If Starmer resigns or loses a leadership challenge, his most likely replacement as PM is Rayner so she should be higher. Streeting, Cooper and Burnham if back as an MP should also be higher in the event Starmer resigned.
Farage is clearly most likely opposition leader to be next PM on current polls but if Reform failed to win a majority but most seats it is not certain he would get Tory confidence and supply so he is too high
Why wouldn't he get C&S from the tories? They like Fukker policies (ethnic cleansing, environmental vandalism, etc.) better than they like their own.
Policies that are remarkably similar to Putin and Trump, they have a lot in common.
If a hung Parliament then the Tories have a dilemma. C and S means their extinction, refusing C and S keeps Labour in power, so also their extinction. They are zugswang.
There is no point in tactically voting Tory to keep out Reform, as more than likely the two will merge after the GE.
If Cleverly or Stride were Tory leader at the next GE there is a lot of tactical sense in voting Tory in Tory held seats targeted by Reform if you want to keep Farage from No 10
If Cleverly or Stride are Tory leader at the next GE, then we're facing wipeout,
The next play is Jenrick or bust
Except the evidence doesn't show that, Reform voters aren't going to leave Farage just because Jenrick becomes Tory leader.
Absent a Boris return (the only Tory leader Farage really fears) the best the Tories can hope to do is hold the Sunak 2024 vote which Cleverly or Stride are best placed to do and then hope Farage loses the next GE and leaves the scene, which might then offer an opening for Jenrick to reunite the right.
Ironically a Starmer win, even if with only a Labour minority government, is probably better for the Tories long term future next time than a Farage win as it would at least show Farage can't win, only the Tories can win from the right in the UK
If the Tories cant come up with an offer and strategy to beat Nigel Farage and his crack team of unknowns and nut jobs they deserve to rot in their ruin. Lee feckin Anderson is their chief whip. Mr twelve parties a year.
They had one, Boris as leader which kept Farage in his box from autumn 2019-2022, as soon as they removed him Farage was back again
Farage returned to UK politics in June 2024, I don't think that counts as 'as soon as they removed Boris'
Even by December 2022 Reform were polling 8-9% in many polls, paving the way for Farage's return to take Reform to 14% at the 2024 GE.
When Boris resigned in July 2022 though Reform were only polling 3 or 4% in most polls
That shows that a significant tranche of the voting population want to vote for a wanker. They voted for Johnson. When he was no longer available, they transferred to Farage. Both wankers.
There are even some voters who voted for Farage in 2015, Corbyn 2017, Boris 2019 and then Farage again in 2024, especially in the redwall
Following our recent discussions about Edinburgh tourism, and also Coldplay, I see that Mr Gallagher L. has entered the arena of cultural criticism in Edinburgh and especially the Festival Fringe (currently being enriched by an Orange march right through the city centre btw).
'OASIS launched a dig at Edinburgh City Council during their first gig at the city's Murrayfield Stadium.
It comes after council officials were accused of suggesting the band's fans are "drunk, middle-aged and fat", after documents were leaked which showed bosses raising concerns that the band's comeback tour would clash with the Edinburgh Fringe festival. [...] At the band's first of three gigs in Murrayfield on Friday, Liam Gallagher paused the show to hit back at council bosses, the Daily Record reports.
He said: "One second, where do I start here with everyone at the city council, the fucking slags.
"£1 billion we're bringing to this city over the next three days. £1bn. [rest redacted for the sake of OGH, as it's potentially libellous and certainly not nice]".
[... ] During Friday's gig, Noel Gallagher also made his feelings clear on the Edinburgh Fringe, which sees thousands of people flock to the city for the month of August.
"What the fuck's going on in Edinburgh. All this jugglers and sword swallowing swords and all that shit. Load of fucking bollocks," he told fans.'
I'm struck by his notion that Oasis bring 1bn into Edinburgh - given that the place is invariably booked out at this time of year anyway.
How are they bringing £1 billion to Edinburgh over three days?
Well, quite, unless they are taking it away again.
"Russia’s federal budget deficit in July 2025 grew by $15.1 billion, surpassing the finance ministry’s annual forecast by over 25 percent, the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation reports. The deficit for the first seven months reached $61.5 billion, 4.5 times higher than last year."
Following our recent discussions about Edinburgh tourism, and also Coldplay, I see that Mr Gallagher L. has entered the arena of cultural criticism in Edinburgh and especially the Festival Fringe (currently being enriched by an Orange march right through the city centre btw).
'OASIS launched a dig at Edinburgh City Council during their first gig at the city's Murrayfield Stadium.
It comes after council officials were accused of suggesting the band's fans are "drunk, middle-aged and fat", after documents were leaked which showed bosses raising concerns that the band's comeback tour would clash with the Edinburgh Fringe festival. [...] At the band's first of three gigs in Murrayfield on Friday, Liam Gallagher paused the show to hit back at council bosses, the Daily Record reports.
He said: "One second, where do I start here with everyone at the city council, the fucking slags.
"£1 billion we're bringing to this city over the next three days. £1bn. [rest redacted for the sake of OGH, as it's potentially libellous and certainly not nice]".
[... ] During Friday's gig, Noel Gallagher also made his feelings clear on the Edinburgh Fringe, which sees thousands of people flock to the city for the month of August.
"What the fuck's going on in Edinburgh. All this jugglers and sword swallowing swords and all that shit. Load of fucking bollocks," he told fans.'
I'm struck by his notion that Oasis bring 1bn into Edinburgh - given that the place is invariably booked out at this time of year anyway.
How are they bringing £1 billion to Edinburgh over three days?
Following our recent discussions about Edinburgh tourism, and also Coldplay, I see that Mr Gallagher L. has entered the arena of cultural criticism in Edinburgh and especially the Festival Fringe (currently being enriched by an Orange march right through the city centre btw).
'OASIS launched a dig at Edinburgh City Council during their first gig at the city's Murrayfield Stadium.
It comes after council officials were accused of suggesting the band's fans are "drunk, middle-aged and fat", after documents were leaked which showed bosses raising concerns that the band's comeback tour would clash with the Edinburgh Fringe festival. [...] At the band's first of three gigs in Murrayfield on Friday, Liam Gallagher paused the show to hit back at council bosses, the Daily Record reports.
He said: "One second, where do I start here with everyone at the city council, the fucking slags.
