For various reasons I haven't posted much these last 2 days but have scanned the thread, and with the greatest respect @HYUFD hasn't a clue on the subject of the use of the Internet by children
Our son is head of IT at a local school, and has three children, so knows more than many on both the use in schools of smartphones and of course in his family
He has installed controls on the time his children can spend on line, but even with restrictions his children still beg borrow and steal online time
Of course in school peer pressure and knowledge expands the sites his children [11 and 13] access and our son is in favour of a ban on smartphone use in school with no exceptions
I watched Peter Kyle this morning allegation about Farage and Saville, and as much as I am not a Farage fan what a ridiculous thing for Kyle to say when the OSA needs genuine and serious discussion
I did wonder about children using VPN, because unless they are already in use they could not upload the software without payment
I also am not sure what happens if a child uses their parents e mail address to verify their age. Does the site confirm the verification back to the e mail address or is it just taken as the verification
We are living in extraordinary times but @HYUFD is in for an eye watering experience in due course if he has his own children and I think Kyle may well have to retract his allegation
Kyle is considering banning social media use by under 16s not just in schools but anywhere
And King Cnut considered a ban on the tide coming in.
#pbpedantry
He didn't. It was an apocryphal story told later, and the point of the story was that Cnut was making the point that he couldn't stop the tides to demonstrate humility before God.
The story round here is that the apocryphal tide was the Trent Aegir, which is a little more dramatic than water lapping up the sand. Wouldn't like to stand in the way at new moon.
I wonder what the biggest source of unhappiness and misinformation on the internet is. Facebook?
The BBCs Sarah Montague pushing Mark Malloch- Brown on whether Starmer and Lammy should be tried at the Hague for Gazan war crimes.
Malloch-Brown thinks it is not impossible but very highly unlikely.
Since neither is guilty of war crimes in Gaza, it’s a pretty stupid line of questioning.
Netanyahu retiring a free man whilst David Lammy languishes in a prison cell is certainly not my idea of justice for Gaza.
There’s this weird belief that a British minister is like a Roman proconsul, who can tell a barbarian king to back off, or face the consequences.
I presume the charge is not for failing to stop Israel, but because the UK has (supposedly) aided a genocide because the UK is selling (a small number of) arms to Israel and has provided other military support (on a small scale). Thus, the argument goes, we are complicit in it. It seems unlikely this would go anywhere at the ICC.
The BBCs Sarah Montague pushing Mark Malloch- Brown on whether Starmer and Lammy should be tried at the Hague for Gazan war crimes.
Malloch-Brown thinks it is not impossible but very highly unlikely.
What on earth have British politicians to do with a war between Palestine/Gaza and Israel?
There is an obligation under the Genocide Convention not only to not do it, but also to pursue those who conduct it. If you think what is happening matches the definition under the convention then it all becomes a bit awkward.
There are obvious issues of practicality. Nobody in this country is going to face prosecution, because they failed to prevent the massacre of Tutsis in 1994, or the mass expulsion of Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh in 2023.
The offence of abetting genocide applies to the kind of situation which held Serbia guilty in 2007, because their government did nothing to stop armed militias committing acts of genocide on territory which they occupied.
The BBCs Sarah Montague pushing Mark Malloch- Brown on whether Starmer and Lammy should be tried at the Hague for Gazan war crimes.
Malloch-Brown thinks it is not impossible but very highly unlikely.
What on earth have British politicians to do with a war between Palestine/Gaza and Israel?
There is an obligation under the Genocide Convention not only to not do it, but also to pursue those who conduct it. If you think what is happening matches the definition under the convention then it all becomes a bit awkward.
There are obvious issues of practicality. Nobody in this country is going to face prosecution, because they failed to prevent the massacre of Tutsis in 1994, or the mass expulsion of Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh in 2023.
The offence of abetting genocide applies to the kind of situation which held Serbia guilty in 2007, because their government did nothing to stop armed militias committing acts of genocide on territory which they occupied.
IIRC, there is already precedent on the issue, in various trials at The Hague and elsewhere. A moderately common politico/legal tactic has been “If I am guilty, then x, y and z are guilty. Just for being bystanders. Since everyone is guilty, no one is.”
The courts, as I understand it, tend to regard such grandstanding to spread blame as invalid.
There are definitely occasions where doing nothing, can amount to abetting. But, one needs to be very clearly under a legal obligation to act, and also in a position to act. On top of that, it must be proved that one's failure to act was motivated "in whole or in part by an intention to destroy", the ethnic group in question.
"A country like India could potentially be a major UK trade partner after Brexit. The problem is that Indians see Britain and Europe as one market. To them, Britain’s quest to adopt its own rules and standards amounts to a frivolous inconvenience. Before expanding trade and investment with Britain, India will most likely pursue a deeper relationship with the EU."
