"We actually passed a bill in Congress headed up by my wife, actually, which was to pull bad stuff out having to do with children."
I felt for Starmer having to walk the tightrope of Trump's rambling insanity and the humanitarian atrocity in Gaza. He failed miserably, but could anyone ride that particular tiger?
Talking of big cats, Trump's answer to the question about the lionesses was particularly unhinged.
On topic. A particularly ludicrous question from a far right commentator ( GBNews or someone else?) to Trump " what do you make of Starmer censoring Truth Social posts?". And Trump almost bit.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
If you read even the Israeli press rather than just following Twitter, you'd get a better picture of events.
You didn't seem to read the article.
Here is a (non-exhaustive, I bet) list of reasons the poor old UN can't deliver the aid. Wah wah wah. One of the below, admittedly might not be true.
When aid transport roads become too badly damaged by Israeli military operations, when there are insufficient deconfliction mechanisms in place to ensure that aid workers don’t accidentally get hit by IDF fire, when authorizations aren’t given by the army for aid to be picked up and delivered, when our chakras are out of sync, and when looting becomes increasingly widespread due to food insecurity, an environment is created where the UN is physically prevented from doing its job, the former US envoy elaborated.
Are you denying that the UN's ability to act in Gaza is at the mercy of the IDF, who control the territory and have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later... or indeed just to shoot first and not bother with questions later?
You are parroting the Hamas talking points. You have no idea what is happening. All I see is the UN making all kinds of excuses for why they can't possibly deliver aid. All blaming the IDF and not one mention of Hamas. Do you find that strange.
The IDF control Gaza. They militarily defeated Hamas months ago. Those are the facts on the ground. Why is it strange, therefore, that the UN finds their main challenge being what Israel lets them do? You are the one who is dismissing reporting by Israeli newspapers as "Hamas talking points".
For reasons that no doubt Seth Frantzman will make the topic of his next book, the IDF manifestly haven't militarily defeated Hamas.
So your first fact is incorrect.
Difficult to take what you say thereafter very seriously tbh.
What territory do Hamas control?
Enough to mount continued resistance to the IDF and for IDF operations to engage in a seeming loop of clearing areas, withdrawing, and then having to re-enter them months later because Hamas has re-established itself.
As I said, to write "The [IDF] militarily defeated Hamas months ago" disqualifies you, sadly because this is a discussion board, from discussing Gaza.
The IDF are on this loop of withdrawing and re-invading because Netanyahu needs the distraction of military activity. Some in the IDF have even complained about the pointlessness of pulling out and going back in.
The Israel Defense Forces assessed on Friday that Hamas has been largely defeated militarily in the entire Gaza Strip, and it is now effectively a guerrilla terror group that will take some more time to dismantle.
Hamas is not the same organization it was pre-October 7, in terms of its command and control, weapons, rockets, and operatives, at least half of whom have been killed, according to the military.
If I can't be taken very seriously for saying that Israel has militarily defeated Hamas, then presumably you can't take the Israeli government seriously for saying the same thing.
Chairman Zia Yusuf says Reform will repeal the Online Safety Act if elected
Yet another reason to vote Reform
You do realise Reform were in favour of the bill and also they want to end anonymity on the internet.
What's the problem with ending anonymity on the internet?
Because it would remove protection for whistleblowers for starters.
Some people have contracts of employment which specifically enjoin them from posting under their own name on certain topics.
Wasn't there a poster on here who used to post very questionable material under his own name so you had to clear his back catalogue of dubious unpleasantness, so as not to embarrass him in the real world?
I wonder what became of him? Presumably he no longer posts.
At least one I recall. Some poor fellows have stalkers who steal their PB posts and pop them on X. Weird thing to do.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
Everyone has a mobile these days and Hamas are masters of PR on the socials. Where is the footage of the IDF shooting up aid sites.
Gaza has been under an electricity blackout by Israel since 11 October 2023. It's not straightforward to charge one's mobile. And smartphone ownership in Gaza is far from being 100%.
Your kidding, right?
Are you on the socials. Every other pro-Hamas post is showing a (often the same) apparently starving child. There are mobiles everywhere.
How does social media accounts (from outside Gaza) showing the same photo prove that everyone in Gaza has a smartphone? That makes no sense.
More broadly, the socials, particularly Twitter, are a deeply unreliable source of information. Stop looking at them! Read some newspapers. I look at those, including the English-language Israeli media (or I rely on a good friend, an Israeli citizen, who speaks Hebrew).
Topping is concerned that those risking their lives to collect food aren't stopping to get video for him while actually under fire.
What exactly is the UN for. There was a list of excuses as long as your arm why they couldn't possibly distribute aid.
Meanwhile, the dissolution of GHF is a key Hamas demand.
But by all means, carry on cheering Band Aid and the money it's delivering to Mengistu.
You seem very confused.
I don't think I've mentioned Band Aid. (As an aside, it's odd to claim the BBC didn't acknowledge the problems with the charity, as it spent quite a lot of money defending its going exactly that; https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/mar/07/bbc-holds-firm-ethiopia-famine-funds And charitable aid went both to Mengistu's regime and the TPLF rebels, each of whom used it for their own purposes.)
Unlike you, I don't claim to know what's going on in detail. I've set out what's verifiable rather than what's reported by the interested parties on both sides.
The UN is not the occupying power. Its activities in Gaza have been severely limited by the military occupiers, and a couple of hundred of their employees killed, accidentally or otherwise.
Israel demonstrated this weekend that it is entirely able to facilitate greater delivery of aid.
I don't mind your regular snide comments - I'm quite happy to respond in kind. It's your regular dodgy claims which bother me.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
If you read even the Israeli press rather than just following Twitter, you'd get a better picture of events.
You didn't seem to read the article.
Here is a (non-exhaustive, I bet) list of reasons the poor old UN can't deliver the aid. Wah wah wah. One of the below, admittedly might not be true.
When aid transport roads become too badly damaged by Israeli military operations, when there are insufficient deconfliction mechanisms in place to ensure that aid workers don’t accidentally get hit by IDF fire, when authorizations aren’t given by the army for aid to be picked up and delivered, when our chakras are out of sync, and when looting becomes increasingly widespread due to food insecurity, an environment is created where the UN is physically prevented from doing its job, the former US envoy elaborated.