"£1 billion we're bringing to this city over the next three days. £1bn. [rest redacted for the sake of OGH, as it's potentially libellous and certainly not nice]".
[... ] During Friday's gig, Noel Gallagher also made his feelings clear on the Edinburgh Fringe, which sees thousands of people flock to the city for the month of August.
"What the fuck's going on in Edinburgh. All this jugglers and sword swallowing swords and all that shit. Load of fucking bollocks," he told fans.'
I'm struck by his notion that Oasis bring 1bn into Edinburgh - given that the place is invariably booked out at this time of year anyway.
How are they bringing £1 billion to Edinburgh over three days?
20,000 camper vans?
You should see the problems the things are causing up north. Most recently by the drivers being clueless and going out in the storm the other week and crashing and blocking many a Highlands and island road.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Trump won the presidential election last year on a platform which included a ceasefire in Ukraine and no more US military aid for Zelensky.
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
Europe, including the UK needs to put more pressure on Russia, military if necessary. We need to be independent of the untrustworthy Americans until they come to their senses and get rid of Trump and all his acolytes. If Putin is allowed to get hold of even a small part of Ukraine, who will be next? Estonia? Finland?
Putin doesn't care what Europe threatens, our continent has shown time and time again we prefer spending on welfare and health and public services far more than we do spending on defence, only the US is willing to match Russia on defence spending.
Yes we may spend a bit more now but still our voters won't back public service cuts to send more missiles to Ukraine.
Estonia and Finland are in NATO unlike Ukraine, Putin wants a greater Russia but he still doesn't want a full war with NATO
The majority of the twentieth century would somewhat contradict this.....
The opposite, Germany was only defeated in WW1 once the US entered the War in 1917.
Western Europe was also only freed from the Nazis in WW2 after the US entered the War in 1941, only the UK holding firm free of Fascism before that.
It was also US aid and arms spending which ultimately won the Cold War and saw the Soviet Union collapse
You really don't know much history do you. Go and read about the naval race and then we can talk.
Well the naval race didn't defeat Germany either did it
Ultimately, it did.
At Jutland, the prisoner assaulted the jailer. But the prisoner remained in prison.
The sane in WWII. The RN owned the surface. Which is how they enforced the blockade and eventually defeated the U Boats.
It was still only the arrival of US troops in 1917 that led to the Hundred Days Offensive in 1918 that pushed the Germans back far enough to effectively win the war.
"Russia’s federal budget deficit in July 2025 grew by $15.1 billion, surpassing the finance ministry’s annual forecast by over 25 percent, the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation reports. The deficit for the first seven months reached $61.5 billion, 4.5 times higher than last year."
Following our recent discussions about Edinburgh tourism, and also Coldplay, I see that Mr Gallagher L. has entered the arena of cultural criticism in Edinburgh and especially the Festival Fringe (currently being enriched by an Orange march right through the city centre btw).
'OASIS launched a dig at Edinburgh City Council during their first gig at the city's Murrayfield Stadium.
It comes after council officials were accused of suggesting the band's fans are "drunk, middle-aged and fat", after documents were leaked which showed bosses raising concerns that the band's comeback tour would clash with the Edinburgh Fringe festival. [...] At the band's first of three gigs in Murrayfield on Friday, Liam Gallagher paused the show to hit back at council bosses, the Daily Record reports.
He said: "One second, where do I start here with everyone at the city council, the fucking slags.
"£1 billion we're bringing to this city over the next three days. £1bn. [rest redacted for the sake of OGH, as it's potentially libellous and certainly not nice]".
[... ] During Friday's gig, Noel Gallagher also made his feelings clear on the Edinburgh Fringe, which sees thousands of people flock to the city for the month of August.
"What the fuck's going on in Edinburgh. All this jugglers and sword swallowing swords and all that shit. Load of fucking bollocks," he told fans.'
I'm struck by his notion that Oasis bring 1bn into Edinburgh - given that the place is invariably booked out at this time of year anyway.
How are they bringing £1 billion to Edinburgh over three days?
Well, quite, unless they are taking it away again.
Apparently there will be 200,000 fans going to the concerts. Therefore one billion would be £5,000 each. Which seems rather high, even for Edinburgh prices.
I wonder how much the organisers are paying the council? Enough to cover policing costs (or are they kept separate)?
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
It's quite a turn around from his 10m are on benefits, no work ethic, end of times from only a couple of years ago.
I have a little theory about why some columnists and celebs become radicalised to the right or left - usually right - and others become radically deradicalised (Nelson is perhaps not quite in this space but Paul Mason seems to be, as are several erstwhile true blue Tories who’ve become centrist dads over the years - Matthew D’Ancona for example).
I think it’s about experiencing hate on social media. Occasionally you get piled on by people on your own side, usually for not being extreme enough. Quite a lonely experience I imagine. But sometimes you’ll get a groundswell of support from others, and if those are on the other side, you may find yourself drifting towards them. Human nature.
So while the normal engagement feedback loop is towards radicalisation, occasionally it can operate the other way.
No. Fraser Nelson was always seriously left wing and liberal
Lol. Seriously left wing? Fraser Nelson?
This is like a mad Trot calling Barry Gardiner a Tory.
It tells us where the author of the comment stands not where the subject of it does.
Obviously hyperbole from a poster known for a tad of it. But he is definitely somebody for whom the Tory party left him,
But another referendum looming on the horizon may prove a major challenge for Nelson's relationship with his proprietors. He is married to a Swede, and admits, "I am a soppy Europhile who speaks a second language at home. The idea of a united Europe was one that really excited me when I was younger, and which I love now." How Nelson's enthusiasm for Europe will play out in the Spectator's pages in the event of an EU referendum is, he concedes, "a good question".
Following our recent discussions about Edinburgh tourism, and also Coldplay, I see that Mr Gallagher L. has entered the arena of cultural criticism in Edinburgh and especially the Festival Fringe (currently being enriched by an Orange march right through the city centre btw).
'OASIS launched a dig at Edinburgh City Council during their first gig at the city's Murrayfield Stadium.
It comes after council officials were accused of suggesting the band's fans are "drunk, middle-aged and fat", after documents were leaked which showed bosses raising concerns that the band's comeback tour would clash with the Edinburgh Fringe festival. [...] At the band's first of three gigs in Murrayfield on Friday, Liam Gallagher paused the show to hit back at council bosses, the Daily Record reports.