The BBCs Sarah Montague pushing Mark Malloch- Brown on whether Starmer and Lammy should be tried at the Hague for Gazan war crimes.
Malloch-Brown thinks it is not impossible but very highly unlikely.
Since neither is guilty of war crimes in Gaza, it’s a pretty stupid line of questioning.
Netanyahu retiring a free man whilst David Lammy languishes in a prison cell is certainly not my idea of justice for Gaza.
There’s this weird belief that a British minister is like a Roman proconsul, who can tell a barbarian king to back off, or face the consequences.
Indeed, I'm not a huge fan of either Lammy or Starmer, yet if either were prosecuted or an attempt to prosecute them for what's happening in Gaza occurred it would be time to exit these conventions as it's quite clearly idiotic.
Presumably Malthouse wouldn't have cautioned Lammy in the HoC if he didn't believe such a case was potentially prosecutable.
Kit Malthouse is neither a lawyer, nor a specialist in that area. I see it as grandstanding on his part.
Clearly Lammy and Starmer aren't going to be brought before the Hague on charges of abetting genocide, but it's fair ground to chew them out for domestic political purposes on it imv.
For various reasons I haven't posted much these last 2 days but have scanned the thread, and with the greatest respect @HYUFD hasn't a clue on the subject of the use of the Internet by children
Our son is head of IT at a local school, and has three children, so knows more than many on both the use in schools of smartphones and of course in his family
He has installed controls on the time his children can spend on line, but even with restrictions his children still beg borrow and steal online time
Of course in school peer pressure and knowledge expands the sites his children [11 and 13] access and our son is in favour of a ban on smartphone use in school with no exceptions
I watched Peter Kyle this morning allegation about Farage and Saville, and as much as I am not a Farage fan what a ridiculous thing for Kyle to say when the OSA needs genuine and serious discussion
I did wonder about children using VPN, because unless they are already in use they could not upload the software without payment
I also am not sure what happens if a child uses their parents e mail address to verify their age. Does the site confirm the verification back to the e mail address or is it just taken as the verification
We are living in extraordinary times but @HYUFD is in for an eye watering experience in due course if he has his own children and I think Kyle may well have to retract his allegation
Kyle is considering banning social media use by under 16s not just in schools but anywhere
And King Cnut considered a ban on the tide coming in.
#pbpedantry
He didn't. It was an apocryphal story told later, and the point of the story was that Cnut was making the point that he couldn't stop the tides to demonstrate humility before God.
The story round here is that the apocryphal tide was the Trent Aegir, which is a little more dramatic than water lapping up the sand. Wouldn't like to stand in the way at new moon.
I wonder what the biggest source of unhappiness and misinformation on the internet is. Facebook?
Leon?
If you haven't already seen this post, tag, like and share.
Kemi has decided that the OSA she supported in the last government isn’t up to much .
The LDs have been awfully quiet on this. I know Barnesian linked to them being against it but Davey has been quiet. Ol' Nige leading the charge (Well Yusuf actually).
Are the Lib Dems primarily a liberal party or a "nice" party (Against Elon Musk and all that internet nastiness) ?
Like all political parties, the Lib Dems are a coalition. Liberals who believe in individual freedom and Social Democrats who believe in social justice. This produces some internal tensions and tradeoffs - just as in other parties.
However with the OSA, the tension is between individual freedom (treating adults as adults not children) and protecting children. The aim of protecting children is surely a laudable one. Hence the large support for the OSA in the polls.
But is the OSA an effective means of protecting children but not encroaching too much on the freedom of adults? I don't know. If you look at at through the lens of protecting children it is a good thing. If you look at it through the lens of protecting individual freedom it is a bad thing. I'll come off the fence when I learn more about it and its implementation and ramifications. I suspect that I'll be against it as being in principle a good thing, but wrecked by technical implementation problems.
Good news from the US: "Fueled by fentanyl, the annual drug overdose death rate in the United States doubled between 2015 and 2023, going from 16 to 33 deaths per 100,000 people. But in February 2024, a “statistically significant” decrease occurred, and “the rate of decline more than doubled.”
I suspect that most of the decline has come from local efforts at "harm reduction", notably the wider use of narcan, but have not seen any data on the question.
Doesn't it coincide with a few things? The first is that Fentanyl has "burned out" the willing addicts (an addict can only die once), there's more awareness among potential drug users to stay away and those "harm reduction" policies have been reversed post COVID with ballot measures and new politicians going back to basics and locking up drug dealers rather than just letting them pump that poison out on the streets. I'd also say the gateway of hospital and doctor prescribed opioid drugs has substantially slowed down so there's far, far fewer people getting addicted in medical settings than there were just 5 years ago.
If anything "harm reduction" probably had the effect of substantially increasing the death rates in 2020-2022 which feeds into the first two factors for the subsequent fall.