Are you denying that the UN's ability to act in Gaza is at the mercy of the IDF, who control the territory and have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later... or indeed just to shoot first and not bother with questions later?
You are parroting the Hamas talking points. You have no idea what is happening. All I see is the UN making all kinds of excuses for why they can't possibly deliver aid. All blaming the IDF and not one mention of Hamas. Do you find that strange.
The IDF control Gaza. They militarily defeated Hamas months ago. Those are the facts on the ground. Why is it strange, therefore, that the UN finds their main challenge being what Israel lets them do? You are the one who is dismissing reporting by Israeli newspapers as "Hamas talking points".
For reasons that no doubt Seth Frantzman will make the topic of his next book, the IDF manifestly haven't militarily defeated Hamas.
So your first fact is incorrect.
Difficult to take what you say thereafter very seriously tbh.
What territory do Hamas control?
Enough to mount continued resistance to the IDF and for IDF operations to engage in a seeming loop of clearing areas, withdrawing, and then having to re-enter them months later because Hamas has re-established itself.
As I said, to write "The [IDF] militarily defeated Hamas months ago" disqualifies you, sadly because this is a discussion board, from discussing Gaza.
The IDF are on this loop of withdrawing and re-invading because Netanyahu needs the distraction of military activity. Some in the IDF have even complained about the pointlessness of pulling out and going back in.
The Israel Defense Forces assessed on Friday that Hamas has been largely defeated militarily in the entire Gaza Strip, and it is now effectively a guerrilla terror group that will take some more time to dismantle.
Hamas is not the same organization it was pre-October 7, in terms of its command and control, weapons, rockets, and operatives, at least half of whom have been killed, according to the military.
If I can't be taken very seriously for saying that Israel has militarily defeated Hamas, then presumably you can't take the Israeli government seriously for saying the same thing.
One of the problems of believing everything you read in the mainstream media.
Hamas has patently obviously not been defeated militarily. It continues as a coherent force, albeit one much depleted. Any "outgoing Defense Force Chief of Staff" is hardly going to say "we haven't won yet", now are they. Same with government ministers.
And yet here we are: the IDF is still fighting Hamas and Hamas is still fighting the IDF. So not defeated militarily.
I think, in hindsight, Keir would probably have preferred to not be in Scotland today. What a shame
At least it prevented him from falling into the Luis Rubiales bear trap.
Although, would that be worse than having a stinker (of a presser) with a stinker (diapers)?
I doubt he could look and sound less prime ministerial doing literally anything other than today's lamentable wibbling 'Hes my friend, actually' is about the most limp and lame thing a British PM has ever uttered at such a presser.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
Everyone has a mobile these days and Hamas are masters of PR on the socials. Where is the footage of the IDF shooting up aid sites.
Gaza has been under an electricity blackout by Israel since 11 October 2023. It's not straightforward to charge one's mobile. And smartphone ownership in Gaza is far from being 100%.
Your kidding, right?
Are you on the socials. Every other pro-Hamas post is showing a (often the same) apparently starving child. There are mobiles everywhere.
How does social media accounts (from outside Gaza) showing the same photo prove that everyone in Gaza has a smartphone? That makes no sense.
More broadly, the socials, particularly Twitter, are a deeply unreliable source of information. Stop looking at them! Read some newspapers. I look at those, including the English-language Israeli media (or I rely on a good friend, an Israeli citizen, who speaks Hebrew).
Topping is concerned that those risking their lives to collect food aren't stopping to get video for him while actually under fire.
What exactly is the UN for. There was a list of excuses as long as your arm why they couldn't possibly distribute aid.
Meanwhile, the dissolution of GHF is a key Hamas demand.
But by all means, carry on cheering Band Aid and the money it's delivering to Mengistu.
You seem very confused.
I don't think I've mentioned Band Aid. (As an aside, it's odd to claim the BBC didn't acknowledge the problems with the charity, as it spent quite a lot of money defending its going exactly that; https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/mar/07/bbc-holds-firm-ethiopia-famine-funds And charitable aid went both to Mengistu's regime and the TPLF rebels, each of whom used it for their own purposes.)
Unlike you, I don't claim to know what's going on in detail. I've set out what's verifiable rather than what's reported by the interested parties on both sides.
The UN is not the occupying power. Its activities in Gaza have been severely limited by the military occupiers, and a couple of hundred of their employees killed, accidentally or otherwise.
Israel demonstrated this weekend that it is entirely able to facilitate greater delivery of aid.
I don't mind your regular snide comments - I'm quite happy to respond in kind. It's your regular dodgy claims which bother me.
Nothing dodgy at all. Just exasperated that you and others on PB are so ill-informed.
I'm literally talking to people who post animated game footage of conflicts to try to prove points about actual tactical or strategic situations.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
If you read even the Israeli press rather than just following Twitter, you'd get a better picture of events.
You didn't seem to read the article.
Here is a (non-exhaustive, I bet) list of reasons the poor old UN can't deliver the aid. Wah wah wah. One of the below, admittedly might not be true.
When aid transport roads become too badly damaged by Israeli military operations, when there are insufficient deconfliction mechanisms in place to ensure that aid workers don’t accidentally get hit by IDF fire, when authorizations aren’t given by the army for aid to be picked up and delivered, when our chakras are out of sync, and when looting becomes increasingly widespread due to food insecurity, an environment is created where the UN is physically prevented from doing its job, the former US envoy elaborated.
Are you denying that the UN's ability to act in Gaza is at the mercy of the IDF, who control the territory and have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later... or indeed just to shoot first and not bother with questions later?
You are parroting the Hamas talking points. You have no idea what is happening. All I see is the UN making all kinds of excuses for why they can't possibly deliver aid. All blaming the IDF and not one mention of Hamas. Do you find that strange.
The IDF control Gaza. They militarily defeated Hamas months ago. Those are the facts on the ground. Why is it strange, therefore, that the UN finds their main challenge being what Israel lets them do? You are the one who is dismissing reporting by Israeli newspapers as "Hamas talking points".
For reasons that no doubt Seth Frantzman will make the topic of his next book, the IDF manifestly haven't militarily defeated Hamas.
So your first fact is incorrect.
Difficult to take what you say thereafter very seriously tbh.
What territory do Hamas control?
Enough to mount continued resistance to the IDF and for IDF operations to engage in a seeming loop of clearing areas, withdrawing, and then having to re-enter them months later because Hamas has re-established itself.