He said: "One second, where do I start here with everyone at the city council, the fucking slags.
"£1 billion we're bringing to this city over the next three days. £1bn. [rest redacted for the sake of OGH, as it's potentially libellous and certainly not nice]".
[... ] During Friday's gig, Noel Gallagher also made his feelings clear on the Edinburgh Fringe, which sees thousands of people flock to the city for the month of August.
"What the fuck's going on in Edinburgh. All this jugglers and sword swallowing swords and all that shit. Load of fucking bollocks," he told fans.'
I'm struck by his notion that Oasis bring 1bn into Edinburgh - given that the place is invariably booked out at this time of year anyway.
How are they bringing £1 billion to Edinburgh over three days?
'Cause that's their net worth ... but they'll also be taking it away with them when they leave ?
Amusingly Robbie Savage is listed in the position above him on that list.
Dave Gorman did a whole episode on that YouGov data several years ago and it was hilariously all over the place. Ant and Dec, who most people don't know which is which, but the YouGov survey had the public believing one as to the left of Mao and the other to the right of Thatcher.
Following our recent discussions about Edinburgh tourism, and also Coldplay, I see that Mr Gallagher L. has entered the arena of cultural criticism in Edinburgh and especially the Festival Fringe (currently being enriched by an Orange march right through the city centre btw).
'OASIS launched a dig at Edinburgh City Council during their first gig at the city's Murrayfield Stadium.
It comes after council officials were accused of suggesting the band's fans are "drunk, middle-aged and fat", after documents were leaked which showed bosses raising concerns that the band's comeback tour would clash with the Edinburgh Fringe festival. [...] At the band's first of three gigs in Murrayfield on Friday, Liam Gallagher paused the show to hit back at council bosses, the Daily Record reports.
He said: "One second, where do I start here with everyone at the city council, the fucking slags.
"£1 billion we're bringing to this city over the next three days. £1bn. [rest redacted for the sake of OGH, as it's potentially libellous and certainly not nice]".
[... ] During Friday's gig, Noel Gallagher also made his feelings clear on the Edinburgh Fringe, which sees thousands of people flock to the city for the month of August.
"What the fuck's going on in Edinburgh. All this jugglers and sword swallowing swords and all that shit. Load of fucking bollocks," he told fans.'
I'm struck by his notion that Oasis bring 1bn into Edinburgh - given that the place is invariably booked out at this time of year anyway.
How are they bringing £1 billion to Edinburgh over three days?
Well, quite, unless they are taking it away again.
Apparently there will be 200,000 fans going to the concerts. Therefore one billion would be £5,000 each. Which seems rather high, even for Edinburgh prices.
I wonder how much the organisers are paying the council? Enough to cover policing costs (or are they kept separate)?
And the hotels etc would be occupied anyway at this time of year. A lot of it will be day trips.
The campaign to stop Nigel Farage becoming next PM isn't going too well is it.
They've led the polling for 3.5 months. Ed Miliband led convincingly for 2.5 years and flopped to a big defeat. There's a serious case of immediacy bias in this parliament
Yes. I don't think people are fully grasping the heft of the chunk of time which must flow between here and 2029. That's not next year, or the year after, or even the year after that. It's an eternity, esp in a world as volatile as this.
Nigel Farage is not 'marching to power'. With pretty much everything going for him atm, and under no scrutiny, and with his propagandists working like energiser bunnies, he has a nice little lead in the polls for something that is not even on the horizon let alone in clear view.
One tactic Tommy Robinson and his Rebel Media backer, is deploying the Trump approach i.e. go on loads and loads of podcasts where they don't push him very hard on his dodgy background.
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
The campaign to stop Nigel Farage becoming next PM isn't going too well is it.
They've led the polling for 3.5 months. Ed Miliband led convincingly for 2.5 years and flopped to a big defeat. There's a serious case of immediacy bias in this parliament
Yes. I don't think people are fully grasping the heft of the chunk of time which must flow between here and 2029. That's not next year, or the year after, or even the year after that. It's an eternity, esp in a world as volatile as this.
Nigel Farage is not 'marching to power'. With pretty much everything going for him atm, and under no scrutiny, and with his propagandists working like energiser bunnies, he has a nice little lead in the polls for something that is not even on the horizon let alone in clear view.
Quite. There will be any number of big events between now and then which will move the dial for the parties. Labour will benefit from being the government, the Tories from being HMO at times. Reform won't keep everyone absolutely raging about immigration for 4 years and will have to show they can run things at council and devolved levels as well as present a plan for government. If things are like this after next years voting then perhaps their support is hard. As it stands, they benefit from dissatisfaction and NOTA
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
It's quite a turn around from his 10m are on benefits, no work ethic, end of times from only a couple of years ago.
I have a little theory about why some columnists and celebs become radicalised to the right or left - usually right - and others become radically deradicalised (Nelson is perhaps not quite in this space but Paul Mason seems to be, as are several erstwhile true blue Tories who’ve become centrist dads over the years - Matthew D’Ancona for example).
I think it’s about experiencing hate on social media. Occasionally you get piled on by people on your own side, usually for not being extreme enough. Quite a lonely experience I imagine. But sometimes you’ll get a groundswell of support from others, and if those are on the other side, you may find yourself drifting towards them. Human nature.
So while the normal engagement feedback loop is towards radicalisation, occasionally it can operate the other way.
No. Fraser Nelson was always seriously left wing and liberal
Lol. Seriously left wing? Fraser Nelson?
This is like a mad Trot calling Barry Gardiner a Tory.
It tells us where the author of the comment stands not where the subject of it does.
Obviously hyperbole from a poster known for a tad of it. But he is definitely somebody for whom the Tory party left him,
But another referendum looming on the horizon may prove a major challenge for Nelson's relationship with his proprietors. He is married to a Swede, and admits, "I am a soppy Europhile who speaks a second language at home. The idea of a united Europe was one that really excited me when I was younger, and which I love now." How Nelson's enthusiasm for Europe will play out in the Spectator's pages in the event of an EU referendum is, he concedes, "a good question".
Yes, he's the sort of Tory who used to make up a large part of the party until quite recently.
The big divide in politics now is not right v left, it's populist v anti-populist. I'm the latter. My politics are left of centre but getting that is less of a priority than avoiding the utter nonsense of Reform.
