Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Whose Free Speech? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,889
edited May 2023 in General
imageWhose Free Speech? – politicalbetting.com

Now that the legal stand-off between Ms Cherry and The Stand has been resolved with the latter accepting that it had unlawfully discriminated and reinstating the event, it is worth considering what this issue tells us about attitudes to free speech and Equality Act rights.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,631
    FPT: On topic, more or less: In the US, enterprises such as Twitter and Facebook are legally neither publishers, nor common carriers. If they were publishers, then they would control the content -- and be responsible for it, legally. If they were common carriers, they would not control or be responsible for it.

    Now they partially control it, and are partially responsible for the content. Which is unsatisfactory, for many reasons.

    But if there is a practical solution to this problem, that preserves freedom of speech, I haven't found it.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,577
    "... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."

    It's not just any old belief, though, is it?

    According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,631
    Cyclefree - Well said, as usual. Nat Hentoff's book title describes the problem, succinctly: "Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,704
    edited May 2023
    FPT:

    glw said:

    It’s not malevolence. They - the ones I’ve met - aren’t thinking that way.

    The way they see it, they have an obligation to protect society etc. Technology must follow the law.

    It comes from a generalist manager/lawyer view of the world.

    I’ve tried convincing such people that there is no such technical solution. Their response is to say I am ignorant - a solution *must* be found.

    Isn't the thing they want now client-side monitoring? So that they don't need to try and subvert the encryption, but they have a "bug" in every app. What they don't seem to grasp is once places like the UK make such laws many other countries will follow, afterall the legality and means will have been established. In many countries it won't be scanning images for child exploitation, it will be scanning for dangerous talk, like "democracy", "civil rights", "trade unions", "abortion" and so on.
    How are they going to stop someone using their own XMPP server and an open source client?

    Possibly routed via a VPN server, just for added paranoia.


    Asking for a friend.
    They won't, they want a dragnet for the 99% of users who have neither the ability of inclination to bypass the government's mass surveillance. They know that the real bad guys, and good guys with reason to be wary, will find ways round these measures.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,457
    Nice article, @Cyclefree!
  • Options
    TresTres Posts: 2,389

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Southampton's season gonna be a nice precursor to next years general election result.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,715
    Brilliant article. I agree with every word of it.

    And I just know you were thinking of that magnificent speech from A Man for All Seasons when you wrote your last sentence :smile:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 29,879
    Chris said:

    "... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."

    It's not just any old belief, though, is it?

    According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."

    Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341
    edited May 2023
    As noted at the time the statement from The Stand reversing their decision was hilariously disingenuous. Apparently we're to believe they had zero idea it might amount to unlawful discrimination and of course would not dream of doing such a thing.

    Rather than I would suggest a more plausible explanation that they would be very happy to discriminate in order to please their staff, but had no choice but to back down in the face of legal threats. It's pretty clear that legal action is often necessary to see rights enforced - and that should be no surprise, since plenty of people had to fight very hard to get the rights acknowledged in the first place.

    I don't think the idea of not bowing to those who are offended has been entirely or even nearly defeated, certainly not with the Rushdie example. People still blame him for the reactions to to his (awful) book. 'Free speech for me but not for thee' as cyclefree puts it is pretty popular I imagine. Heckler's veto is powerful.

    We all need to be more robust than to claim to suffer harm from hearing things we don't like. It's childish to do otherwise.

    The conclusion is a variant of a famous quote, but I cannot recall where the original is located.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341

    FPT: On topic, more or less: In the US, enterprises such as Twitter and Facebook are legally neither publishers, nor common carriers. If they were publishers, then they would control the content -- and be responsible for it, legally. If they were common carriers, they would not control or be responsible for it.

    Now they partially control it, and are partially responsible for the content. Which is unsatisfactory, for many reasons.

    But if there is a practical solution to this problem, that preserves freedom of speech, I haven't found it.

    I was watching a LegalEagle video on this issue and had not been aware of some very early internet issues around the issue of publication, and the effect of doing moderation in determining under the law at the time a level of responsibility. It was a thornier issue than would be convenient.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,577
    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    "... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."

    It's not just any old belief, though, is it?

    According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."

    Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
    Obviously.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    edited May 2023
    “The Court’s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterising a “democratic society”. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.” [Emphasis added]
    Does it follow from this that, say, a church hall that made itself available for organisations to hire for public events would be obligated to accept a booking from an organisation that wanted to hold a public meeting to advocate for greater access to abortion? Or that a temperance hall that rented itself out as an event space would be obliged to accept a booking from an alcohol drinks trade body? Trade Union conference centre and a booking for the BNP conference?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,910
    Vaguely on topic.
    Erdogan is now beholden to the very far Right for his political survival. Both Presidentially, and for a Parliamentary majority.
    This is possibly the worst result conceivable. Hey ho. The people know best.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341
    dixiedean said:

    Vaguely on topic.
    Erdogan is now beholden to the very far Right for his political survival. Both Presidentially, and for a Parliamentary majority.
    This is possibly the worst result conceivable. Hey ho. The people know best.

    If he is just below 50% he can refute allegations of rigging though, even if he did lean on the scales, and getting so close could mean even if the opposition legitimately won a run off he could call it suspicious even without going all Zimbabwe on it.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,910

    “The Court’s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterising a “democratic society”. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.” [Emphasis added]
    Does it follow from this that, say, a church hall that made itself available for organisations to hire for public events would be obligated to accept a booking from an organisation that wanted to hold a public meeting to advocate for greater access to abortion? Or that a temperance hall that rented itself out as an event space would be obliged to accept a booking from an alcohol drinks trade body? Trade Union conference centre and a booking for the BNP conference?
    Or a Church for a Satanist ritual. Or Muslim prayer?
    It's always presented as easy and straightforward. But rights often conflict. That's why "free speech absolutists" find themselves in knots quickly.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,319
    edited May 2023
    Although I think the Stand did the right thing, I'm not completely convinced the legal case against the Stand is so clear cut. I realise it's presumptuous of a non lawyer like me to challenge you on this.

    I don't think the fact the Stand issued an apology is a statement of the law. It could just be that they don't want to go through with the expense and disruption of one or more court cases. I don't think it's a human rights case as there is AFAIK no state actor involved. It's a dispute between a private club and a private individual. The case you referred to was the police shutting down a publication on an interpretation of the criminal law.

    There could be a case of discrimination but I don't think this is absolute. In the hypothetical case where Cherry turned out to be a holocaust denier, the Club would have reasonable grounds to cancel the show.

    Cutting to the chase, I think Cherry would have to prove the Stand was arbitrary and unreasonable in shutting down the show and therefore had discriminated against her.

    I may be completely wrong of course.

    Should add there may have been a breach of contract, but that's a different legal point, I think.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,910
    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Vaguely on topic.
    Erdogan is now beholden to the very far Right for his political survival. Both Presidentially, and for a Parliamentary majority.
    This is possibly the worst result conceivable. Hey ho. The people know best.

    If he is just below 50% he can refute allegations of rigging though, even if he did lean on the scales, and getting so close could mean even if the opposition legitimately won a run off he could call it suspicious even without going all Zimbabwe on it.
    But he'll need the outright backing of the very far Right to pull that off.
    Wouldn't like to be a Kurd or queer in Turkey just now.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,910

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031

    Brilliant article. I agree with every word of it.

    And I just know you were thinking of that magnificent speech from A Man for All Seasons when you wrote your last sentence :smile:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA

    Agree on the article.

    The real Thomas Moore was into bending the law when it came to heretics. One, for example, was found not guilty of heresy. "To save the bishop's credit", Moor had him illegally detained and er... influenced to try and get a confession.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031
    glw said:

    FPT:

    glw said:

    It’s not malevolence. They - the ones I’ve met - aren’t thinking that way.

    The way they see it, they have an obligation to protect society etc. Technology must follow the law.

    It comes from a generalist manager/lawyer view of the world.

    I’ve tried convincing such people that there is no such technical solution. Their response is to say I am ignorant - a solution *must* be found.

    Isn't the thing they want now client-side monitoring? So that they don't need to try and subvert the encryption, but they have a "bug" in every app. What they don't seem to grasp is once places like the UK make such laws many other countries will follow, afterall the legality and means will have been established. In many countries it won't be scanning images for child exploitation, it will be scanning for dangerous talk, like "democracy", "civil rights", "trade unions", "abortion" and so on.
    How are they going to stop someone using their own XMPP server and an open source client?

    Possibly routed via a VPN server, just for added paranoia.


    Asking for a friend.
    They won't, they want a dragnet for the 99% of users who have neither the ability of inclination to bypass the government's mass surveillance. They know that the real bad guys, and good guys with reason to be wary, will find ways round these measures.
    There is already law on the books that if you refuse to allow access to electronic data by not providing the right password, you can be prosecuted.

    Yes, if you have forgotten the password, good luck in court.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574
    Very disappointing results from Turkey .

    The opposition needed to win in the first round and have also failed to take the majority in parliament .