As I said, to write "The [IDF] militarily defeated Hamas months ago" disqualifies you, sadly because this is a discussion board, from discussing Gaza.
The IDF are on this loop of withdrawing and re-invading because Netanyahu needs the distraction of military activity. Some in the IDF have even complained about the pointlessness of pulling out and going back in.
The Israel Defense Forces assessed on Friday that Hamas has been largely defeated militarily in the entire Gaza Strip, and it is now effectively a guerrilla terror group that will take some more time to dismantle.
Hamas is not the same organization it was pre-October 7, in terms of its command and control, weapons, rockets, and operatives, at least half of whom have been killed, according to the military.
If I can't be taken very seriously for saying that Israel has militarily defeated Hamas, then presumably you can't take the Israeli government seriously for saying the same thing.
One of the problems of believing everything you read in the mainstream media.
Hamas has patently obviously not been defeated militarily. It continues as a coherent force, albeit one much depleted. Any "outgoing Defense Force Chief of Staff" is hardly going to say "we haven't won yet", now are they. Same with government ministers.
And yet here we are: the IDF is still fighting Hamas and Hamas is still fighting the IDF. So not defeated militarily.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
Everyone has a mobile these days and Hamas are masters of PR on the socials. Where is the footage of the IDF shooting up aid sites.
Gaza has been under an electricity blackout by Israel since 11 October 2023. It's not straightforward to charge one's mobile. And smartphone ownership in Gaza is far from being 100%.
Your kidding, right?
Are you on the socials. Every other pro-Hamas post is showing a (often the same) apparently starving child. There are mobiles everywhere.
How does social media accounts (from outside Gaza) showing the same photo prove that everyone in Gaza has a smartphone? That makes no sense.
More broadly, the socials, particularly Twitter, are a deeply unreliable source of information. Stop looking at them! Read some newspapers. I look at those, including the English-language Israeli media (or I rely on a good friend, an Israeli citizen, who speaks Hebrew).
Topping is concerned that those risking their lives to collect food aren't stopping to get video for him while actually under fire.
What exactly is the UN for. There was a list of excuses as long as your arm why they couldn't possibly distribute aid.
Meanwhile, the dissolution of GHF is a key Hamas demand.
But by all means, carry on cheering Band Aid and the money it's delivering to Mengistu.
You seem very confused.
I don't think I've mentioned Band Aid. (As an aside, it's odd to claim the BBC didn't acknowledge the problems with the charity, as it spent quite a lot of money defending its going exactly that; https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/mar/07/bbc-holds-firm-ethiopia-famine-funds And charitable aid went both to Mengistu's regime and the TPLF rebels, each of whom used it for their own purposes.)
Unlike you, I don't claim to know what's going on in detail. I've set out what's verifiable rather than what's reported by the interested parties on both sides.
The UN is not the occupying power. Its activities in Gaza have been severely limited by the military occupiers, and a couple of hundred of their employees killed, accidentally or otherwise.
Israel demonstrated this weekend that it is entirely able to facilitate greater delivery of aid.
I don't mind your regular snide comments - I'm quite happy to respond in kind. It's your regular dodgy claims which bother me.
Nothing dodgy at all. Just exasperated that you and others on PB are so ill-informed.
I'm literally talking to people who post animated game footage of conflicts to try to prove points about actual tactical or strategic situations.
From yesterday, I think that Sean Trende (like Nat Silver), is one of very, very, few US political commentators who tell it as it is, rather than engaging in wishful thinking, ad hominem attacks, and creating straw men.
As far as I can tell, his politics are very moderate Republican, but that in no way impairs his judgement of events.
His article, last August, about Washington early voting numbers (and their predictive value for the election), was striking accurate.
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
If you read even the Israeli press rather than just following Twitter, you'd get a better picture of events.
You didn't seem to read the article.
Here is a (non-exhaustive, I bet) list of reasons the poor old UN can't deliver the aid. Wah wah wah. One of the below, admittedly might not be true.
When aid transport roads become too badly damaged by Israeli military operations, when there are insufficient deconfliction mechanisms in place to ensure that aid workers don’t accidentally get hit by IDF fire, when authorizations aren’t given by the army for aid to be picked up and delivered, when our chakras are out of sync, and when looting becomes increasingly widespread due to food insecurity, an environment is created where the UN is physically prevented from doing its job, the former US envoy elaborated.
Are you denying that the UN's ability to act in Gaza is at the mercy of the IDF, who control the territory and have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later... or indeed just to shoot first and not bother with questions later?
You are parroting the Hamas talking points. You have no idea what is happening. All I see is the UN making all kinds of excuses for why they can't possibly deliver aid. All blaming the IDF and not one mention of Hamas. Do you find that strange.
The IDF control Gaza. They militarily defeated Hamas months ago. Those are the facts on the ground. Why is it strange, therefore, that the UN finds their main challenge being what Israel lets them do? You are the one who is dismissing reporting by Israeli newspapers as "Hamas talking points".
For reasons that no doubt Seth Frantzman will make the topic of his next book, the IDF manifestly haven't militarily defeated Hamas.
So your first fact is incorrect.
Difficult to take what you say thereafter very seriously tbh.
What territory do Hamas control?
Enough to mount continued resistance to the IDF and for IDF operations to engage in a seeming loop of clearing areas, withdrawing, and then having to re-enter them months later because Hamas has re-established itself.
As I said, to write "The [IDF] militarily defeated Hamas months ago" disqualifies you, sadly because this is a discussion board, from discussing Gaza.
The IDF are on this loop of withdrawing and re-invading because Netanyahu needs the distraction of military activity. Some in the IDF have even complained about the pointlessness of pulling out and going back in.
The Israel Defense Forces assessed on Friday that Hamas has been largely defeated militarily in the entire Gaza Strip, and it is now effectively a guerrilla terror group that will take some more time to dismantle.
Hamas is not the same organization it was pre-October 7, in terms of its command and control, weapons, rockets, and operatives, at least half of whom have been killed, according to the military.
If I can't be taken very seriously for saying that Israel has militarily defeated Hamas, then presumably you can't take the Israeli government seriously for saying the same thing.
By way of comparison guerilla activity by German soldiers, continued for weeks, after the defeat of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. Heaps of rubble are ideal cover for guerillas.