If I were in a Ref/Con marginal I'd vote Con (unless Jenrick). Can't believe I typed that but it's true. Thankfully I'm spared the horror because my constituency is solid Lab.
It was still only the arrival of US troops in 1917 that led to the Hundred Days Offensive in 1918 that pushed the Germans back far enough to effectively win the war.
The imperial German navy threw everything it had against the RN at Jutland because they understood it was the one chance to break the blockade that was strangling their country. When it didn't work the inevitable came to pass; by time the Americans got involved the German people were starving, the army could barely feed its horses and discipline in the navy had started to break down.
The war would have staggered on for a while without the Americans, but Germany was already defeated.
It was still only the arrival of US troops in 1917 that led to the Hundred Days Offensive in 1918 that pushed the Germans back far enough to effectively win the war.
The imperial German navy threw everything it had against the RN at Jutland because they understood it was the one chance to break the blockade that was strangling their country. When it didn't work the inevitable came to pass; by time the Americans got involved the German people were starving, the army could barely feed its horses and discipline in the navy had started to break down.
The war would have staggered on for a while without the Americans, but Germany was already defeated.
The Russians were also involved on the allied side until 1917 in WW1 which is not the case now and the Royal Navy is nowhere near the size it was at Jutland so even if we wanted to surround and blockade Russia from the sea we couldn't
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
Also could be arrested under the Public Order Act which long predates Starmer
It was still only the arrival of US troops in 1917 that led to the Hundred Days Offensive in 1918 that pushed the Germans back far enough to effectively win the war.
The imperial German navy threw everything it had against the RN at Jutland because they understood it was the one chance to break the blockade that was strangling their country. When it didn't work the inevitable came to pass; by time the Americans got involved the German people were starving, the army could barely feed its horses and discipline in the navy had started to break down.
The war would have staggered on for a while without the Americans, but Germany was already defeated.
By November 1918 the German spring draft was spent. The Americans had just turned up with unlimited numbers of 18 year olds. War is sometimes just a brutal question of how many people you have available to be killed, which is how Putin seems to see it
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
Am I right in thinking that before standing for a seat in Parliament Burnham would have to resign as Mayor, because of the dual role as PCC?
Wouldn't he only have to resign as Mayor if he wins the by-election, not before standing?
Pretty sure that MPs have gone the other way before and only taken the Chiltern Hundreds upon winning, not upon standing.
I think the rules are varied by Mayoral post, and also by political party.
Labour recently changed theirs to prevent Regional Mayors being MPs, I believe - for example.
The question was due to incompatibility with PCC role.
Tracy Brabin resigned her seat after the election, not before, due to that incompatibility.
Burnham if he were to run for Parliament might choose to resign first, but following the precedence set by Brabin I don't see why he'd be legally obliged to do so.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
After successfully trialling it on my Tesla YouTube account I am now subscribed to X Premium on my personal account. The plan is to build up to posting video multiple times a week. Daily maybe? Both reels from Emergency Podcast (which we've just relaunched) and myself doing politics as the candidate for TBC.
I am sure the party will be delighted with me posting what I think rather than the party line!
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
After successfully trialling it on my Tesla YouTube account I am now subscribed to X Premium on my personal account. The plan is to build up to posting video multiple times a week. Daily maybe? Both reels from Emergency Podcast (which we've just relaunched) and myself doing politics as the candidate for TBC.
I am sure the party will be delighted with me posting what I think rather than the party line!
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
That's the story from The Verge: one can add the "spicy" to pretty much any image you upload, and it will make videos that are... "spicy".
The problem is that means (a) this involves videos of Taylor Swift and Gal Gadot and (yes) Liz Truss ripping off their shirts and dancing topless... and (b) it was also quite willing (at first) to generate child pornography, using the faces of real children.
It appears they have mostly solved the second issue.
But I am unable to get those Liz Truss videos out of my mind
Am I right in thinking that before standing for a seat in Parliament Burnham would have to resign as Mayor, because of the dual role as PCC?
Wouldn't he only have to resign as Mayor if he wins the by-election, not before standing?
Pretty sure that MPs have gone the other way before and only taken the Chiltern Hundreds upon winning, not upon standing.
I think the rules are varied by Mayoral post, and also by political party.
Labour recently changed theirs to prevent Regional Mayors being MPs, I believe - for example.
The question was due to incompatibility with PCC role.
Tracy Brabin resigned her seat after the election, not before, due to that incompatibility.
Burnham if he were to run for Parliament might choose to resign first, but following the precedence set by Brabin I don't see why he'd be legally obliged to do so.
There was also Dan Norris West of England Regional Mayor, who defeated JRM, and will not be able to stand again.
After successfully trialling it on my Tesla YouTube account I am now subscribed to X Premium on my personal account. The plan is to build up to posting video multiple times a week. Daily maybe? Both reels from Emergency Podcast (which we've just relaunched) and myself doing politics as the candidate for TBC.
I am sure the party will be delighted with me posting what I think rather than the party line!
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
A strong correlation between the number of immigrants in the UK and the amount of crime. But hang on, what hell is this? - it's a bloomin' *negative* correlation. Violent crime has halved (!) since we "opened the floodgates".
On no no no. We can't have this. Need to redouble our efforts. Concentrate on shoplifting and phone-snatching and scour the news for crimes done by Afghans. Let's get to it!
The real issue with immigration is the failure of governments to plan and invest.
By and large Brits are welcoming people. But they feel like (a) population has grown and capacity hasn’t expanded so they are suffering from reduced quality of services - GP appointments, schools, etc.; (b) they don’t like the closed monocultural communities that multiculturalists appears to have encouraged.
Immigration is fine, but it should make life better for the current inhabitants as well. Over the last decade or so that doesn’t appear to have been the case
Am I right in thinking that before standing for a seat in Parliament Burnham would have to resign as Mayor, because of the dual role as PCC?
Wouldn't he only have to resign as Mayor if he wins the by-election, not before standing?
Pretty sure that MPs have gone the other way before and only taken the Chiltern Hundreds upon winning, not upon standing.
I think the rules are varied by Mayoral post, and also by political party.
Labour recently changed theirs to prevent Regional Mayors being MPs, I believe - for example.
The question was due to incompatibility with PCC role.
Tracy Brabin resigned her seat after the election, not before, due to that incompatibility.