    I expect Erdogan to offer even more election sweeteners in the next two weeks . He’s also likely to make the case that if he’s not elected President there will be grid lock in parliament .

    The spoiler candidate Ogan whose on around 5% could go either way if he decides to throw his weight behind either candidate .

    He voted no in the constitutional referendum in 2017 and wants a return to parliament regaining powers which they essentially lost in 2017 but is an ultra - nationalist .

    Even if he throws his weight behind the opposition it’s still going to be difficult to see anything other than an Erdogan win.

    What you have in Turkey at the moment is a free but not fair election . The media is overwhelmingly pro Erdogan , the vote count does have rigorous safeguards for the timebeing .
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,638
    edited May 2023
    dixiedean said:

    “The Court’s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterising a “democratic society”. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.” [Emphasis added]
    Does it follow from this that, say, a church hall that made itself available for organisations to hire for public events would be obligated to accept a booking from an organisation that wanted to hold a public meeting to advocate for greater access to abortion? Or that a temperance hall that rented itself out as an event space would be obliged to accept a booking from an alcohol drinks trade body? Trade Union conference centre and a booking for the BNP conference?
    Or a Church for a Satanist ritual. Or Muslim prayer?
    It's always presented as easy and straightforward. But rights often conflict. That's why "free speech absolutists" find themselves in knots quickly.
    The Asher’s Bakery case established, pretty much, that equality law does not require people, societies, or companies to promote beliefs that are in conflict with their own.

    In effect, you can discriminate against beliefs, but not against people, on the grounds of religious or philosophical belief, or other protected characteristics.

    Obviously, that’s a fine distinction.

    What probably undermined the Stand’s case was that the basis for cancelling the Show was *not* because they objected to providing a platform for beliefs they disagreed with. It was simply a capitulation to staff and activists.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    edited May 2023

    Brilliant article. I agree with every word of it.

    And I just know you were thinking of that magnificent speech from A Man for All Seasons when you wrote your last sentence :smile:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA

    Agree on the article.

    The real Thomas Moore was into bending the law when it came to heretics. One, for example, was found not guilty of heresy. "To save the bishop's credit", Moor had him illegally detained and er... influenced to try and get a confession.
    I’m with you Malmsy. I don’t like the real Thomas Moor one bit. A Man For All Seasons is ludicrous fantasy land, unwatchable spin. I’m on the side of the protest that chopped his head off.

    Comparison with those times does fit in well with this header though, I do agree.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341
    FF43 said:

    Although I think the Stand did the right thing, I'm not completely convinced the legal case against the Stand is so clear cut. I realise it's presumptuous of a non lawyer like me to challenge you on this.

    I don't think the fact the Stand issued an apology is a statement of the law. It could just be that they don't want to go through with the expense and disruption of one or more court cases. I don't think it's a human rights case as there is AFAIK no state actor involved. It's a dispute between a private club and a private individual. The case you referred to was the police shutting down a publication on an interpretation of the criminal law.

    There could be a case of discrimination but I don't think this is absolute. In the hypothetical case where Cherry turned out to be a holocaust denier, the Club would have reasonable grounds to cancel the show.

    Cutting to the chase, I think Cherry would have to prove the Stand was arbitrary and unreasonable in shutting down the show and therefore had discriminated against her.

    I may be completely wrong of course.

    Should add there may have been a breach of contract, but that's a different legal point, I think.

    There is something in what you say, however the point that The Stand stated they had taken legal advice and accepted its initial decision was unlawful discrimination, does suggest that at the least they thought it was fairly clear cut - they could have simply reinstated the event and apologised without being so blunt about whether it did indeed constitute unlawful discrimination. The sort of half or non apology people make all the time.

    The comedy club which cancelled a Fringe show by SNP MP Joanna Cherry has reinstated the event.

    The Stand had cancelled the show after staff said they were not comfortable with her views on transgender issues. But the venue has now said the decision was "unfair and constituted unlawful discrimination against Ms Cherry"...

    The Stand said it had taken legal advice and now accepted it had got its original decision wrong.


    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65575748

    Now, their own lawyers might be wrong about how clear cut it was. But the totality of the apology as their actions being legally wrong is pretty telling, when grovelling apologies without accepting legal wrongdoing or liability are fairly common.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,293
    Why are people already drawing conclusions from the Turkish vote?

    The Supreme election count head stated 20 minutes ago that only 69% of the votes have been counted. The way some people are speaking on here you'd think it was all done and dusted.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341
    edited May 2023

    Brilliant article. I agree with every word of it.

    And I just know you were thinking of that magnificent speech from A Man for All Seasons when you wrote your last sentence :smile:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA

    Agree on the article.

    The real Thomas Moore was into bending the law when it came to heretics. One, for example, was found not guilty of heresy. "To save the bishop's credit", Moor had him illegally detained and er... influenced to try and get a confession.
    Real people are always such a disappointment. I've always loved William Lenthall's "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me" quote to Charles I, but it turns out he then was more than happy to squeal on what some Members had said in the House at their trials for Regicide.

    In fairness they were febrile times and he probably needed to watch his back.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341
    edited May 2023

    Why are people already drawing conclusions from the Turkish vote?

    The Supreme election count head stated 20 minutes ago that only 69% of the votes have been counted. The way some people are speaking on here you'd think it was all done and dusted.

    Well, at best it's not a thumping defeat for Erdogan and he still has a shot in a run off, especially if things get nasty, at worst he's so close to having won it it's a dead cert.

    So there's still the possibility he loses whilst still being disappointed (not that KK is a saint, necessarily).

    Besides, if we waited before drawing conclusions much excited and silly speculation would be lost.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,002
    This subject -free speech - is one that I think a lot about. The threats to it come from many directions.
    I think the most underestimated barrier to free speech is actually laws on harassment.
    This was an article written by 'Professor Tanya Byron' in the Sunday Times, in response to someone asking for advice on what to do about a dispute with a 'verbally abusive' neighbour.


    "To understand the severity of the impact of this situation, it has to be named for what it is: harassment, which is to say, any behaviour or action that threatens a sense of security, and/or causes significant problems and elevated stress. Examples include threats to damage or actual damage of property and possessions, and — as you have experienced — any form of written abuse and also abusive and/or insulting behaviour or words.
    Harassment, a criminal offence, occurs if there has been a “course of conduct”, ie two or more related occurrences that have happened close together. Harassing behaviour does not necessarily have to be physical — you have experienced verbal aggression. Behaviours constitute harassment depending on their impact on the target, ie if they feel oppressed, alarmed or distressed. Your diminished mental health and physical wellbeing indicate that this has occurred. The “reasonable person” test would also be applied: would any reasonable person have also been alarmed or distressed by the behaviour? I suspect any reasonable person would.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-neighbour-is-verbally-abusive-and-it-s-making-me-ill-qxxpmbw7x

    The suggestion here seems to be if you get offended at anything (ie: if someone says something to you that makes you feel oppressed, alarmed or distressed) the solution is to call the police and report it as harassment.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,319
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    Although I think the Stand did the right thing, I'm not completely convinced the legal case against the Stand is so clear cut. I realise it's presumptuous of a non lawyer like me to challenge you on this.

    I don't think the fact the Stand issued an apology is a statement of the law. It could just be that they don't want to go through with the expense and disruption of one or more court cases. I don't think it's a human rights case as there is AFAIK no state actor involved. It's a dispute between a private club and a private individual. The case you referred to was the police shutting down a publication on an interpretation of the criminal law.

    There could be a case of discrimination but I don't think this is absolute. In the hypothetical case where Cherry turned out to be a holocaust denier, the Club would have reasonable grounds to cancel the show.

    Cutting to the chase, I think Cherry would have to prove the Stand was arbitrary and unreasonable in shutting down the show and therefore had discriminated against her.

    I may be completely wrong of course.

    Should add there may have been a breach of contract, but that's a different legal point, I think.

    There is something in what you say, however the point that The Stand stated they had taken legal advice and accepted its initial decision was unlawful discrimination, does suggest that at the least they thought it was fairly clear cut - they could have simply reinstated the event and apologised without being so blunt about whether it did indeed constitute unlawful discrimination. The sort of half or non apology people make all the time.

    The comedy club which cancelled a Fringe show by SNP MP Joanna Cherry has reinstated the event.

    The Stand had cancelled the show after staff said they were not comfortable with her views on transgender issues. But the venue has now said the decision was "unfair and constituted unlawful discrimination against Ms Cherry"...

    The Stand said it had taken legal advice and now accepted it had got its original decision wrong.