On-topic question: When somebody says they "have to" do something because of the OSA how do we know this is not due to them taking an erroneous or absurdly risk-averse approach to it? Esp if they are an avowed opponent of the legislation.
Have a look at this.
The onus is no longer to remove ‘harmful’ content, it is to stop it being posted in the first place.
The illegal content duties are not just about removing existing illegal content; they are also about stopping it from appearing at all. Platforms need to think about how they design their sites to reduce the likelihood of them being used for criminal activity in the first place.
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:
child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence extreme pornography fraud racially or religiously aggravated public order offences inciting violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide intimate image abuse selling illegal drugs or weapons sexual exploitation terrorism
That is going to make the job of the PB mods even more onerous.
I'm pretty sure you don't aspire to becoming a test case for the limits of free speech, as a part time hobby. However much a few PBers might wish you to do so.
Yes, sympathies for ANYONE trying to run a discussion forum with these rules. It is fricking insane (am I allowed to say that? maybe I am being controlling?)
The Act is an abomination, it has to be repealed in toto
For once I am entirely in agreement with you. It's a very ill thought out piece of legislation, entirely on the "something must be done, and this is something" principle.
But until it is repealed - or at the very least is substantially modified, let us try not to cause trouble for TSE.
Well, yes
But it's not just me and my exuberant posting style being menaced here, I can think of dozens of comments from recent weeks - from multiple commenters - which could potentially "cross the line"
Indeed I do not see how discussion forums can work at all, unless they have pre-moderation in place, which is extremely expensive and time-consuming, and barely workable, anyway. And that means a small site like PB simply cannot function
And all this has come about because some female MPs were tired of being threatened by nutters on FB and X. Which is a worthy cause, but which has led to Free Speech basically being ended in the UK, because MPs are fecking stupid, or actively malign and authoritarian
Does this mean we can't talk about washing machines?
I'm afraid that's pretty much all we will be able to talk about
Speaking of which, yesterday I spray painted a table! I have become a DIY doyen. I used to do hard drugs and tweet from brothels, now I spray paint tables. Oh well
Yesterday, I painted two rooms in my house. Just another five plus the hall, stairwell and landing to go.
I was particularly proud of the way I handled a bedhead crisis.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
If the couple themselves hadn't acted the way they did, it's likely that no-one would have noticed. If they'd simply smiled and waved, the camera would have moved on, Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything, and they could well have got away with it. By acting furtively and trying to hide their faces, they were guaranteed to draw attention to themselves.
And equally, they could have appeared on a website or newspaper in a crowd photo, or on a clip on TV, or been recognised by someone who knew them. All the singer did was reference a possible affair, which is hardly a crime
And more than that, if Byron wants to allege defamation they must prove they weren't having an affair.
I imagine he'd allege breach of privacy rights.
Is what is being suggested.
They will be queuing up at court for a ringside seat.
As pointed out, previously, all tickets to concerts come with a "you are accepting that you may be recorded/broadcast" thing in the small print.
But not a “and the singer may broadcast his views of your assumed relationship status to the world and thereby bring your world crashing down about your ears” thing in the small print
Oh FFS, he needs to own the consequences of his actions. If you have an affair there is not an obligation on the rest of the world to cover for you. A large part of having an affair is ensuring that it is kept secret from your partner, that should determine who, where and how, if you can't manage that then either don't stray, manage the fallout or accept the consequences.
Sure but it wasn’t *solely* he (and her) actions. Chris Martin played a role too, and it was Martin’s actions that caused the damage (Byron simply created a vulnerability)
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
If the couple themselves hadn't acted the way they did, it's likely that no-one would have noticed. If they'd simply smiled and waved, the camera would have moved on, Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything, and they could well have got away with it. By acting furtively and trying to hide their faces, they were guaranteed to draw attention to themselves.
And equally, they could have appeared on a website or newspaper in a crowd photo, or on a clip on TV, or been recognised by someone who knew them. All the singer did was reference a possible affair, which is hardly a crime
And more than that, if Byron wants to allege defamation they must prove they weren't having an affair.
I imagine he'd allege breach of privacy rights.
Is what is being suggested.
They will be queuing up at court for a ringside seat.
As pointed out, previously, all tickets to concerts come with a "you are accepting that you may be recorded/broadcast" thing in the small print.
But not a “and the singer may broadcast his views of your assumed relationship status to the world and thereby bring your world crashing down about your ears” thing in the small print
Hundreds of people will have been having affairs in that audience.
Look, it's not something I approve of but I'm not fit to judge others and this isn't Saudi Arabia.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
If the couple themselves hadn't acted the way they did, it's likely that no-one would have noticed. If they'd simply smiled and waved, the camera would have moved on, Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything, and they could well have got away with it. By acting furtively and trying to hide their faces, they were guaranteed to draw attention to themselves.
And equally, they could have appeared on a website or newspaper in a crowd photo, or on a clip on TV, or been recognised by someone who knew them. All the singer did was reference a possible affair, which is hardly a crime
And more than that, if Byron wants to allege defamation they must prove they weren't having an affair.
I imagine he'd allege breach of privacy rights.
Is what is being suggested.
They will be queuing up at court for a ringside seat.
As pointed out, previously, all tickets to concerts come with a "you are accepting that you may be recorded/broadcast" thing in the small print.
But not a “and the singer may broadcast his views of your assumed relationship status to the world and thereby bring your world crashing down about your ears” thing in the small print
Oh FFS, he needs to own the consequences of his actions. If you have an affair there is not an obligation on the rest of the world to cover for you. A large part of having an affair is ensuring that it is kept secret from your partner, that should determine who, where and how, if you can't manage that then either don't stray, manage the fallout or accept the consequences.
Sure but it wasn’t *solely* he (and her) actions. Chris Martin played a role too, and it was Martin’s actions that caused the damage (Byron simply created a vulnerability)
I think Chris Martin is a prat.
He's a fifteen year old boy in an adult's body.
Mum frequently calls me a 50 year-old man-child (don't ask!).
BUT, BUT - I find that highly unfair. I don't actually turn 50 till later in the year.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
If the couple themselves hadn't acted the way they did, it's likely that no-one would have noticed. If they'd simply smiled and waved, the camera would have moved on, Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything, and they could well have got away with it. By acting furtively and trying to hide their faces, they were guaranteed to draw attention to themselves.