The BBCs Sarah Montague pushing Mark Malloch- Brown on whether Starmer and Lammy should be tried at the Hague for Gazan war crimes.
Malloch-Brown thinks it is not impossible but very highly unlikely.
Since neither is guilty of war crimes in Gaza, it’s a pretty stupid line of questioning.
Netanyahu retiring a free man whilst David Lammy languishes in a prison cell is certainly not my idea of justice for Gaza.
There’s this weird belief that a British minister is like a Roman proconsul, who can tell a barbarian king to back off, or face the consequences.
Indeed, I'm not a huge fan of either Lammy or Starmer, yet if either were prosecuted or an attempt to prosecute them for what's happening in Gaza occurred it would be time to exit these conventions as it's quite clearly idiotic.
Presumably Malthouse wouldn't have cautioned Lammy in the HoC if he didn't believe such a case was potentially prosecutable.
Kit Malthouse is neither a lawyer, nor a specialist in that area. I see it as grandstanding on his part.
Kemi would do well to shut him up if this is his hobby horse. It just makes him and the party look like idiots and gives the Jezlamist party another talking point with which to attack this country.
The BBCs Sarah Montague pushing Mark Malloch- Brown on whether Starmer and Lammy should be tried at the Hague for Gazan war crimes.
Malloch-Brown thinks it is not impossible but very highly unlikely.
Since neither is guilty of war crimes in Gaza, it’s a pretty stupid line of questioning.
Netanyahu retiring a free man whilst David Lammy languishes in a prison cell is certainly not my idea of justice for Gaza.
There’s this weird belief that a British minister is like a Roman proconsul, who can tell a barbarian king to back off, or face the consequences.
Odd part is it often comes from people who would claim, on a different day, that Britain is a small irrelevant country.
Otoh the people who say the UK has no influence in this case or eg in affecting global warming by cutting our own emissions are on different days those squabbling over whether the UK has a bigger economy than that of France or asserting the mahoosive international influence British royalty has or London is the world capital of something or other.
Clearly Lammy and Starmer aren't going to be brought before the Hague on charges of abetting genocide, but it's fair ground to chew them out for domestic political purposes on it imv.
True. It's at times like this where UK Government inertia makes one wish we were French.🤣
For various reasons I haven't posted much these last 2 days but have scanned the thread, and with the greatest respect @HYUFD hasn't a clue on the subject of the use of the Internet by children
Our son is head of IT at a local school, and has three children, so knows more than many on both the use in schools of smartphones and of course in his family
He has installed controls on the time his children can spend on line, but even with restrictions his children still beg borrow and steal online time
Of course in school peer pressure and knowledge expands the sites his children [11 and 13] access and our son is in favour of a ban on smartphone use in school with no exceptions
I watched Peter Kyle this morning allegation about Farage and Saville, and as much as I am not a Farage fan what a ridiculous thing for Kyle to say when the OSA needs genuine and serious discussion
I did wonder about children using VPN, because unless they are already in use they could not upload the software without payment
I also am not sure what happens if a child uses their parents e mail address to verify their age. Does the site confirm the verification back to the e mail address or is it just taken as the verification
We are living in extraordinary times but @HYUFD is in for an eye watering experience in due course if he has his own children and I think Kyle may well have to retract his allegation
Kyle is considering banning social media use by under 16s not just in schools but anywhere
And King Cnut considered a ban on the tide coming in.
#pbpedantry
He didn't. It was an apocryphal story told later, and the point of the story was that Cnut was making the point that he couldn't stop the tides to demonstrate humility before God.
Cnut's young daughter allegedly drowned at Bosham, on the south coast. I've always wondered if there is a connection between the sadness of that event and the idea you cannot stop water, or nature.
(Incidentally, there's an old hotel by Southampton Docks with the following written on a stone: "“Near this spot AD 1028 Canute reproved his courtiers”.
Unlike Jenrick, Katie Lam looks comfortable in front of the camera. Ironically, the camera operator and director seem a bit dicey but we'd need @Roger to give his professional opinion.
Politically, what is she playing at? Any would-be future leader needs to attract support from all wings of the party and to express a vision of Conservatism for the middle third of the 21st Century. With Cleverly rumoured to be shooting for London Mayor, there is space on that side of the park.
The world - and the UK - is swinging firmly right. By 2028 this may well be a centrist stance and @williamglenn will be moderating PB
So this is sensible positioning
I do think she’d be a good choice for leader. Young, articulate, bold, not lightweight like Kemi. Kind of a Tory Katie Forbes
Cleverly would do nothing (he should try for mayor) and Stride would be a pathetic disaster sealing their doom
Jenrick or Lam
The lurch Right in response to stagnating living standards is indeed the Big Picture. It's disappointing. A significant chunk of the working classes in the West have decided to blame Immigrants. This is what is powering the Populist Right. If people were instead to blame their woes on the inequitable distribution of wealth baked into capitalism the lurch would be more to the Left. The mission of the (up to now) underperforming wing of Populism (the Left variety) is to make this happen. We shouldn't rule it out. These are volatile times. Change can come quickly and left-field (pun intended) things can happen. Eg just as Donald Trump's win turbo'd the Populist Right globally, a backlash against it (which has to be quite likely) could do the same for the Left. You and ilk will be less bouncy then.