    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65575748

    Now, their own lawyers might be wrong about how clear cut it was. But the totality of the apology as their actions being legally wrong is pretty telling, when grovelling apologies without accepting legal wrongdoing or liability are fairly common.
    The case I can think of that's closest is the Asher cake case, which ultimately failed in the Supreme Court. A bakery in Belfast refused to bake a cake for a gay couple with the message "support gay marriage". The Supreme Court determined it wasn't discrimination because the bakery's objection was with the message, not with gay people as such. The lower Appeal Court had decided otherwise. If this case is relevant, I'm not sure Cherry would win her suit. Equally I could see why the Stand would decide they didn't want to go through all of that, particularly if they had second thoughts about their original decision anyway. (By the way they were right to change their mind, leaving aside the legal considerations).
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 29,879
    Could anyone explain what's going on as far as the Thai election is concerned?
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    Andy_JS said:

    Could anyone explain what's going on as far as the Thai election is concerned?

    Is it a choice between the red one and the green one? Is usually is for me.
  • Options
    ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,260
    Coming to the conclusion that the UK is cooked. I'm fortunate to have done well in my early career, but London rents are getting ridiculous, to the point that I know three people paying £42k/yr for a bang average place in Tooting(!).

    We then figured out that one of them was paying a marginal tax rate of 67% on every penny over £50k. (13.8% Employers NI on total - then 40% tax, 2% NI, 9% Undergrad tax, 6% Masters tax, 5% mandatory pension contribution).

    Brutally high rents combined with crippling tax rates and public services that effectively just don't exist...

    Every party bar Labour have an electoral incentive to not give the Housing theory of everything a look, and Labour are split down the middle in terms of who gets it and who doesn't. Personally I'm going through the steps with work to go fully remote abroad, and Barcelona seems nice, rent half the price, marginal tax rate on the nomad scheme only 1/3rd of what I pay here.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    It’s bizarre to say the least for Labour to go down this road . Votes for 16 and 17 year olds is less controversial, the proposal would be though for all residents to have the vote so basically those from the EU and the rest of the world , commonwealth citizens already have the vote although I doubt many Brits realize this . The right wing papers have gone down the EU nationals route so basically continuing where they left off during the ref campaign , more despicable scapegoating .

    I think an issue with this possible proposal is it risks causing a lot of divisiveness and blowback against EU nationals. The right wing will go into overdrive .

    I personally have no problem with EU nationals voting in general elections but think this policy proposal if it happens could damage Labours chances in 2024 .

    Starmer has a responsibility not to offer up own goals to the Tories and should be avoiding missteps . It would be unforgivable to subject us to 5 more years of this cesspit government !
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341
    Was watching Youtube and in a video about largest cities in history it was claimed there is evidence there were several very large (for the time) cities in what is now Ukraine around 3-4000 BCE. I had never heard of such, fascinating if true.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    nico679 said:

    Very disappointing results from Turkey .

    The opposition needed to win in the first round and have also failed to take the majority in parliament .

    I expect Erdogan to offer even more election sweeteners in the next two weeks . He’s also likely to make the case that if he’s not elected President there will be grid lock in parliament .

    The spoiler candidate Ogan whose on around 5% could go either way if he decides to throw his weight behind either candidate .

    He voted no in the constitutional referendum in 2017 and wants a return to parliament regaining powers which they essentially lost in 2017 but is an ultra - nationalist .

    Even if he throws his weight behind the opposition it’s still going to be difficult to see anything other than an Erdogan win.

    What you have in Turkey at the moment is a free but not fair election . The media is overwhelmingly pro Erdogan , the vote count does have rigorous safeguards for the timebeing .

    If someone is an ultra nationalist, does that equate to right wing. Turkey as an example, surely Ataturk was ultra nationalist,
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,031
    kle4 said:

    Why are people already drawing conclusions from the Turkish vote?

    The Supreme election count head stated 20 minutes ago that only 69% of the votes have been counted. The way some people are speaking on here you'd think it was all done and dusted.

    Well, at best it's not a thumping defeat for Erdogan and he still has a shot in a run off, especially if things get nasty, at worst he's so close to having won it it's a dead cert.

    So there's still the possibility he loses whilst still being disappointed (not that KK is a saint, necessarily).

    Besides, if we waited before drawing conclusions much excited and silly speculation would be lost.
    Guess we will see. If he is really <50% with the votes to go opposition votes because he has challenged to delay their counting - seems plausible opposition could be ahead? Maybe even win outright... just feels very hard to know.

    Definitely Erdogan at 1.3 doesn't look value to me.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,293
    Hmmm

    Following the BBC feed:

    22:49 - Head of the Supreme Election Council states 69% of votes have been counted

    23:22 - More than 95% of ballot boxes have now been counted.

    Have they suddenly got a move on in the last half hour? It could be the BBC reporting tool is not always on time.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 29,879
    "Braverman: Britons will forget how to work" - The Times.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    She didn't used to score well in ConHome's Cabinet League Table series, being below such titans as Therese Coffey, Mel Stride and Victoria Prentis (no, me neither). But now she is near the top.

    Rishi had recovered quite a bit by April, but I expect he'll be plummeting back toward the bottom again.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341
    Andy_JS said:

    Could anyone explain what's going on as far as the Thai election is concerned?

    Looks like the military supporting side will have to loosen the strings again, until they feel whoever is PM is getting too big for their boots and stage a coup once more in about 4-5 years.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,031
    Yeah what the hell - I reckon Erdogan has lost this. Very uncertain, but have punted £15 he loses.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,304

    Hmmm

    Following the BBC feed:

    22:49 - Head of the Supreme Election Council states 69% of votes have been counted

    23:22 - More than 95% of ballot boxes have now been counted.

    Have they suddenly got a move on in the last half hour? It could be the BBC reporting tool is not always on time.

    Someone on my twitter says that "ballot boxes have been opened" is inaccurately being interpreted as "ballots in the ballot boxes have been counted".
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574

    Hmmm

    Following the BBC feed:

    22:49 - Head of the Supreme Election Council states 69% of votes have been counted

    23:22 - More than 95% of ballot boxes have now been counted.

    Have they suddenly got a move on in the last half hour? It could be the BBC reporting tool is not always on time.

    The Council effectively certifies the count , but the counting takes place before that and those results are released by each counting centre . Then those official counts get sent to the council who then upload them . That’s why they’re a bit slower .
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,031

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    Yeah reckon you could be right. If she resigns does it bring Sunak down? He must have been worried about her to keep her in the cabinet.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,002
    Chameleon said:

    Coming to the conclusion that the UK is cooked. I'm fortunate to have done well in my early career, but London rents are getting ridiculous, to the point that I know three people paying £42k/yr for a bang average place in Tooting(!).

    We then figured out that one of them was paying a marginal tax rate of 67% on every penny over £50k. (13.8% Employers NI on total - then 40% tax, 2% NI, 9% Undergrad tax, 6% Masters tax, 5% mandatory pension contribution).

    Brutally high rents combined with crippling tax rates and public services that effectively just don't exist...

    Every party bar Labour have an electoral incentive to not give the Housing theory of everything a look, and Labour are split down the middle in terms of who gets it and who doesn't. Personally I'm going through the steps with work to go fully remote abroad, and Barcelona seems nice, rent half the price, marginal tax rate on the nomad scheme only 1/3rd of what I pay here.

    London is a great place to live whilst you are starting out in your career, but difficult to make work over the long term because of the cost of housing.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,079
    edited May 2023

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to get to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342
    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.
    Pagan2 said:

    WillG said:

    Cookie said:

    Fully agree that this is bad.

  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    FPT: On topic, more or less: In the US, enterprises such as Twitter and Facebook are legally neither publishers, nor common carriers. If they were publishers, then they would control the content -- and be responsible for it, legally. If they were common carriers, they would not control or be responsible for it.

    Now they partially control it, and are partially responsible for the content. Which is unsatisfactory, for many reasons.

    But if there is a practical solution to this problem, that preserves freedom of speech, I haven't found it.

    You force them to choose one or the other.

    Either they have algorithms that control what people see - and allow them to monetise that - in which case they have to accept responsibility for their actions.

    Or they don’t.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031

    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.

    What's your solution?

    Protocols vs Apps already exist. People don't want to use them.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
    I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆

    32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?

    You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.

    You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆

    Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,551
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to get to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
    That was before Badenoch blotted her copybook by accepting reality on the Brexit Law Shredder thing. There is an opportunity to take the Faithful True Brexiteer mantle. However, there are two other problems for Braverman.

    First is boats (unstopped). But the bigger one is that she would make Liz Truss look like a paragon of strong and stable leadership.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.

    What's your solution?

    Protocols vs Apps already exist. People don't want to use them.
    That’s why we have politicians…

    I would tend to say that they have to choose between being publishers and common carriers. At the moment - like many US tech firms - they are exploiting loopholes in regulation. They are acting as publishers - and monetising - but disclaiming any responsibility for their actions… because…
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,079

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
    I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆

    32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?

    You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.

    You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆

    Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
    No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,031

    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.

    What's your solution?

    Protocols vs Apps already exist. People don't want to use them.
    That’s why we have politicians…

    I would tend to say that they have to choose between being publishers and common carriers. At the moment - like many US tech firms - they are exploiting loopholes in regulation. They are acting as publishers - and monetising - but disclaiming any responsibility for their actions… because…
    They have legal obligations to remove some materials. If they are to act as pure common carriers, then what about those legal obligation?