And equally, they could have appeared on a website or newspaper in a crowd photo, or on a clip on TV, or been recognised by someone who knew them. All the singer did was reference a possible affair, which is hardly a crime
And more than that, if Byron wants to allege defamation they must prove they weren't having an affair.
I imagine he'd allege breach of privacy rights.
Is what is being suggested.
They will be queuing up at court for a ringside seat.
As pointed out, previously, all tickets to concerts come with a "you are accepting that you may be recorded/broadcast" thing in the small print.
But not a “and the singer may broadcast his views of your assumed relationship status to the world and thereby bring your world crashing down about your ears” thing in the small print
Oh FFS, he needs to own the consequences of his actions. If you have an affair there is not an obligation on the rest of the world to cover for you. A large part of having an affair is ensuring that it is kept secret from your partner, that should determine who, where and how, if you can't manage that then either don't stray, manage the fallout or accept the consequences.
Sure but it wasn’t *solely* he (and her) actions. Chris Martin played a role too, and it was Martin’s actions that caused the damage (Byron simply created a vulnerability)
I think Chris Martin is a prat.
He's a fifteen year old boy in an adult's body.
Isn't that to entirely be expected of folk in his profession ?
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
If you read even the Israeli press rather than just following Twitter, you'd get a better picture of events.
You didn't seem to read the article.
Here is a (non-exhaustive, I bet) list of reasons the poor old UN can't deliver the aid. Wah wah wah. One of the below, admittedly might not be true.
When aid transport roads become too badly damaged by Israeli military operations, when there are insufficient deconfliction mechanisms in place to ensure that aid workers don’t accidentally get hit by IDF fire, when authorizations aren’t given by the army for aid to be picked up and delivered, when our chakras are out of sync, and when looting becomes increasingly widespread due to food insecurity, an environment is created where the UN is physically prevented from doing its job, the former US envoy elaborated.
Are you denying that the UN's ability to act in Gaza is at the mercy of the IDF, who control the territory and have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later... or indeed just to shoot first and not bother with questions later?
You are parroting the Hamas talking points. You have no idea what is happening. All I see is the UN making all kinds of excuses for why they can't possibly deliver aid. All blaming the IDF and not one mention of Hamas. Do you find that strange.
The IDF control Gaza. They militarily defeated Hamas months ago. Those are the facts on the ground. Why is it strange, therefore, that the UN finds their main challenge being what Israel lets them do? You are the one who is dismissing reporting by Israeli newspapers as "Hamas talking points".
For reasons that no doubt Seth Frantzman will make the topic of his next book, the IDF manifestly haven't militarily defeated Hamas.
So your first fact is incorrect.
Difficult to take what you say thereafter very seriously tbh.
What territory do Hamas control?
Enough to mount continued resistance to the IDF and for IDF operations to engage in a seeming loop of clearing areas, withdrawing, and then having to re-enter them months later because Hamas has re-established itself.
As I said, to write "The [IDF] militarily defeated Hamas months ago" disqualifies you, sadly because this is a discussion board, from discussing Gaza.
The IDF are on this loop of withdrawing and re-invading because Netanyahu needs the distraction of military activity. Some in the IDF have even complained about the pointlessness of pulling out and going back in.
The Israel Defense Forces assessed on Friday that Hamas has been largely defeated militarily in the entire Gaza Strip, and it is now effectively a guerrilla terror group that will take some more time to dismantle.
Hamas is not the same organization it was pre-October 7, in terms of its command and control, weapons, rockets, and operatives, at least half of whom have been killed, according to the military.
If I can't be taken very seriously for saying that Israel has militarily defeated Hamas, then presumably you can't take the Israeli government seriously for saying the same thing.
By way of comparison guerilla activity by German soldiers, continued for weeks, after the defeat of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. Heaps of rubble are ideal cover for guerillas.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
If the couple themselves hadn't acted the way they did, it's likely that no-one would have noticed. If they'd simply smiled and waved, the camera would have moved on, Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything, and they could well have got away with it. By acting furtively and trying to hide their faces, they were guaranteed to draw attention to themselves.
And equally, they could have appeared on a website or newspaper in a crowd photo, or on a clip on TV, or been recognised by someone who knew them. All the singer did was reference a possible affair, which is hardly a crime
And more than that, if Byron wants to allege defamation they must prove they weren't having an affair.
I imagine he'd allege breach of privacy rights.
Is what is being suggested.
They will be queuing up at court for a ringside seat.
As pointed out, previously, all tickets to concerts come with a "you are accepting that you may be recorded/broadcast" thing in the small print.
But not a “and the singer may broadcast his views of your assumed relationship status to the world and thereby bring your world crashing down about your ears” thing in the small print
Oh FFS, he needs to own the consequences of his actions. If you have an affair there is not an obligation on the rest of the world to cover for you. A large part of having an affair is ensuring that it is kept secret from your partner, that should determine who, where and how, if you can't manage that then either don't stray, manage the fallout or accept the consequences.
Sure but it wasn’t *solely* he (and her) actions. Chris Martin played a role too, and it was Martin’s actions that caused the damage (Byron simply created a vulnerability)
I think Chris Martin is a prat.
He's a fifteen year old boy in an adult's body.
Mum frequently calls me a 50 year-old man-child (don't ask!).
BUT, BUT - I find that highly unfair. I don't actually turn 50 till later in the year.
Er, your worthy mother has had to cope with you for 50 years and a bit. Think about it from her perspective.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
If the couple themselves hadn't acted the way they did, it's likely that no-one would have noticed. If they'd simply smiled and waved, the camera would have moved on, Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything, and they could well have got away with it. By acting furtively and trying to hide their faces, they were guaranteed to draw attention to themselves.
And equally, they could have appeared on a website or newspaper in a crowd photo, or on a clip on TV, or been recognised by someone who knew them. All the singer did was reference a possible affair, which is hardly a crime
And more than that, if Byron wants to allege defamation they must prove they weren't having an affair.
I imagine he'd allege breach of privacy rights.
Is what is being suggested.
They will be queuing up at court for a ringside seat.
As pointed out, previously, all tickets to concerts come with a "you are accepting that you may be recorded/broadcast" thing in the small print.
But not a “and the singer may broadcast his views of your assumed relationship status to the world and thereby bring your world crashing down about your ears” thing in the small print
Hundreds of people will have been having affairs in that audience.