I don’t rule out a lurch left at all. Indeed I believe that - due to certain “technological changes” - some kind of communism might be coming for us. A universal basic income
In the shorter term there is also a major chance that reform wins in 2028, they fuck up badly. They don’t even solve migration. Then the voters will either go even harder right or swing wildly to the hard left. France is in a similar place
Universal basic income is a right wing idea.
Here is a one minute clip of Milton Friedman arguing against payroll taxes (national insurance as we would say) that provide state pensions. Note that when challenged, he explains his idea for a negative income tax or universal basic income. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AT6Bwx-v6G4
Damn. Got in before me in response.
@leon Universal Basic Income is not a left wing idea, but a right wing idea. I first became aware of it and supported it over 30 years ago when proposed by a right wing think tank. @BartholomewRoberts is, like me a strong supporter of the idea. He is no socialist and neither am I. On financial matters we lean towards the libertarian view point. I am a liberal and he is definitely a financial liberal.
It gets the left wing label because people's immediate reaction is that it is a 'freebie' and 'who is going to pay for it'. That is because they haven't been bothered to consider the details. It should be tax neutral. I am not going to go into all the details here but it should basically remove the benefits system more or less altogether and create all sorts of efficiencies and eliminate cliff edge situations. It should also eliminate significant abuse and ensure those that previously fell through the cracks no longer do. However the net income you get after UBI, plus what you earn, less what you pay in tax will probably not alter much.
The good news is the DWP will probably almost entirely disappear and HMRC should be a lot smaller.
Well, those in the know, my old boss, would say that’s typical Luton and typical of their soccer firm. Men in Gear, affectionately known as Men in Running Gear for their ability to run.
Comments
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/britains-brexit-foreign-policy-by-mark-malloch-brown-2018-06
Full on Britain-is-tiny type.
And that’s very exciting and everything but a bit annoying for a Gloucestershire supporter.
"A country like India could potentially be a major UK trade partner after Brexit. The problem is that Indians see Britain and Europe as one market. To them, Britain’s quest to adopt its own rules and standards amounts to a frivolous inconvenience. Before expanding trade and investment with Britain, India will most likely pursue a deeper relationship with the EU."
Malloch-Brown was asked the question by Sarah Montague*. Malloch -Brown was very, very sceptical that a prosecution would fly.
* I suspect Sarah is a one nation, high Tory.
Liberals who believe in individual freedom and Social Democrats who believe in social justice.
This produces some internal tensions and tradeoffs - just as in other parties.
However with the OSA, the tension is between individual freedom (treating adults as adults not children) and protecting children. The aim of protecting children is surely a laudable one. Hence the large support for the OSA in the polls.
But is the OSA an effective means of protecting children but not encroaching too much on the freedom of adults?
I don't know.
If you look at at through the lens of protecting children it is a good thing.
If you look at it through the lens of protecting individual freedom it is a bad thing.
I'll come off the fence when I learn more about it and its implementation and ramifications.
I suspect that I'll be against it as being in principle a good thing, but wrecked by technical implementation problems.
If anything "harm reduction" probably had the effect of substantially increasing the death rates in 2020-2022 which feeds into the first two factors for the subsequent fall.
Swings & roundabouts.
Although at a strike rate of 60 he doesn’t exactly channel his father.
(Incidentally, there's an old hotel by Southampton Docks with the following written on a stone: "“Near this spot AD 1028 Canute reproved his courtiers”.
@leon Universal Basic Income is not a left wing idea, but a right wing idea. I first became aware of it and supported it over 30 years ago when proposed by a right wing think tank. @BartholomewRoberts is, like me a strong supporter of the idea. He is no socialist and neither am I. On financial matters we lean towards the libertarian view point. I am a liberal and he is definitely a financial liberal.
It gets the left wing label because people's immediate reaction is that it is a 'freebie' and 'who is going to pay for it'. That is because they haven't been bothered to consider the details. It should be tax neutral. I am not going to go into all the details here but it should basically remove the benefits system more or less altogether and create all sorts of efficiencies and eliminate cliff edge situations. It should also eliminate significant abuse and ensure those that previously fell through the cracks no longer do. However the net income you get after UBI, plus what you earn, less what you pay in tax will probably not alter much.
The good news is the DWP will probably almost entirely disappear and HMRC should be a lot smaller.
NEW THREAD
https://x.com/technocapt/status/1949950976120504340?s=61