    The end result of your suggested change would be that nearly all group speech, online, would be shut down. This blog would be considered published - since there is moderation. So no more PB.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    edited May 2023
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
    I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆

    32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?

    You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.

    You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆

    Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
    No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
    That’s what you most want isn’t it? But not wanting Braverman as leader doesn’t make her disappear. For example, if on the hustings she says, we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - will any of the three you mentioned challenge that, instantly flashing up a huge gulf of difference between Braverman and themselves? Braverman and her supporters bring the differentials into the coming leadership election, this is what gets her into the last two, and with these differentials she beats all three of your suggestions easily in Phase 2 doesn’t she?

    Are you taking into account how the MP phase can change dramatically from the last one after 100 seat losses?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 29,879
    darkage said:

    Chameleon said:

    Coming to the conclusion that the UK is cooked. I'm fortunate to have done well in my early career, but London rents are getting ridiculous, to the point that I know three people paying £42k/yr for a bang average place in Tooting(!).

    We then figured out that one of them was paying a marginal tax rate of 67% on every penny over £50k. (13.8% Employers NI on total - then 40% tax, 2% NI, 9% Undergrad tax, 6% Masters tax, 5% mandatory pension contribution).

    Brutally high rents combined with crippling tax rates and public services that effectively just don't exist...

    Every party bar Labour have an electoral incentive to not give the Housing theory of everything a look, and Labour are split down the middle in terms of who gets it and who doesn't. Personally I'm going through the steps with work to go fully remote abroad, and Barcelona seems nice, rent half the price, marginal tax rate on the nomad scheme only 1/3rd of what I pay here.

    London is a great place to live whilst you are starting out in your career, but difficult to make work over the long term because of the cost of housing.
    London is always going to be an expensive place to live because most the world's population would buy a property there if they could afford to. (It was fairly cheap in the 1970s because London wasn't regarded as a particularly attractive place to live at that time).
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,612
    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    She didn't used to score well in ConHome's Cabinet League Table series, being below such titans as Therese Coffey, Mel Stride and Victoria Prentis (no, me neither). But now she is near the top.

    Rishi had recovered quite a bit by April, but I expect he'll be plummeting back toward the bottom again.
    Braverman has the genuine advantage of being underestimated, and not in a Liz Truss way.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
    I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆

    32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?

    You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.

    You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆

    Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
    No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
    That’s what you most want isn’t it? But not wanting Braverman as leader doesn’t make her disappear. For example, if on the hustings she says, we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - will any of the three you mentioned challenge that, instantly flashing up a huge gulf of difference between Braverman and themselves? Braverman and her supporters bring the differentials into the coming leadership election, this is what gets her into the last two, and with these differentials she beats all three of your suggestions easily in Phase 2 doesn’t she?

    Are you taking into account how the MP phase can change dramatically from the last one after 100 seat losses?
    Portsmouth North falls on a 17% swing. Very much the same as Portillo 97.

    Were you up for Penny? As the historians will write it.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342
    Farooq said:

    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.

    What's your solution?

    Protocols vs Apps already exist. People don't want to use them.
    That’s why we have politicians…

    I would tend to say that they have to choose between being publishers and common carriers. At the moment - like many US tech firms - they are exploiting loopholes in regulation. They are acting as publishers - and monetising - but disclaiming any responsibility for their actions… because…
    Why do they have to choose between these two? Can't social media be thought of as a separate category from both?
    Certainly it shares some characteristics with each, but there's a sensible position to be held that social media is a new category of media. I don't immediately see a strong reason to dismiss such an argument.
    At the moment the CEO of a private company gets to select what you see in your newsfeed. He gets to directly influence the way you see and interact with the world (while Murdoch only had indirect influence through editorials and news selection).

    I think that I’d a very dangerous power and one that should be subject to democratic oversight. Regardless of whether it is Musk or Zuckerberg or Gates or Bell pulling the strings
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.

    What's your solution?

    Protocols vs Apps already exist. People don't want to use them.
    That’s why we have politicians…

    I would tend to say that they have to choose between being publishers and common carriers. At the moment - like many US tech firms - they are exploiting loopholes in regulation. They are acting as publishers - and monetising - but disclaiming any responsibility for their actions… because…
    They have legal obligations to remove some materials. If they are to act as pure common carriers, then what about those legal obligation?

    The end result of your suggested change would be that nearly all group speech, online, would be shut down. This blog would be considered published - since there is moderation. So no more PB.
    I’m not an expert on precisely how to regulate. It’s a point of principle. They have great power that should be subject to democratic oversight.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    Lionsgate+ has confirmed a release date in the UK for the third season of historical satire The Great.
    New episodes will stream every Friday from 14th July,

    Huzzah!
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,304

    Farooq said:

    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.

    What's your solution?

    Protocols vs Apps already exist. People don't want to use them.
    That’s why we have politicians…

    I would tend to say that they have to choose between being publishers and common carriers. At the moment - like many US tech firms - they are exploiting loopholes in regulation. They are acting as publishers - and monetising - but disclaiming any responsibility for their actions… because…
    Why do they have to choose between these two? Can't social media be thought of as a separate category from both?
    Certainly it shares some characteristics with each, but there's a sensible position to be held that social media is a new category of media. I don't immediately see a strong reason to dismiss such an argument.
    At the moment the CEO of a private company gets to select what you see in your newsfeed. He gets to directly influence the way you see and interact with the world (while Murdoch only had indirect influence through editorials and news selection).

    I think that I’d a very dangerous power and one that should be subject to democratic oversight. Regardless of whether it is Musk or Zuckerberg or Gates or Bell pulling the strings
    Democratic oversight would make the problem worse, because when the adversary is a rich person you can use a different platform that they don't own, whereas when the adversary is the government they can attack all the platforms you could use.

    If you don't like Twitter, use something else.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,304

    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.

    What's your solution?

    Protocols vs Apps already exist. People don't want to use them.
    The right way to build this stuff is that apps use an open protocol, so people can still mainly interface with apps, but they don't have a lock-in effect if and when they go bad. Building stuff this way is much harder than building centralized apps that control their data, but we'll get there: It's way easier now than it was even a few years ago.

    Mastodon sucks in various ways but it basically works and built a decent network effect. I haven't tried Bluesky yet but it looks like it will work. We basically know how to do this, it just involves solving lots of annoying little problems, which takes time.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    She didn't used to score well in ConHome's Cabinet League Table series, being below such titans as Therese Coffey, Mel Stride and Victoria Prentis (no, me neither). But now she is near the top.

    Rishi had recovered quite a bit by April, but I expect he'll be plummeting back toward the bottom again.
    Braverman has the genuine advantage of being underestimated, and not in a Liz Truss way.
    She’s painting a picture, for activists and MPs, that she is leading the fight against the bar stewards in cabinet, Hunt, Keegan, Rishi, who want to keep immigration high. They will deny it of course, but their actions, or inactions, on what’s needed to be tough on the causes of migration, speak for themselves.

    She has influential friends on back benches, but also in media - the telegraph prints whatever she asks it to. They don’t even check if it’s true “I gave the police who took the golliwogs away from the pub a right earful.”
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    Farooq said:

    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.

    What's your solution?

    Protocols vs Apps already exist. People don't want to use them.
    That’s why we have politicians…

    I would tend to say that they have to choose between being publishers and common carriers. At the moment - like many US tech firms - they are exploiting loopholes in regulation. They are acting as publishers - and monetising - but disclaiming any responsibility for their actions… because…
    Why do they have to choose between these two? Can't social media be thought of as a separate category from both?
    Certainly it shares some characteristics with each, but there's a sensible position to be held that social media is a new category of media. I don't immediately see a strong reason to dismiss such an argument.
    At the moment the CEO of a private company gets to select what you see in your newsfeed. He gets to directly influence the way you see and interact with the world (while Murdoch only had indirect influence through editorials and news selection).

    I think that I’d a very dangerous power and one that should be subject to democratic oversight. Regardless of whether it is Musk or Zuckerberg or Gates or Bell pulling the strings
    Democratic oversight would make the problem worse, because when the adversary is a rich person you can use a different platform that they don't own, whereas when the adversary is the government they can attack all the platforms you could use.

    If you don't like Twitter, use something else.
    The problem is that - as others noted - social media is a natural monopoly.

    Moreover, most people don't realise they are (or could be) being manipulated.

    These platforms are powerful and dangerous in the wrong hands.

  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,304

    Farooq said:

    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.

    What's your solution?

    Protocols vs Apps already exist. People don't want to use them.
    That’s why we have politicians…

    I would tend to say that they have to choose between being publishers and common carriers. At the moment - like many US tech firms - they are exploiting loopholes in regulation. They are acting as publishers - and monetising - but disclaiming any responsibility for their actions… because…
    Why do they have to choose between these two? Can't social media be thought of as a separate category from both?
    Certainly it shares some characteristics with each, but there's a sensible position to be held that social media is a new category of media. I don't immediately see a strong reason to dismiss such an argument.
    At the moment the CEO of a private company gets to select what you see in your newsfeed. He gets to directly influence the way you see and interact with the world (while Murdoch only had indirect influence through editorials and news selection).