Look, it's not something I approve of but I'm not fit to judge others and this isn't Saudi Arabia.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
If the couple themselves hadn't acted the way they did, it's likely that no-one would have noticed. If they'd simply smiled and waved, the camera would have moved on, Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything, and they could well have got away with it. By acting furtively and trying to hide their faces, they were guaranteed to draw attention to themselves.
And equally, they could have appeared on a website or newspaper in a crowd photo, or on a clip on TV, or been recognised by someone who knew them. All the singer did was reference a possible affair, which is hardly a crime
And more than that, if Byron wants to allege defamation they must prove they weren't having an affair.
I imagine he'd allege breach of privacy rights.
Is what is being suggested.
They will be queuing up at court for a ringside seat.
As pointed out, previously, all tickets to concerts come with a "you are accepting that you may be recorded/broadcast" thing in the small print.
But not a “and the singer may broadcast his views of your assumed relationship status to the world and thereby bring your world crashing down about your ears” thing in the small print
Oh FFS, he needs to own the consequences of his actions. If you have an affair there is not an obligation on the rest of the world to cover for you. A large part of having an affair is ensuring that it is kept secret from your partner, that should determine who, where and how, if you can't manage that then either don't stray, manage the fallout or accept the consequences.
Sure but it wasn’t *solely* he (and her) actions. Chris Martin played a role too, and it was Martin’s actions that caused the damage (Byron simply created a vulnerability)
I think Chris Martin is a prat.
He's a fifteen year old boy in an adult's body.
Mum frequently calls me a 50 year-old man-child (don't ask!).
BUT, BUT - I find that highly unfair. I don't actually turn 50 till later in the year.
Er, your worthy mother has had to cope with you for 50 years and a bit. Think about it from her perspective.
From my wife's perspective the 'trouble' began at about 5 months into the pregnancy...
Don't some people date you from conception rather than birth?
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
If the couple themselves hadn't acted the way they did, it's likely that no-one would have noticed. If they'd simply smiled and waved, the camera would have moved on, Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything, and they could well have got away with it. By acting furtively and trying to hide their faces, they were guaranteed to draw attention to themselves.
And equally, they could have appeared on a website or newspaper in a crowd photo, or on a clip on TV, or been recognised by someone who knew them. All the singer did was reference a possible affair, which is hardly a crime
And more than that, if Byron wants to allege defamation they must prove they weren't having an affair.
I imagine he'd allege breach of privacy rights.
Is what is being suggested.
They will be queuing up at court for a ringside seat.
As pointed out, previously, all tickets to concerts come with a "you are accepting that you may be recorded/broadcast" thing in the small print.
But not a “and the singer may broadcast his views of your assumed relationship status to the world and thereby bring your world crashing down about your ears” thing in the small print
Hundreds of people will have been having affairs in that audience.
Look, it's not something I approve of but I'm not fit to judge others and this isn't Saudi Arabia.
Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
Adultery is a stupid game.
So is voting Labour unless you're on benefits but it's still legal.
Regarding the OSA. I don't in principle object to age verification in some cases, although certainly not as broad as it is when the likes of Wikipedia are affected. What I can't understand is how the legislation is so badly drafted.
1. Not standardising the verification is plainly a big mistake. Ofcom isn't regulating verfication providers at all, and there are already many examples of trivial spoofing and issues with overreach and data protection.
2. Verfication would be a billion times easier if it was done on a client and end-user basis. Prove your age to Apple or Google once, and then have a frictionless zero-knowledge proof of age available for all apps and services, like any other permission you grant a web browser or app, such as location, camera access etc.
Ofcom have simply washed their hands of standardisation, regulation, and making the verification practical. Ofcom are plainly not competent to enforce the OSA in any meaningful way, and I'm certain will mainly make a song and dance of taking major sites to task when they inevitably get things wrong on occassion.
A total of 639,000 people with an honours degree or similar level qualification are claiming Universal Credit, according to the first data of its kind released to Parliament. Those without any qualifications who are receiving Universal Credit numbered 849,000, representing 15.9 per cent of claimants, according to the data from the Labour Force Survey for March to May this year, released to Parliament by the UK Statistics Authority.
CEO Andy Byron's moving forward with suing Coldplay for ruing his life.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
It's good to see Andy taking responsibility for his decision to have an affair.
Arguably there is a partial responsibility for Coldplay in that they called out his bad actions for the world’s attention. Perhaps a judge will determine that they are 20% responsible?
But it’s just a shakedown
It was a considered action by the plaintiff to attend the gig. The same cannot be said of a performer on stage in front of a large audience.
0.2% might be closer to the mark.
Under what tort is he claiming damages, anyway ? At a public event, reinforced by the terms and conditions on the ticketing, 1st Amendment surely applies. And what duty of care is owed in those circumstances ?
If Chris Martin hadn’t acted in the way he did no one would have paid attention.
Recklessly acting in such a way as to cause damage?
If the couple themselves hadn't acted the way they did, it's likely that no-one would have noticed. If they'd simply smiled and waved, the camera would have moved on, Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything, and they could well have got away with it. By acting furtively and trying to hide their faces, they were guaranteed to draw attention to themselves.
And equally, they could have appeared on a website or newspaper in a crowd photo, or on a clip on TV, or been recognised by someone who knew them. All the singer did was reference a possible affair, which is hardly a crime
And more than that, if Byron wants to allege defamation they must prove they weren't having an affair.
I imagine he'd allege breach of privacy rights.
Is what is being suggested.
They will be queuing up at court for a ringside seat.
As pointed out, previously, all tickets to concerts come with a "you are accepting that you may be recorded/broadcast" thing in the small print.
But not a “and the singer may broadcast his views of your assumed relationship status to the world and thereby bring your world crashing down about your ears” thing in the small print
Oh FFS, he needs to own the consequences of his actions. If you have an affair there is not an obligation on the rest of the world to cover for you. A large part of having an affair is ensuring that it is kept secret from your partner, that should determine who, where and how, if you can't manage that then either don't stray, manage the fallout or accept the consequences.
Sure but it wasn’t *solely* he (and her) actions. Chris Martin played a role too, and it was Martin’s actions that caused the damage (Byron simply created a vulnerability)
For goodness sake. This shows no understanding of the law and no common sense.