Burnham if he were to run for Parliament might choose to resign first, but following the precedence set by Brabin I don't see why he'd be legally obliged to do so.
There was also Dan Norris West of England Regional Mayor, who defeated JRM, and will not be able to stand again.
Western media have been useless and fell for the Trump being tougher on Russia narrative .
The whole thing has been a charade arranged between the Kremlin and the WH .
All Putin needs for Trump to fold is a reminder of the video footage from that Moscow hotel room circa 2003. In the light of Epstein, how old was young Svetlana by the way? Kyiv will be a Russian city by elevensies.
This is the sort of absurdity world affairs hinge upon in the Trump era.
In a sense we are back to the possibility of Trump selling Ukraine down the river, as he attempted when he was trying to get his minerals deal and talking over Europe's head.
That one was headed off at the pass. How to do that again?
Trump wants a ceasefire along current Russian lines of occupation in Ukraine, which to be fair to the author of the Art of the Deal is the minimum Putin would accept and the maximum Zelensky would accept
I think the issue is what other strings are attached . So in terms of the Ukraine military, peace keeping forces ,EU , NATO membership . Looking at the leak today . I don’t think it’s just about what territory might have to be ceded .
Reported in the US, the Trump (ie Putin) proposal consists of a ceasefire first stage which has Ukraine withdrawing troops from the entire Donetsk region, and freezing the front lines.
The second stage consists of Putin and Trump agreeing on a final 'peace plan', which only then be put to Zelensky.
So effectively Ukraine is required to put itself at a further disadvantage before anything is agreed. And they are to be shut out of the subsequent negotiation.
That's plainly absurd, but it could have the full weight of the US behind it.
Not a full report, 'the White House is trying to sway European leaders towards accepting an agreement that would include Russia taking the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine and keeping Crimea.
It would give up the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, which it partially occupies, as part of the proposed agreement, CBS reports.'
So Russia wouldn't even keep all the land it currently occupies. Realistically if Zelensky couldn't retake all the above in the last 3 years despite lots of military supplies from the US Biden regime as well as Europe, Canada and the rest of NATO plus sanctions on Moscow he certainly won't with less military aid from the Trump regime and relying only on European and Canadian support.
So he may as well accept a ceasefire on the above lines while Trump remains in office, save thousands of Ukranian lives and hope the next US President is a Democrat who might resume increased US military aid to Kyiv again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgnpv1x3ygt
It won't save 'thousands of Ukrainian lives', as Putin will just try again in a few years, when he has rebuilt much of his military. 2014-2022 redux.
In which case even the Trump administration would push back as Putin would have broken the Trump brokered ceasefire which Trump would see as a personal slight
I think you have rather rose-tinted glasses on over what Trump would do. Trump does not care one bit about Ukraine or Ukrainians, and Putin's not dumb. Putin would give Trump an excuse to do no tangible actions, e.g. by making out that Ukraine broke the ceasefire first.
I think that is presumptious, after all Trump has just imposed sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
The alternative is for Zelensky to reject the ceasefire, Trump to remove sanctions on Russia too, thousands more Ukranians to die and at best Ukraine holding onto the land it currently still has with European and Canadian support which it would still keep under the proposed ceasefire anyway.
And your view is all presumptions as well.
Trump rally wants a ceasefire. I doubt he wants this because he wants to help Ukraine, or even wants peace; he has other reasons. Perhaps the Nobel peace prize, perhaps something else. The increase in sanctions is a weapon to get that. Once he gets what he wants, why do you think he'd care?
Do you agree it is right for the agreement to be agreed between the USA and Russia without (at least) Ukrainian involvement?
Trump won the presidential election last year on a platform which included a ceasefire in Ukraine and no more US military aid for Zelensky.
You may not like that but he has a mandate from US voters for it, so as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and a Democrat is not President there is zero chance of Zelensky winning the war and having enough military support without US backing to force the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine will obviously have to agree to its terms too but once Harris and the Democrats lost last year, Zelensky was always going to have to cut his losses or just have more of the meat grinder of dead Ukranians while at best only holding current Ukranian lines
Europe, including the UK needs to put more pressure on Russia, military if necessary. We need to be independent of the untrustworthy Americans until they come to their senses and get rid of Trump and all his acolytes. If Putin is allowed to get hold of even a small part of Ukraine, who will be next? Estonia? Finland?
Putin doesn't care what Europe threatens, our continent has shown time and time again we prefer spending on welfare and health and public services far more than we do spending on defence, only the US is willing to match Russia on defence spending.
Yes we may spend a bit more now but still our voters won't back public service cuts to send more missiles to Ukraine.
Estonia and Finland are in NATO unlike Ukraine, Putin wants a greater Russia but he still doesn't want a full war with NATO
The majority of the twentieth century would somewhat contradict this.....
The opposite, Germany was only defeated in WW1 once the US entered the War in 1917.
Western Europe was also only freed from the Nazis in WW2 after the US entered the War in 1941, only the UK holding firm free of Fascism before that.
It was also US aid and arms spending which ultimately won the Cold War and saw the Soviet Union collapse
You really don't know much history do you. Go and read about the naval race and then we can talk.
Well the naval race didn't defeat Germany either did it
Ultimately, it did.
At Jutland, the prisoner assaulted the jailer. But the prisoner remained in prison.
The sane in WWII. The RN owned the surface. Which is how they enforced the blockade and eventually defeated the U Boats.
It was still only the arrival of US troops in 1917 that led to the Hundred Days Offensive in 1918 that pushed the Germans back far enough to effectively win the war.
What most defeated the Germans in WW1 was the loss of their allies, firstly the Collapse of the Salonika front to an Anglo/French/Serb/Greek offensive knocked out Bulgaria, with Austro-Hungary collapsing shortly after, this allowed a British force to advance on Constantinople, which was the final blow causing the Ottomans to capitulate.
The final blow was on the Western front, but largely by British Imperial and French forces, but a major factor in the German defeat was their army and navy being mutinous and demoralised. Ironically this was a contagion brought from the Eastern front troops transferred in to the West front spreading Bolshiveikism.
So, while the arrival of American forces tipped the numbers, it was an Allied victory, particularly the British Imperial forces.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
They should all be put up on supporting a terrorist group. No mercy. It's time these people learned what it means to support to support a terrorist group. Jail time plus a criminal record. A proper prison too.