    I think that I’d a very dangerous power and one that should be subject to democratic oversight. Regardless of whether it is Musk or Zuckerberg or Gates or Bell pulling the strings
    Democratic oversight would make the problem worse, because when the adversary is a rich person you can use a different platform that they don't own, whereas when the adversary is the government they can attack all the platforms you could use.

    If you don't like Twitter, use something else.
    The problem is that - as others noted - social media is a natural monopoly.

    Moreover, most people don't realise they are (or could be) being manipulated.

    These platforms are powerful and dangerous in the wrong hands.

    It's not a natural monopoly, it's really not. If it was we'd be talking to each other on MySpace. It has network effects, but that's not the same thing, and very common in business.

    There are loads of competing social media platforms and there's no sign of one displacing the others. Facebook and Instagram are owned by the same company but they had to do that with an acquisition, precisely because Facebook wasn't sufficiently protected by its network effects.

    People who were dissatisfied by Twitter were perfectly capable of leaving it. For instance Infosec Twitter moved en masse to Mastodon. Crypto Twitter stayed, that's because most people in that community aren't dissatisfied. Elon has destroyed my "For You" tab, but I just don't look at that, and he's also made a little mark that allows you to immediately filter out idiots, and somehow got the idiots to pay for the privilege.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,342

    Farooq said:

    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.

    What's your solution?

    Protocols vs Apps already exist. People don't want to use them.
    That’s why we have politicians…

    I would tend to say that they have to choose between being publishers and common carriers. At the moment - like many US tech firms - they are exploiting loopholes in regulation. They are acting as publishers - and monetising - but disclaiming any responsibility for their actions… because…
    Why do they have to choose between these two? Can't social media be thought of as a separate category from both?
    Certainly it shares some characteristics with each, but there's a sensible position to be held that social media is a new category of media. I don't immediately see a strong reason to dismiss such an argument.
    At the moment the CEO of a private company gets to select what you see in your newsfeed. He gets to directly influence the way you see and interact with the world (while Murdoch only had indirect influence through editorials and news selection).

    I think that I’d a very dangerous power and one that should be subject to democratic oversight. Regardless of whether it is Musk or Zuckerberg or Gates or Bell pulling the strings
    Democratic oversight would make the problem worse, because when the adversary is a rich person you can use a different platform that they don't own, whereas when the adversary is the government they can attack all the platforms you could use.

    If you don't like Twitter, use something else.
    The problem is that - as others noted - social media is a natural monopoly.

    Moreover, most people don't realise they are (or could be) being manipulated.

    These platforms are powerful and dangerous in the wrong hands.

    It's not a natural monopoly, it's really not. If it was we'd be talking to each other on MySpace. It has network effects, but that's not the same thing, and very common in business.

    There are loads of competing social media platforms and there's no sign of one displacing the others. Facebook and Instagram are owned by the same company but they had to do that with an acquisition, precisely because Facebook wasn't sufficiently protected by its network effects.

    People who were dissatisfied by Twitter were perfectly capable of leaving it. For instance Infosec Twitter moved en masse to Mastodon. Crypto Twitter stayed, that's because most people in that community aren't dissatisfied. Elon has destroyed my "For You" tab, but I just don't look at that, and he's also made a little mark that allows you to immediately filter out idiots, and somehow got the idiots to pay for the privilege.
    Tight groups of informed individuals maybe. The vast majority - no.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,304

    Farooq said:

    FPT

    I guess you are ok with Zuckerberg, Musk et al deciding who gets to see which tweets or posts and what goes viral and what doesn’t.

    In my view that gives way too much power to individuals who will likely have their own interests at heart

    Twitter is not *free* speech. It’s speech regulated by Musk. I think the community has a right to stop that.

    What's your solution?

    Protocols vs Apps already exist. People don't want to use them.
    That’s why we have politicians…

    I would tend to say that they have to choose between being publishers and common carriers. At the moment - like many US tech firms - they are exploiting loopholes in regulation. They are acting as publishers - and monetising - but disclaiming any responsibility for their actions… because…
    Why do they have to choose between these two? Can't social media be thought of as a separate category from both?
    Certainly it shares some characteristics with each, but there's a sensible position to be held that social media is a new category of media. I don't immediately see a strong reason to dismiss such an argument.
    At the moment the CEO of a private company gets to select what you see in your newsfeed. He gets to directly influence the way you see and interact with the world (while Murdoch only had indirect influence through editorials and news selection).

    I think that I’d a very dangerous power and one that should be subject to democratic oversight. Regardless of whether it is Musk or Zuckerberg or Gates or Bell pulling the strings
    Democratic oversight would make the problem worse, because when the adversary is a rich person you can use a different platform that they don't own, whereas when the adversary is the government they can attack all the platforms you could use.

    If you don't like Twitter, use something else.
    The problem is that - as others noted - social media is a natural monopoly.

    Moreover, most people don't realise they are (or could be) being manipulated.

    These platforms are powerful and dangerous in the wrong hands.

    It's not a natural monopoly, it's really not. If it was we'd be talking to each other on MySpace. It has network effects, but that's not the same thing, and very common in business.

    There are loads of competing social media platforms and there's no sign of one displacing the others. Facebook and Instagram are owned by the same company but they had to do that with an acquisition, precisely because Facebook wasn't sufficiently protected by its network effects.

    People who were dissatisfied by Twitter were perfectly capable of leaving it. For instance Infosec Twitter moved en masse to Mastodon. Crypto Twitter stayed, that's because most people in that community aren't dissatisfied. Elon has destroyed my "For You" tab, but I just don't look at that, and he's also made a little mark that allows you to immediately filter out idiots, and somehow got the idiots to pay for the privilege.
    Tight groups of informed individuals maybe. The vast majority - no.
    No, you don't need a tight group and you don't need them to be that well informed. If a few cool people move and everyone else is dissatisfied where they are, everybody else follows.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,393
    edited May 2023
    I am in Germany doing Porsche stuff and am elated to report that the Brexit Punishment Queue at Frankfurt T2 was 1km long. One glimpse of the golden clairseach on my passport saw me ushered through the speedy EU lane. #softpower #ifitisnthurtingitisntworking #ihrepapierenbitte

    On topic: I couldn't be arsed to read the header nor understand the wider contextual implications; should any exist.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,412
    FF43 said:

    Although I think the Stand did the right thing, I'm not completely convinced the legal case against the Stand is so clear cut. I realise it's presumptuous of a non lawyer like me to challenge you on this.

    I don't think the fact the Stand issued an apology is a statement of the law. It could just be that they don't want to go through with the expense and disruption of one or more court cases. I don't think it's a human rights case as there is AFAIK no state actor involved. It's a dispute between a private club and a private individual. The case you referred to was the police shutting down a publication on an interpretation of the criminal law.

    There could be a case of discrimination but I don't think this is absolute. In the hypothetical case where Cherry turned out to be a holocaust denier, the Club would have reasonable grounds to cancel the show.

    Cutting to the chase, I think Cherry would have to prove the Stand was arbitrary and unreasonable in shutting down the show and therefore had discriminated against her.

    I may be completely wrong of course.

    Should add there may have been a breach of contract, but that's a different legal point, I think.

    The Stand comedy clubs are part-owned by SNP MP Tommy Sheppard, and they were trying to virtue signal during the somewhat lively Scottish debate about identity.

    The problem was they were trying to virtue signal to a KC, and backed off when faced with having to defend their decision in court. Their own counsel advised them to make the case go away, before it got anywhere near a courtroom.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,113
    Andy_JS said:

    darkage said:

    Chameleon said:

    Coming to the conclusion that the UK is cooked. I'm fortunate to have done well in my early career, but London rents are getting ridiculous, to the point that I know three people paying £42k/yr for a bang average place in Tooting(!).

    We then figured out that one of them was paying a marginal tax rate of 67% on every penny over £50k. (13.8% Employers NI on total - then 40% tax, 2% NI, 9% Undergrad tax, 6% Masters tax, 5% mandatory pension contribution).

    Brutally high rents combined with crippling tax rates and public services that effectively just don't exist...

    Every party bar Labour have an electoral incentive to not give the Housing theory of everything a look, and Labour are split down the middle in terms of who gets it and who doesn't. Personally I'm going through the steps with work to go fully remote abroad, and Barcelona seems nice, rent half the price, marginal tax rate on the nomad scheme only 1/3rd of what I pay here.

    London is a great place to live whilst you are starting out in your career, but difficult to make work over the long term because of the cost of housing.
    London is always going to be an expensive place to live because most the world's population would buy a property there if they could afford to. (It was fairly cheap in the 1970s because London wasn't regarded as a particularly attractive place to live at that time).
    Other places where that is true tend to have tight restrictions on foreigners buying property.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,753
    Andy_JS said:

    "Braverman: Britons will forget how to work" - The Times.

