial. I see that the Queen of Cancellers, Taylor Lorenz, who loves to get people abolished, is now calling out "cancel culture" as she has now herself been cancelled by Musk. What a palaver of absurdity
Of course Musk can do this if he wants- that's the joy of owning a company. Whether it's entirely wise (Sir) is another matter.
A chacun ses souvenirs.
If he has a plan beyond that, now that's a different question. The US / EU won't let him make a WeChat even if its a good business idea, doable and could make a lot of money.
This is like Germans complaining about British bombers over Hamburg
There is no way its going to hold that people can't post links to Facebook, Instagram, Linktr. I predict its another stunt that will be reversed.
Rishi’s a bit slow off the mark.