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
That's the story from The Verge: one can add the "spicy" to pretty much any image you upload, and it will make videos that are... "spicy".
The problem is that means (a) this involves videos of Taylor Swift and Gal Gadot and (yes) Liz Truss ripping off their shirts and dancing topless... and (b) it was also quite willing (at first) to generate child pornography, using the faces of real children.
It appears they have mostly solved the second issue.
But I am unable to get those Liz Truss videos out of my mind
Before anybody hits the button to post something on the Internet they should ask themselves, "will the world be better for this, or at least not made worse?" Proceed only if the answer is yes.
A topless dancing Liz Truss (AI or not) would not pass that test imo. Nor anything of that ilk.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
They should all be put up on supporting a terrorist group. No mercy. It's time these people learned what it means to support to support a terrorist group. Jail time plus a criminal record. A proper prison too.
Palestine action vandalises planes due to go to Ukraine among other things.
They are terrorists and fuck them. These wankers think it’s only terrorism when it’s someone they don’t like or agree with.
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
That's the story from The Verge: one can add the "spicy" to pretty much any image you upload, and it will make videos that are... "spicy".
The problem is that means (a) this involves videos of Taylor Swift and Gal Gadot and (yes) Liz Truss ripping off their shirts and dancing topless... and (b) it was also quite willing (at first) to generate child pornography, using the faces of real children.
It appears they have mostly solved the second issue.
But I am unable to get those Liz Truss videos out of my mind
Before anybody hits the button to post something on the Internet they should ask themselves, "will the world be better for this, or at least not made worse?" Proceed only if the answer is yes.
A topless dancing Liz Truss (AI or not) would not pass that test imo. Nor anything of that ilk.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
What people think and what the law says aren't always the same thing and ignorance is no excuse under the law.
Terrorism includes doing serious damage to property with a political motivation in order to force change to your politics outside of the ballot box.
Doing millions of pounds of criminal damage as part of a campaign of violence you intend to continue unless you get your way is terrorism under the law. If youre not happy with that, liberalise the law, don't say "but I like these guys so don't charge them with the law they’ve broken".
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
It's quite a turn around from his 10m are on benefits, no work ethic, end of times from only a couple of years ago.
I have a little theory about why some columnists and celebs become radicalised to the right or left - usually right - and others become radically deradicalised (Nelson is perhaps not quite in this space but Paul Mason seems to be, as are several erstwhile true blue Tories who’ve become centrist dads over the years - Matthew D’Ancona for example).
I think it’s about experiencing hate on social media. Occasionally you get piled on by people on your own side, usually for not being extreme enough. Quite a lonely experience I imagine. But sometimes you’ll get a groundswell of support from others, and if those are on the other side, you may find yourself drifting towards them. Human nature.
So while the normal engagement feedback loop is towards radicalisation, occasionally it can operate the other way.
No. Fraser Nelson was always seriously left wing and liberal
Lol. Seriously left wing? Fraser Nelson?
This is like a mad Trot calling Barry Gardiner a Tory.
It tells us where the author of the comment stands not where the subject of it does.
Obviously hyperbole from a poster known for a tad of it. But he is definitely somebody for whom the Tory party left him,
But another referendum looming on the horizon may prove a major challenge for Nelson's relationship with his proprietors. He is married to a Swede, and admits, "I am a soppy Europhile who speaks a second language at home. The idea of a united Europe was one that really excited me when I was younger, and which I love now." How Nelson's enthusiasm for Europe will play out in the Spectator's pages in the event of an EU referendum is, he concedes, "a good question".
Yes, he's the sort of Tory who used to make up a large part of the party until quite recently.
The big divide in politics now is not right v left, it's populist v anti-populist. I'm the latter. My politics are left of centre but getting that is less of a priority than avoiding the utter nonsense of Reform.
If I were in a Ref/Con marginal I'd vote Con (unless Jenrick). Can't believe I typed that but it's true. Thankfully I'm spared the horror because my constituency is solid Lab.
Listening to Dubai exile Isobel Oakshott getting groaned at by an Any Questions audience in East Sussex was quite cheering. They seemed to loathe her as would most when faced with the distortions and ugliness of the far right.
I have a feeling when election time comes there will be an overwhelming number of British voters who decide they'll do what's necessary and they wont let their country to be seen as home for Farage and his fascists.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
What people think and what the law says aren't always the same thing and ignorance is no excuse under the law.
Terrorism includes doing serious damage to property with a political motivation in order to force change to your politics outside of the ballot box.
Doing millions of pounds of criminal damage as part of a campaign of violence you intend to continue unless you get your way is terrorism under the law. If youre not happy with that, liberalise the law, don't say "but I like these guys so don't charge them with the law they’ve broken".
The act actually describes "involves serious damage to property" as one definition of terrorism, if "use or threat of such action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation".
There are other definitions in the law which have allowed non-violent Islamist groups and far right groups to also be proscribed, despite none of them having carried out a violent attack.
If we should have such a wide ranging law is a different matter, but that is the law that has been used for 20 years to ban all sorts of groups with plenty not being the IRA or ISIS of this world in their activities.
There must now beca serious straw shortage nationwide - it's all been clutched in manic desperation on here - and all for fear of Nigel Farage. Very diverting.😃😃😃
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
What people think and what the law says aren't always the same thing and ignorance is no excuse under the law.
Terrorism includes doing serious damage to property with a political motivation in order to force change to your politics outside of the ballot box.
Doing millions of pounds of criminal damage as part of a campaign of violence you intend to continue unless you get your way is terrorism under the law. If youre not happy with that, liberalise the law, don't say "but I like these guys so don't charge them with the law they’ve broken".
The act actually describes "involves serious damage to property" as one definition of terrorism, if "use or threat of such action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation".
There are other definitions in the law which have allowed non-violent Islamist groups and far right groups to also be proscribed, despite none of them having carried out a violent attack.
If we should have such a wide ranging law is a different matter, but that is the law that has been used for 20 years to ban all sorts of groups with plenty not being the IRA or ISIS of this world in their activities.
Indeed.
And there is absolutely no question that Palestine Action 100% meets that definition.
If you want to repeal the law, then do so, or campaign for that. But acting as if the law should be applied to Islamists and the far right but not Palestine Action without a good reason is not on.
Liberalism and fight the extremists under free speech would be my preference. I oppose no platforming even for those I vehemently dislike.