    I wonder where this has come from?

    Oh...

    Ministers call for immigration and UK food prices to increase

    Immigration and food prices must increase to solve the food crisis, ministers are to say at a summit.

    Rishi Sunak will be joined by ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as well as farmers and industry leaders at the meeting at No 10 on Tuesday.

    The Guardian understands there is a battle between the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and Defra over immigration.

    Fruit and vegetables have been rotting in the fields, and some farmers have gone out of business, as there are not enough people willing to pick them.

    Farmers and Defra ministers have been lobbying the Home Office to increase the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers, but a senior Defra source said Braverman was “ideologically opposed” to such a move.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/ministers-call-for-immigration-and-uk-food-prices-to-increase

    There may be good arguments for even higher prices in the shops and even more immigration - and I suppose we ought to be grateful in a way that politicians seem prepared to tell voters shit they don't want to hear for a change - but nonetheless this positioning is certainly "brave" in the Sir Humphrey sense.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,002
    Andy_JS said:

    darkage said:

    Chameleon said:

    Coming to the conclusion that the UK is cooked. I'm fortunate to have done well in my early career, but London rents are getting ridiculous, to the point that I know three people paying £42k/yr for a bang average place in Tooting(!).

    We then figured out that one of them was paying a marginal tax rate of 67% on every penny over £50k. (13.8% Employers NI on total - then 40% tax, 2% NI, 9% Undergrad tax, 6% Masters tax, 5% mandatory pension contribution).

    Brutally high rents combined with crippling tax rates and public services that effectively just don't exist...

    Every party bar Labour have an electoral incentive to not give the Housing theory of everything a look, and Labour are split down the middle in terms of who gets it and who doesn't. Personally I'm going through the steps with work to go fully remote abroad, and Barcelona seems nice, rent half the price, marginal tax rate on the nomad scheme only 1/3rd of what I pay here.

    London is a great place to live whilst you are starting out in your career, but difficult to make work over the long term because of the cost of housing.
    London is always going to be an expensive place to live because most the world's population would buy a property there if they could afford to. (It was fairly cheap in the 1970s because London wasn't regarded as a particularly attractive place to live at that time).
    There is also an element of snobbishness with these complaints though... you can buy a new build flat at Barking Riverside for around £250k.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,929
    Worry not Tories, the future is bright.


  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,002
    pigeon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Braverman: Britons will forget how to work" - The Times.

    I wonder where this has come from?

    Oh...

    Ministers call for immigration and UK food prices to increase

    Immigration and food prices must increase to solve the food crisis, ministers are to say at a summit.

    Rishi Sunak will be joined by ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as well as farmers and industry leaders at the meeting at No 10 on Tuesday.

    The Guardian understands there is a battle between the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and Defra over immigration.

    Fruit and vegetables have been rotting in the fields, and some farmers have gone out of business, as there are not enough people willing to pick them.

    Farmers and Defra ministers have been lobbying the Home Office to increase the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers, but a senior Defra source said Braverman was “ideologically opposed” to such a move.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/ministers-call-for-immigration-and-uk-food-prices-to-increase

    There may be good arguments for even higher prices in the shops and even more immigration - and I suppose we ought to be grateful in a way that politicians seem prepared to tell voters shit they don't want to hear for a change - but nonetheless this positioning is certainly "brave" in the Sir Humphrey sense.
    This seems like business as usual. The home secretary generally makes the case for less immigration, against others who are more interested in its economic benefits.

    Braverman has hardly shown any great capacity for political leadership as home secretary - she isn't really delivering anything of note and can't complain about it because she is in charge of the situation. So I suppose she is just neutralised as a political threat.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,722

    Worry not Tories, the future is bright.


    Winter is coming....
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924
    On topic, a truly excellent piece. Bravo.

    For too many, their support of freedom of speech is purely tactical, not principled, and they effectively expand what it means very broadly when it suits their agenda, or seek to qualify it tightly when it does not. Sometimes, the former can - by being so disruptive or intimidating- even cause the latter.

    I despair of politicians. Again, far too many view lawmaking as a piece of performance art, displaying an ignorance of what's already on the statue book and what it does/doesn't provide for, and what new laws could/couldn't do.

    I suppose that's much easier to do that than lead the national conversation (as well as listen to it) and practice good governance in office, and that's why they are part of the problem.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,002
    Farooq said:

    It is pretty much a racing certainty that those applauding The Stand for its initial cancellation and deploring its climb-down would be outraged at the same thing happening to someone whose views they agreed with.

    That is very far indeed from certain.
    What you're doing here is taking a hypothetical hypocrisy, pretending it's nearly universal, and then putting yourself above it. It's the worst kind of straw-man slaying.

    I think it is a pretty reasonable assumption to make. It is a bit like football fans complaining about refereeing decisions when they go against their team but welcoming them when they go in their favour.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,039

    “The Court’s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterising a “democratic society”. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.” [Emphasis added]
    Does it follow from this that, say, a church hall that made itself available for organisations to hire for public events would be obligated to accept a booking from an organisation that wanted to hold a public meeting to advocate for greater access to abortion?
    Many Christian denominations support abortion being legal and would be perfectly happy to host such a public meeting. I realise this is tangential to the point you were making, but I just wanted to point that out.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,039
    darkage said:

    pigeon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Braverman: Britons will forget how to work" - The Times.

    I wonder where this has come from?

    Oh...

    Ministers call for immigration and UK food prices to increase

    Immigration and food prices must increase to solve the food crisis, ministers are to say at a summit.

    Rishi Sunak will be joined by ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as well as farmers and industry leaders at the meeting at No 10 on Tuesday.

    The Guardian understands there is a battle between the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and Defra over immigration.

    Fruit and vegetables have been rotting in the fields, and some farmers have gone out of business, as there are not enough people willing to pick them.

    Farmers and Defra ministers have been lobbying the Home Office to increase the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers, but a senior Defra source said Braverman was “ideologically opposed” to such a move.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/ministers-call-for-immigration-and-uk-food-prices-to-increase

    There may be good arguments for even higher prices in the shops and even more immigration - and I suppose we ought to be grateful in a way that politicians seem prepared to tell voters shit they don't want to hear for a change - but nonetheless this positioning is certainly "brave" in the Sir Humphrey sense.
    This seems like business as usual. The home secretary generally makes the case for less immigration, against others who are more interested in its economic benefits.

    Braverman has hardly shown any great capacity for political leadership as home secretary - she isn't really delivering anything of note and can't complain about it because she is in charge of the situation. So I suppose she is just neutralised as a political threat.
    It seems bizarre to me how much Braverman is acting as if she’s an opposition politician, as opposed to being the Government minister in charge of immigration.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,515
    darkage said:

    Farooq said:

    It is pretty much a racing certainty that those applauding The Stand for its initial cancellation and deploring its climb-down would be outraged at the same thing happening to someone whose views they agreed with.

    That is very far indeed from certain.
    What you're doing here is taking a hypothetical hypocrisy, pretending it's nearly universal, and then putting yourself above it. It's the worst kind of straw-man slaying.

    I think it is a pretty reasonable assumption to make. It is a bit like football fans complaining about refereeing decisions when they go against their team but welcoming them when they go in their favour.
    I don't know who or what The Stand is, or who Cherry is or what her views are. It would at least be helpful to give examples of 'those applauding The Stand for its initial cancellation and deploring its climb-down'.
  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,806

    darkage said:

    pigeon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Braverman: Britons will forget how to work" - The Times.

    I wonder where this has come from?

    Oh...

    Ministers call for immigration and UK food prices to increase

    Immigration and food prices must increase to solve the food crisis, ministers are to say at a summit.

    Rishi Sunak will be joined by ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as well as farmers and industry leaders at the meeting at No 10 on Tuesday.

    The Guardian understands there is a battle between the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and Defra over immigration.

    Fruit and vegetables have been rotting in the fields, and some farmers have gone out of business, as there are not enough people willing to pick them.

    Farmers and Defra ministers have been lobbying the Home Office to increase the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers, but a senior Defra source said Braverman was “ideologically opposed” to such a move.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/ministers-call-for-immigration-and-uk-food-prices-to-increase

    There may be good arguments for even higher prices in the shops and even more immigration - and I suppose we ought to be grateful in a way that politicians seem prepared to tell voters shit they don't want to hear for a change - but nonetheless this positioning is certainly "brave" in the Sir Humphrey sense.
    This seems like business as usual. The home secretary generally makes the case for less immigration, against others who are more interested in its economic benefits.

    Braverman has hardly shown any great capacity for political leadership as home secretary - she isn't really delivering anything of note and can't complain about it because she is in charge of the situation. So I suppose she is just neutralised as a political threat.
    It seems bizarre to me how much Braverman is acting as if she’s an opposition politician, as opposed to being the Government minister in charge of immigration.
    Probably just looking ahead a bit....
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,658
    edited May 2023
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
    I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆

    32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?