There's no defamation here because the infidelity does not appear to be in dispute (and in any event, Chris Martin didn't make the accusation in fact - he said they were either having an affair or were very camera shy).
There's no breach of a legitimate expectation of privacy because there is no legitimate expectation of privacy at a concert with thousands of people, a megatron, and standard ticket Ts&Cs.
Your position seems to be that if there is any element of causation, there must be liability. That's wrong - there needs to be a specific and established tort, the elements of which need to be made out. On your argument, a colleague who had simply informed the wife that her husband was having an affair would in some way be liable for damage done to him because, whilst true, she'd not have known but for the colleague. That is hogwash, and has no basis in law or indeed sanity.
Regarding the OSA. I don't in principle object to age verification in some cases, although certainly not as broad as it is when the likes of Wikipedia are affected. What I can't understand is how the legislation is so badly drafted.
1. Not standardising the verification is plainly a big mistake. Ofcom isn't regulating verfication providers at all, and there are already many examples of trivial spoofing and issues with overreach and data protection.
2. Verfication would be a billion times easier if it was done on a client and end-user basis. Prove your age to Apple or Google once, and then have a frictionless zero-knowledge proof of age available for all apps and services, like any other permission you grant a web browser or app, such as location, camera access etc.
Ofcom have simply washed their hands of standardisation, regulation, and making the verification practical. Ofcom are plainly not competent to enforce the OSA in any meaningful way, and I'm certain will mainly make a song and dance of taking major sites to task when they inevitably get things wrong on occassion.
The OSA wants binning, as does Ofcom.
Were Ofcom the people who asked for OSA or merely the people told to sort it out without being given any resources to do so.
If the latter I’m not surprised they’ve done a quarter arsed job
I guess this lot will also be labelled antisemites too.
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, say Israel-based human rights groups
Reports detailing killing of children and elderly, forced displacement and starvation likely to add to pressure for action
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.
Multiple international and Palestinian groups have already described the war as genocidal, but reports from two of Israel-Palestine’s most respected human rights organisations, who have for decades documented systemic abuses, is likely to add to pressure for action.
Like the man said, the Palestine Action neo-terrorists should stop waving placards and instead advertise starving babies in the American and Israeli press.
Although its interesting that the photo we have all seen is NOT a simple starving Gazan baby. As ever the spin is heroic.
Can't see the status quo going on much longer to be honest. Something is going to give.
It's fascinating. I mean tragic, ofc, but fascinating. If you listen to GHF et al, and look at some of the footage, then there seems to be plenty (if insufficient I have no doubt) of aid either being distributed (GHF) or waiting to be distributed (the stockpiles we see on X).
But then again there is apparently mass starvation with, today it was announced on the Beeb, Gazans not having eaten for days.
No journalists apparently mean that we can't verify. But there are plenty of cellphones in Gaza so I wonder why we are not seeing widespread footage of the starving masses. Certainly as the social media campaign of GHF et al is ramping up with footage and invited journalists events, usw.
Then again, pictures of that one poor baby with CF managed to convince the world's news outlets that there is mass starvation, so Hamas must be sitting back thinking our work here is done.
An American former contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) said in an interview that aired Friday that during his time working in Gaza, he saw Israeli soldiers and US contractors use “indiscriminate” force against civilians at aid sites, in what he described as “war crimes.”
Yeah, apparently a disgruntled ex-GHF employee but who knows. There is no doubt that GHF is (apparently) distributing up to 2m meals per day. And also telling that dismantling their effort was, again apparently, the second item on Hamas' ceasefire demand list.
Which, if it is indeed the case, makes perfect sense.
There is a coherent, indeed understandable narrative, whereby Hamas, in conjunction/collusion with the UN, wants to be in charge of food distribution in Gaza because this confers power on them (Hamas). Ceding that power to an external agency is very damaging. Hence the campaign to vilify GHF. Is this the case? Who knows. It is certainly credible to me.
But again, if I were Hamas I would be sitting back and high-fiving (if the two can be performed simultaneously) because they have without doubt won the PR battle such that people expect Michael Buerk to be parading around Beit Hanoun pointing out the starving masses. But he isn't. And no one else is. So it's interesting to wonder why this is.
Hamas seem able to pull the wool over the eyes of not just the UN, but Western journalists, European governments, Ehud Olmert and other Israeli opposition politicians, Israeli human rights organisations, and long-standing supporters of Israel like Edward Leigh, and Jonathan Sumption.
GHF might well be distributing a lot of food aid, but people have to run the risk of IDF members taking pot-shots at them, in order to obtain it.
If you read even the Israeli press rather than just following Twitter, you'd get a better picture of events.
You didn't seem to read the article.
Here is a (non-exhaustive, I bet) list of reasons the poor old UN can't deliver the aid. Wah wah wah. One of the below, admittedly might not be true.
When aid transport roads become too badly damaged by Israeli military operations, when there are insufficient deconfliction mechanisms in place to ensure that aid workers don’t accidentally get hit by IDF fire, when authorizations aren’t given by the army for aid to be picked up and delivered, when our chakras are out of sync, and when looting becomes increasingly widespread due to food insecurity, an environment is created where the UN is physically prevented from doing its job, the former US envoy elaborated.
Are you denying that the UN's ability to act in Gaza is at the mercy of the IDF, who control the territory and have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later... or indeed just to shoot first and not bother with questions later?
You are parroting the Hamas talking points. You have no idea what is happening. All I see is the UN making all kinds of excuses for why they can't possibly deliver aid. All blaming the IDF and not one mention of Hamas. Do you find that strange.
The IDF control Gaza. They militarily defeated Hamas months ago. Those are the facts on the ground. Why is it strange, therefore, that the UN finds their main challenge being what Israel lets them do? You are the one who is dismissing reporting by Israeli newspapers as "Hamas talking points".
For reasons that no doubt Seth Frantzman will make the topic of his next book, the IDF manifestly haven't militarily defeated Hamas.
So your first fact is incorrect.
Difficult to take what you say thereafter very seriously tbh.
What territory do Hamas control?
Enough to mount continued resistance to the IDF and for IDF operations to engage in a seeming loop of clearing areas, withdrawing, and then having to re-enter them months later because Hamas has re-established itself.
As I said, to write "The [IDF] militarily defeated Hamas months ago" disqualifies you, sadly because this is a discussion board, from discussing Gaza.