Laws should be applied equally to all who break them though.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Many of those who gleefully look forward to the end of days claim to be patriots. But it is a strange form of patriotism that declares the country essentially finished. This is still a long way from being true.
Big Frase Nelson ploughing a similar furrow, presumably he has had to be de-radicalised from the Spectator ‘UK is shit’ consensus or perhaps he left just in time. Would that other Speculamators had undergone similar therapy.
A strong correlation between the number of immigrants in the UK and the amount of crime. But hang on, what hell is this? - it's a bloomin' *negative* correlation. Violent crime has halved (!) since we "opened the floodgates".
On no no no. We can't have this. Need to redouble our efforts. Concentrate on shoplifting and phone-snatching and scour the news for crimes done by Afghans. Let's get to it!
The real issue with immigration is the failure of governments to plan and invest.
By and large Brits are welcoming people. But they feel like (a) population has grown and capacity hasn’t expanded so they are suffering from reduced quality of services - GP appointments, schools, etc.; (b) they don’t like the closed monocultural communities that multiculturalists appears to have encouraged.
Immigration is fine, but it should make life better for the current inhabitants as well. Over the last decade or so that doesn’t appear to have been the case
Well we went down the Brexit wormhole instead of focusing on our real problems. Low growth and stressed public finances is a tough enough nut to crack and next to impossible if you're not even trying. And tbf the pandemic and energy spike, and now Trump, these unasked for disasters have stacked up too.
But, you know, things aren't terrible and they can and will improve. Hope, positivity, realism, reject xenophobia, nativism, and simplistic populist nonsense, this is where I am and I'd love people to join me. They should. It's nice here.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
That’s not really saying the same as the headline from Amnesty, which rants about X, and it is more generic too and tediously long.
The Online Safety Act is mentioned in the context it would not have stopped this.
Let’s expand the scope.
It's saying somewhat different things, yes, because it's a different report. You'd said you wanted something by someone other than Amnesty.
However, both identify the role of Twitter and an algorithm that pushes ragebait and outright lies.
Both are not Impartial
The Parliament report includes testimony from the unaccountable and self appointed CCDH whose attitude to Twitter has been hostile since the day Musk took over and who peer reviews any of their reports.
It’s political actors criticising other/opposing political actors.
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
What people think and what the law says aren't always the same thing and ignorance is no excuse under the law.
Terrorism includes doing serious damage to property with a political motivation in order to force change to your politics outside of the ballot box.
Doing millions of pounds of criminal damage as part of a campaign of violence you intend to continue unless you get your way is terrorism under the law. If youre not happy with that, liberalise the law, don't say "but I like these guys so don't charge them with the law they’ve broken".
The act actually describes "involves serious damage to property" as one definition of terrorism, if "use or threat of such action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation".
There are other definitions in the law which have allowed non-violent Islamist groups and far right groups to also be proscribed, despite none of them having carried out a violent attack.
If we should have such a wide ranging law is a different matter, but that is the law that has been used for 20 years to ban all sorts of groups with plenty not being the IRA or ISIS of this world in their activities.
Indeed.
And there is absolutely no question that Palestine Action 100% meets that definition.
If you want to repeal the law, then do so, or campaign for that. But acting as if the law should be applied to Islamists and the far right but not Palestine Action without a good reason is not on.
Liberalism and fight the extremists under free speech would be my preference. I oppose no platforming even for those I vehemently dislike.
Laws should be applied equally to all who break them though.
I think you are confused over what laws apply here. It was legal to express support for Palestine Action until 4 July.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.
When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?
Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.
I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.
If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
That's the problem, isn't it really: the UK terrorism legislation debases the meaning of the term. 100% clear that what PA did meets the legal definition, but doesn't meet most people's assumption of what the definition would be
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
What people think and what the law says aren't always the same thing and ignorance is no excuse under the law.
Terrorism includes doing serious damage to property with a political motivation in order to force change to your politics outside of the ballot box.
Doing millions of pounds of criminal damage as part of a campaign of violence you intend to continue unless you get your way is terrorism under the law. If youre not happy with that, liberalise the law, don't say "but I like these guys so don't charge them with the law they’ve broken".
The act actually describes "involves serious damage to property" as one definition of terrorism, if "use or threat of such action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation".
There are other definitions in the law which have allowed non-violent Islamist groups and far right groups to also be proscribed, despite none of them having carried out a violent attack.
If we should have such a wide ranging law is a different matter, but that is the law that has been used for 20 years to ban all sorts of groups with plenty not being the IRA or ISIS of this world in their activities.
Indeed.
And there is absolutely no question that Palestine Action 100% meets that definition.
If you want to repeal the law, then do so, or campaign for that. But acting as if the law should be applied to Islamists and the far right but not Palestine Action without a good reason is not on.
Liberalism and fight the extremists under free speech would be my preference. I oppose no platforming even for those I vehemently dislike.
Laws should be applied equally to all who break them though.
I think you are confused over what laws apply here. It was legal to express support for Palestine Action until 4 July.
Yes, of course it was, until they got proscribed due to the terrorism they engaged in.
Does the law forbid expressing support for proscribed groups? Yes. Did PA exceed the threshold for getting proscribed? Yes. Were they rightly proscribed under the law we have today? Yes.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
That's the problem, isn't it really: the UK terrorism legislation debases the meaning of the term. 100% clear that what PA did meets the legal definition, but doesn't meet most people's assumption of what the definition would be
Strangely nobody seemed bothered when a load of far right wing groups got banned for racist social media activities under the same use of this law. Hizb ut-Tahrir are devotedly non-violent and also got banned it seems again mostly for spreading their ideology of an Islamic Caliphate and entryism.
Its far from the first time the government have used this legislation to proscribe troubling groups. But they weren't a load of middle class protestors having a go at playing as freedom fighters, which has included more than spraying paint.
I think it is a tricky case, as were the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir. One thing we don't know is the full extent of the intelligence the authorities have on PA, the Telegraph clearly have a mole and were in on meetings when they captured evidence that the organisers were discussing plans to repeat raids on a load of other military bases.
Told the guy in the farm shop I was going to cut it into slices and cook it in a jar of Dolmio.
For a brief moment he believed me !