    You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.

    You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆

    Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
    No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
    Where do we stand when Frosty is parachuted into the HoC like a chisel toned Marine?

    From your original list. Mordaunt, too woke, Tugs, too normal, so it has to be Stevie B.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,577
    Sean_F said:

    dixiedean said:

    “The Court’s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterising a “democratic society”. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.” [Emphasis added]
    Does it follow from this that, say, a church hall that made itself available for organisations to hire for public events would be obligated to accept a booking from an organisation that wanted to hold a public meeting to advocate for greater access to abortion? Or that a temperance hall that rented itself out as an event space would be obliged to accept a booking from an alcohol drinks trade body? Trade Union conference centre and a booking for the BNP conference?
    Or a Church for a Satanist ritual. Or Muslim prayer?
    It's always presented as easy and straightforward. But rights often conflict. That's why "free speech absolutists" find themselves in knots quickly.
    The Asher’s Bakery case established, pretty much, that equality law does not require people, societies, or companies to promote beliefs that are in conflict with their own.
    That was almost entirely decided on the basis of law applicable to Northern Ireland and not the rest of the UK, though.
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,451
    darkage said:

    Andy_JS said:

    darkage said:

    Chameleon said:

    Coming to the conclusion that the UK is cooked. I'm fortunate to have done well in my early career, but London rents are getting ridiculous, to the point that I know three people paying £42k/yr for a bang average place in Tooting(!).

    We then figured out that one of them was paying a marginal tax rate of 67% on every penny over £50k. (13.8% Employers NI on total - then 40% tax, 2% NI, 9% Undergrad tax, 6% Masters tax, 5% mandatory pension contribution).

    Brutally high rents combined with crippling tax rates and public services that effectively just don't exist...

    Every party bar Labour have an electoral incentive to not give the Housing theory of everything a look, and Labour are split down the middle in terms of who gets it and who doesn't. Personally I'm going through the steps with work to go fully remote abroad, and Barcelona seems nice, rent half the price, marginal tax rate on the nomad scheme only 1/3rd of what I pay here.

    London is a great place to live whilst you are starting out in your career, but difficult to make work over the long term because of the cost of housing.
    London is always going to be an expensive place to live because most the world's population would buy a property there if they could afford to. (It was fairly cheap in the 1970s because London wasn't regarded as a particularly attractive place to live at that time).
    There is also an element of snobbishness with these complaints though... you can buy a new build flat at Barking Riverside for around £250k.
    Buy? You can lease it for 100 years, with all the attendant uncapped service charges, major works bills, and general lack of consumer protection for leaseholders (see: Grenfell).

    There's a reason flat prices have flatlined in the last five years while house prices have rocketed.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,392
    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Although I think the Stand did the right thing, I'm not completely convinced the legal case against the Stand is so clear cut. I realise it's presumptuous of a non lawyer like me to challenge you on this.

    I don't think the fact the Stand issued an apology is a statement of the law. It could just be that they don't want to go through with the expense and disruption of one or more court cases. I don't think it's a human rights case as there is AFAIK no state actor involved. It's a dispute between a private club and a private individual. The case you referred to was the police shutting down a publication on an interpretation of the criminal law.

    There could be a case of discrimination but I don't think this is absolute. In the hypothetical case where Cherry turned out to be a holocaust denier, the Club would have reasonable grounds to cancel the show.

    Cutting to the chase, I think Cherry would have to prove the Stand was arbitrary and unreasonable in shutting down the show and therefore had discriminated against her.

    I may be completely wrong of course.

    Should add there may have been a breach of contract, but that's a different legal point, I think.

    The Stand comedy clubs are part-owned by SNP MP Tommy Sheppard, and they were trying to virtue signal during the somewhat lively Scottish debate about identity.

    The problem was they were trying to virtue signal to a KC, and backed off when faced with having to defend their decision in court. Their own counsel advised them to make the case go away, before it got anywhere near a courtroom.
    The advisor of the Stand club was the friend of a friend of mine. The Stand has the right to determine who is given the opportunity to perform at their venue but the problem here was that they had made the offer and then withdrawn it for a reason that was potentially discriminatory based on Cherry's beliefs. That was a risk that they did not need to take. I think that they were well advised myself.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,577
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Although I think the Stand did the right thing, I'm not completely convinced the legal case against the Stand is so clear cut. I realise it's presumptuous of a non lawyer like me to challenge you on this.

    I don't think the fact the Stand issued an apology is a statement of the law. It could just be that they don't want to go through with the expense and disruption of one or more court cases. I don't think it's a human rights case as there is AFAIK no state actor involved. It's a dispute between a private club and a private individual. The case you referred to was the police shutting down a publication on an interpretation of the criminal law.

    There could be a case of discrimination but I don't think this is absolute. In the hypothetical case where Cherry turned out to be a holocaust denier, the Club would have reasonable grounds to cancel the show.

    Cutting to the chase, I think Cherry would have to prove the Stand was arbitrary and unreasonable in shutting down the show and therefore had discriminated against her.

    I may be completely wrong of course.

    Should add there may have been a breach of contract, but that's a different legal point, I think.

    The Stand comedy clubs are part-owned by SNP MP Tommy Sheppard, and they were trying to virtue signal during the somewhat lively Scottish debate about identity.

    The problem was they were trying to virtue signal to a KC, and backed off when faced with having to defend their decision in court. Their own counsel advised them to make the case go away, before it got anywhere near a courtroom.
    The advisor of the Stand club was the friend of a friend of mine. The Stand has the right to determine who is given the opportunity to perform at their venue but the problem here was that they had made the offer and then withdrawn it for a reason that was potentially discriminatory based on Cherry's beliefs. That was a risk that they did not need to take. I think that they were well advised myself.
    Perhaps legal eagles here may find it interesting to debate the legal basis for moderating posts here - for example expressions of belief that are anti-semitic but within the law.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,039
    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    "... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."

    It's not just any old belief, though, is it?

    According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."

    Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
    I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,698
    A truly magnificent spoofing of the Irish Times

    Someone got AI to write an article on the “racism” of fake tanning products. Absolutely “believable” Guardianista gibberish. The Irish Times ran it, in all sincerity

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/may/14/irish-times-apologises-for-hoax-ai-article-about-womens-use-of-fake-tan

    My favourite sentences:


    “The person who controls Acosta-Cortez’s Twitter account told the Guardian on Sunday, via direct message, that the Irish Times’s apology sidestepped its decision to publish “an incendiary article with an extreme leftwing viewpoint” in pursuit of clicks.

    The person said they were Irish, a college student and identified as non-binary. They said they created the Acosta-Cortez persona by repurposing the Twitter account, which dates from February 2021, by using some Spanish and following Ecuadorian outlets.

    They said they used GPT-4 to create approximately 80% of the article and the image generator Dalle-E 2 to create a profile picture of a quintessential “woke” journalist using the prompts “female, overweight, blue hair, business casual clothing, smug expression”.”

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924
    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    Andy_JS said:

    darkage said:

    Chameleon said:

    Coming to the conclusion that the UK is cooked. I'm fortunate to have done well in my early career, but London rents are getting ridiculous, to the point that I know three people paying £42k/yr for a bang average place in Tooting(!).

    We then figured out that one of them was paying a marginal tax rate of 67% on every penny over £50k. (13.8% Employers NI on total - then 40% tax, 2% NI, 9% Undergrad tax, 6% Masters tax, 5% mandatory pension contribution).

    Brutally high rents combined with crippling tax rates and public services that effectively just don't exist...

    Every party bar Labour have an electoral incentive to not give the Housing theory of everything a look, and Labour are split down the middle in terms of who gets it and who doesn't. Personally I'm going through the steps with work to go fully remote abroad, and Barcelona seems nice, rent half the price, marginal tax rate on the nomad scheme only 1/3rd of what I pay here.

    London is a great place to live whilst you are starting out in your career, but difficult to make work over the long term because of the cost of housing.
    London is always going to be an expensive place to live because most the world's population would buy a property there if they could afford to. (It was fairly cheap in the 1970s because London wasn't regarded as a particularly attractive place to live at that time).
    There is also an element of snobbishness with these complaints though... you can buy a new build flat at Barking Riverside for around £250k.
    Buy? You can lease it for 100 years, with all the attendant uncapped service charges, major works bills, and general lack of consumer protection for leaseholders (see: Grenfell).

    There's a reason flat prices have flatlined in the last five years while house prices have rocketed.
    It may be irrational (in fact, it almost certainly is) but one thing that's always at the back of my mind when looking at leasehold is what happened to Hong Kong over the New Territories.

    Buying a lease, even if long-term, is never the same as outright ownership.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,577
    edited May 2023

    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    "... it goes without saying that if a venue discriminates against someone with views wholly opposed to Ms Cherry’s (a transgender writer, say) on the basis that some staff disapproved of their “beliefs” or thought them anti-women or felt “unsafe“, this would also be unlawful ..."