The IDF are on this loop of withdrawing and re-invading because Netanyahu needs the distraction of military activity. Some in the IDF have even complained about the pointlessness of pulling out and going back in.
The Israel Defense Forces assessed on Friday that Hamas has been largely defeated militarily in the entire Gaza Strip, and it is now effectively a guerrilla terror group that will take some more time to dismantle.
Hamas is not the same organization it was pre-October 7, in terms of its command and control, weapons, rockets, and operatives, at least half of whom have been killed, according to the military.
If I can't be taken very seriously for saying that Israel has militarily defeated Hamas, then presumably you can't take the Israeli government seriously for saying the same thing.
One of the problems of believing everything you read in the mainstream media.
Hamas has patently obviously not been defeated militarily. It continues as a coherent force, albeit one much depleted. Any "outgoing Defense Force Chief of Staff" is hardly going to say "we haven't won yet", now are they. Same with government ministers.
And yet here we are: the IDF is still fighting Hamas and Hamas is still fighting the IDF. So not defeated militarily.
I mean this is basic stuff.
I mean it’s tea time and the ceiling hasn’t fallen in yet.
Restrictions on the use of VPNs will open up all sorts of security issues for businesses and government.....surely they can't be that stupid...
They can
If the OSA turns out to be so bad they ban or "license" VPNs in some half-arsed attempt to make this piece of shit work, then that might be the final thing that tilts me to emigration. Because the UK will have many of the downsides of an authoritarian state like China, but without the good stuff - like zero crime, strict migration laws, gleaming infrastructure. Plus swingeing taxes
Comments
Talking of big cats, Trump's answer to the question about the lionesses was particularly unhinged.
On topic. A particularly ludicrous question from a far right commentator ( GBNews or someone else?) to Trump " what do you make of Starmer censoring Truth Social posts?". And Trump almost bit.
I am partial to Millon de Floss
This is the Times of Israel in September last year: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-assesses-hamas-defeated-military-in-all-of-gaza-is-now-a-guerrilla-terror-group/
The Israel Defense Forces assessed on Friday that Hamas has been largely defeated militarily in the entire Gaza Strip, and it is now effectively a guerrilla terror group that will take some more time to dismantle.
Hamas is not the same organization it was pre-October 7, in terms of its command and control, weapons, rockets, and operatives, at least half of whom have been killed, according to the military.
Here's the Telegraph from October last year: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/06/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1/ Hamas military defeated, declares Israel
If I can't be taken very seriously for saying that Israel has militarily defeated Hamas, then presumably you can't take the Israeli government seriously for saying the same thing.
Or see https://www.jns.org/hamas-defeated-militarily-tactically-outgoing-idf-chief-says/ Hamas’s military branch has been “defeated militarily and tactically,” outgoing Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi said last week
Although, would that be worse than having a stinker (of a presser) with a stinker (diapers)?
I don't think I've mentioned Band Aid.
(As an aside, it's odd to claim the BBC didn't acknowledge the problems with the charity, as it spent quite a lot of money defending its going exactly that;
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/mar/07/bbc-holds-firm-ethiopia-famine-funds
And charitable aid went both to Mengistu's regime and the TPLF rebels, each of whom used it for their own purposes.)
Unlike you, I don't claim to know what's going on in detail. I've set out what's verifiable rather than what's reported by the interested parties on both sides.
The UN is not the occupying power. Its activities in Gaza have been severely limited by the military occupiers, and a couple of hundred of their employees killed, accidentally or otherwise.
Israel demonstrated this weekend that it is entirely able to facilitate greater delivery of aid.
I don't mind your regular snide comments - I'm quite happy to respond in kind. It's your regular dodgy claims which bother me.
Hamas has patently obviously not been defeated militarily. It continues as a coherent force, albeit one much depleted. Any "outgoing Defense Force Chief of Staff" is hardly going to say "we haven't won yet", now are they. Same with government ministers.
And yet here we are: the IDF is still fighting Hamas and Hamas is still fighting the IDF. So not defeated militarily.
I mean this is basic stuff.
'Hes my friend, actually' is about the most limp and lame thing a British PM has ever uttered at such a presser.
I'm literally talking to people who post animated game footage of conflicts to try to prove points about actual tactical or strategic situations.
It gets quite frustrating at times tbh.
Trump gives first indication of why he fell out with Jeffrey Epstein: "He hired help away from me."
Suggests he didn't talk to Epstein for years because the notorious paedophile poached staff who had worked for him.
I have thought on it and prayed about it, and I have decided: I am running to be the next U.S. Senator from North Carolina.
https://x.com/RoyCooperNC/status/1949801503801155964
He's a fifteen year old boy in an adult's body.
Look, it's not something I approve of but I'm not fit to judge others and this isn't Saudi Arabia.
BUT, BUT - I find that highly unfair. I don't actually turn 50 till later in the year.
Adultery is a stupid game.
Don't some people date you from conception rather than birth?
1. Not standardising the verification is plainly a big mistake. Ofcom isn't regulating verfication providers at all, and there are already many examples of trivial spoofing and issues with overreach and data protection.
2. Verfication would be a billion times easier if it was done on a client and end-user basis. Prove your age to Apple or Google once, and then have a frictionless zero-knowledge proof of age available for all apps and services, like any other permission you grant a web browser or app, such as location, camera access etc.
Ofcom have simply washed their hands of standardisation, regulation, and making the verification practical. Ofcom are plainly not competent to enforce the OSA in any meaningful way, and I'm certain will mainly make a song and dance of taking major sites to task when they inevitably get things wrong on occassion.
The OSA wants binning, as does Ofcom.
There's no defamation here because the infidelity does not appear to be in dispute (and in any event, Chris Martin didn't make the accusation in fact - he said they were either having an affair or were very camera shy).
There's no breach of a legitimate expectation of privacy because there is no legitimate expectation of privacy at a concert with thousands of people, a megatron, and standard ticket Ts&Cs.
Your position seems to be that if there is any element of causation, there must be liability. That's wrong - there needs to be a specific and established tort, the elements of which need to be made out. On your argument, a colleague who had simply informed the wife that her husband was having an affair would in some way be liable for damage done to him because, whilst true, she'd not have known but for the colleague. That is hogwash, and has no basis in law or indeed sanity.
NEW THREAD
If the latter I’m not surprised they’ve done a quarter arsed job
Spiffing good show, what?