    It's not just any old belief, though, is it?

    According to the Equality Act, it's a "religious or philosophical belief."

    Is there any such thing as a non-philosophical belief?
    I believe it’s going to rain today. I believe that Austria was robbed in the Eurovision final. I believe this explanation of what constitutes a non-philosophical belief, while not being completely sound with respect to legal precedents, will get my point across.
    The Equality Act has an explanatory note:
    "The criteria for determining what is a “philosophical belief” are that it must be genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. So, for example, any cult involved in illegal activities would not satisfy these criteria. The section provides that people who are of the same religion or belief share the protected characteristic of religion or belief. Depending on the context, this could mean people who, for example, share the characteristic of being Protestant or people who share the characteristic of being Christian."
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes

    The bit I've put in bold is potentially quite important in this context.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,557
    kle4 said:

    Was watching Youtube and in a video about largest cities in history it was claimed there is evidence there were several very large (for the time) cities in what is now Ukraine around 3-4000 BCE. I had never heard of such, fascinating if true.

    Yes, and Interestingly egalitarian "cities" too, with the curious practice of deliberate burning of houses. They may have been seasonal gatherings for people from a wider area.

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-urban-megasites-may-reshape-history-first-cities
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    Chris said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Although I think the Stand did the right thing, I'm not completely convinced the legal case against the Stand is so clear cut. I realise it's presumptuous of a non lawyer like me to challenge you on this.

    I don't think the fact the Stand issued an apology is a statement of the law. It could just be that they don't want to go through with the expense and disruption of one or more court cases. I don't think it's a human rights case as there is AFAIK no state actor involved. It's a dispute between a private club and a private individual. The case you referred to was the police shutting down a publication on an interpretation of the criminal law.

    There could be a case of discrimination but I don't think this is absolute. In the hypothetical case where Cherry turned out to be a holocaust denier, the Club would have reasonable grounds to cancel the show.

    Cutting to the chase, I think Cherry would have to prove the Stand was arbitrary and unreasonable in shutting down the show and therefore had discriminated against her.

    I may be completely wrong of course.

    Should add there may have been a breach of contract, but that's a different legal point, I think.

    The Stand comedy clubs are part-owned by SNP MP Tommy Sheppard, and they were trying to virtue signal during the somewhat lively Scottish debate about identity.

    The problem was they were trying to virtue signal to a KC, and backed off when faced with having to defend their decision in court. Their own counsel advised them to make the case go away, before it got anywhere near a courtroom.
    The advisor of the Stand club was the friend of a friend of mine. The Stand has the right to determine who is given the opportunity to perform at their venue but the problem here was that they had made the offer and then withdrawn it for a reason that was potentially discriminatory based on Cherry's beliefs. That was a risk that they did not need to take. I think that they were well advised myself.
    Perhaps legal eagles here may find it interesting to debate the legal basis for moderating posts here - for example expressions of belief that are anti-semitic but within the law.
    There is no legal obligation in the part of this site to give to anyone at all. We are here on sufferance.
    The comparison might be, by analogy, between a public venue like the Stand, offering a service for hire, which banned a guest for their views, after accepting a booking for an event, and (say) a newspaper, which may choose at will what it does and does not publish.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669
    kle4 said:

    As noted at the time the statement from The Stand reversing their decision was hilariously disingenuous. Apparently we're to believe they had zero idea it might amount to unlawful discrimination and of course would not dream of doing such a thing.

    Rather than I would suggest a more plausible explanation that they would be very happy to discriminate in order to please their staff, but had no choice but to back down in the face of legal threats. It's pretty clear that legal action is often necessary to see rights enforced - and that should be no surprise, since plenty of people had to fight very hard to get the rights acknowledged in the first place.

    I don't think the idea of not bowing to those who are offended has been entirely or even nearly defeated, certainly not with the Rushdie example. People still blame him for the reactions to to his (awful) book. 'Free speech for me but not for thee' as cyclefree puts it is pretty popular I imagine. Heckler's veto is powerful.

    We all need to be more robust than to claim to suffer harm from hearing things we don't like. It's childish to do otherwise.

    The conclusion is a variant of a famous quote, but I cannot recall where the original is located.

    Given ownership of The Stand it is just a pity he crumbled so soon.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669

    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    Andy_JS said:

    darkage said:

    Chameleon said:

    Coming to the conclusion that the UK is cooked. I'm fortunate to have done well in my early career, but London rents are getting ridiculous, to the point that I know three people paying £42k/yr for a bang average place in Tooting(!).

    We then figured out that one of them was paying a marginal tax rate of 67% on every penny over £50k. (13.8% Employers NI on total - then 40% tax, 2% NI, 9% Undergrad tax, 6% Masters tax, 5% mandatory pension contribution).

    Brutally high rents combined with crippling tax rates and public services that effectively just don't exist...

    Every party bar Labour have an electoral incentive to not give the Housing theory of everything a look, and Labour are split down the middle in terms of who gets it and who doesn't. Personally I'm going through the steps with work to go fully remote abroad, and Barcelona seems nice, rent half the price, marginal tax rate on the nomad scheme only 1/3rd of what I pay here.

    London is a great place to live whilst you are starting out in your career, but difficult to make work over the long term because of the cost of housing.
    London is always going to be an expensive place to live because most the world's population would buy a property there if they could afford to. (It was fairly cheap in the 1970s because London wasn't regarded as a particularly attractive place to live at that time).
    There is also an element of snobbishness with these complaints though... you can buy a new build flat at Barking Riverside for around £250k.
    Buy? You can lease it for 100 years, with all the attendant uncapped service charges, major works bills, and general lack of consumer protection for leaseholders (see: Grenfell).

    There's a reason flat prices have flatlined in the last five years while house prices have rocketed.
    It may be irrational (in fact, it almost certainly is) but one thing that's always at the back of my mind when looking at leasehold is what happened to Hong Kong over the New Territories.

    Buying a lease, even if long-term, is never the same as outright ownership.
    Seems to be an England thing , next to none if any leasehold in Scotland. Most if not all of the feudal rights similar were dumped long ago.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,557

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Best photo ever.


    Rishi’s team have played a blinder with this one. Roadman Rishi. 😆 innit.



    https://www.tiktok.com/@dantehutchinson/video/7161844229700914437
    Forced smile as his team is relegated.
    That's quite the metaphor.
    Starmer is an Arsenal fan.

    He's getting practice at blowing a big lead and coming second.
    Starmer’s certainly taking a right mauling in tomorrows papers with his plan to use EU citizens to rig future UK elections, that perhaps might even be an election to scrap Brexit.

    Why is Starmer daft enough to announce a plan like that, he’s not remotely won an election yet. Constitional change is second term stuff if anything, once you’ve earned trust, and every second he is talking about votes for sixteen year old children and EU citizens and not talking about NHS waiting lists, he’s an idiot.
    Meanwhile, I think this is a big moment in the race to be Conservative Party leader.

    You can try to argue Braverman is not the Conservatives rising star, simply on basis you don’t like her at all, but you will utterly fail in that argument, the reality is: she’s rising if you like it all not, there’s no denying it. Observer had a big splash on her today, risen from family of immigrants to high office etc.

    The UK Home Secretary is headline speaker at this Conservative conference, and she is going to say

    “…because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations.”

    And how many Conservative members and activists are going to disagree with that reasoning to limit immigration? Tory members will say at last, someone who tells it like it is.

    You would use words like steadfast, tenacious, and determined to describe Braverman’s style - those are exactly the same words used to list Lady Thatcher’s strengths.




    There’s your next leader of the Conservative Party. She’s got it “Suen-up” hasn’t she?
    No as only 32 Tory MPs voted for her in the 2022 leadership election, she has no chance of reaching the final 2 to even to the Tory membership therefore if Rishi loses and the race to choose the Tory Leader of the Opposition begins
    I knew you were lurking out there with something crazy like this to post 😆

    32 was a bloody good start for “what’s she running for” candidate” You saying her fan club hasn’t “sue-welled” since then?

    You saying she won’t go into the leadership election with more credibility than Lady Thatcher when she actually won leadership.

    You are going to tell us the smug, full of themself woman child Badenoch knocks Braverman out the top two, when it’s so obvious Braverman is the only one of the candidates with determination and tenacity to deliver, focussed and steadfast enough to actually take a fight back to Labour? 😆

    Now, most important question of all, when Braverman says we must limit immigration because of the pressure it puts on housing supply, public services and community relations - do you actually disagree with her?
    No, the final 3 would be Barclay, Tugendhat and Mordaunt in my view, neither Braverman nor Badenoch make it
    Where do we stand when Frosty is parachuted into the HoC like a chisel toned Marine?

    From your original list. Mordaunt, too woke, Tugs, too normal, so it has to be Stevie B.
    @HYUFD does have his finger on the pulse of the court battles of the Tories, so I have a few quid at good odds on Barclay.

    The coming electoral tsunami could take out a lot of potential candidates, or their supporters.
This discussion has been closed.