I bought a new BBQ a few months ago and it has a 'sizzle zone' on it. It heats to 1000 degrees C. It does a rib eye beautifully. 30 sec either side. I didn't buy it for this, but it is the best part of the BBQ. No mess, no cleaning and eating it within minutes.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.
When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?
Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.
I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.
If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.
You have railed against hasty legislation is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.
The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Yeah 15% a year ago probably about right, but that was before racism was in. Lots of people shedding their inhibitions.
Told the guy in the farm shop I was going to cut it into slices and cook it in a jar of Dolmio.
For a brief moment he believed me !
I bought a new BBQ a few months ago and it has a 'sizzle zone' on it. It heats to 1000 degrees C. It does a rib eye beautifully. 30 sec either side. I didn't buy it for this, but it is the best part of the BBQ. No mess, no cleaning and eating it within minutes.
OMG that sounds amazing. 1000 C, must be gas. A big improvement on the five quid trays we buy from Sainsbury’s !!
Could you, if you used a pizza stone, do a good pizza in it as well ?
You probably only need 450/500 C and 50 seconds
I was looking at an Ooni with my Xmas money but didn’t this year.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.
When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?
Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.
I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.
If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.
You have railed against hasty legislation is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.
The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.
Yes, I think Blair's law was authoritarian and should be repealed, I said so.
Many of Blair's laws were authoritarian and he got his way many attempts that were defeated were even worse.
However his law was passed, decades ago now, and yes PA well and truly meet the definition. As much, if not more, than most other proscribed groups.
So campaign to repeal and liberalise the law. I have no qualms with liberalism.
Pretending the law was not broken or suggesting selective application of the law? That is worse.
The rule of law means these guys are terrorists and anyone supporting them is breaking the law too.
At the same time PA were banned, there were also two far right groups banned, neither of which appear to even have any sort of presence in the UK, let alone carried out any sort of attacks. They are East European / Russian, one fighting for the Russians in Ukraine.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.
When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?
Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.
I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.
If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.
You have railed against hasty legislation is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.
The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.
So the provisions within the law were met.
What violence in the UK had the other 2 groups done? And were they more or less violent than PA? Violence includes damage to property as PA did.
Why aren't you whinging about all the other groups on the list who haven't killed people?
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.
When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?
Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.
I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.
If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.
You have railed against hasty legislation is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.
The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.
Yes, I think Blair's law was authoritarian and should be repealed, I said so.
Many of Blair's laws were authoritarian and he got his way many attempts that were defeated were even worse.
However his law was passed, decades ago now, and yes PA well and truly meet the definition. As much, if not more, than most other proscribed groups.
So campaign to repeal and liberalise the law. I have no qualms with liberalism.
Pretending the law was not broken or suggesting selective application of the law? That is worse.
The rule of law means these guys are terrorists and anyone supporting them is breaking the law too.
I'm not saying the law was not broken by today's protestors or is being selectively applied. I'm saying the statutory instrument was hastily passed with insufficient parliamentary oversight.
What I find the bizarre thing is all these people willing to get themselves arrested directed by an anonymous twitter account.
Its a weird hill to die on given the fact the authorities are a) very happy to facilitate anti-Israel / pro-Palestine protests organised by the likes of Stop the War every single week and b) the government is taking action.
We aren't in an situation where the government is stopping peaceful protest on this issue. They are being more than accommodating allowing such protests to take place on such a regular basis at not insignificant cost to the tax payer.
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
That's the story from The Verge: one can add the "spicy" to pretty much any image you upload, and it will make videos that are... "spicy".
The problem is that means (a) this involves videos of Taylor Swift and Gal Gadot and (yes) Liz Truss ripping off their shirts and dancing topless... and (b) it was also quite willing (at first) to generate child pornography, using the faces of real children.
It appears they have mostly solved the second issue.
But I am unable to get those Liz Truss videos out of my mind
Before anybody hits the button to post something on the Internet they should ask themselves, "will the world be better for this, or at least not made worse?" Proceed only if the answer is yes.
A topless dancing Liz Truss (AI or not) would not pass that test imo. Nor anything of that ilk.
Not that surprising given how many of the white working class hate immigration and are hostile to Islam
The WWC are not 24% of the population and many of them, as I’m sure you’ll know from your lived experience of them, aren’t fans.
The WWC are about 40% of the population and if 24% of the population have a favourable view of Tommy Robinson (most of whom will be WWC) that is at least half the WWC having a favourable view of him
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Given Reform are on 30% then virtually all of those 24% will be voting Reform unsurprisingly, which is why Farage cannot distance himself from Robinson too much even if he needs more than Robinson fans for Reform to win most seats
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.
When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?
Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.
I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.
If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.
You have railed against hasty legislation is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.
The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.
Yes, I think Blair's law was authoritarian and should be repealed, I said so.
Many of Blair's laws were authoritarian and he got his way many attempts that were defeated were even worse.
However his law was passed, decades ago now, and yes PA well and truly meet the definition. As much, if not more, than most other proscribed groups.
So campaign to repeal and liberalise the law. I have no qualms with liberalism.
Pretending the law was not broken or suggesting selective application of the law? That is worse.
The rule of law means these guys are terrorists and anyone supporting them is breaking the law too.
I'm not saying the law was not broken by today's protestors or is being selectively applied. I'm saying the statutory instrument was hastily passed with insufficient parliamentary oversight.
There will be a court case to adjudicate this claim. There is no need to get yourself arrested in the meantime.
Comments
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/explore/public_figure/Tommy_Robinson
"Russia’s federal budget deficit in July 2025 grew by $15.1 billion, surpassing the finance ministry’s annual forecast by over 25 percent, the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation reports. The deficit for the first seven months reached $61.5 billion, 4.5 times higher than last year."
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1954170174526857602
I wonder how much the organisers are paying the council? Enough to cover policing costs (or are they kept separate)?
How many people actually know who he is ?
But another referendum looming on the horizon may prove a major challenge for Nelson's relationship with his proprietors. He is married to a Swede, and admits, "I am a soppy Europhile who speaks a second language at home. The idea of a united Europe was one that really excited me when I was younger, and which I love now." How Nelson's enthusiasm for Europe will play out in the Spectator's pages in the event of an EU referendum is, he concedes, "a good question".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/18/fraser-nelson-spectator-editor-put-money-on-ed-miliband
Dave Gorman did a whole episode on that YouGov data several years ago and it was hilariously all over the place. Ant and Dec, who most people don't know which is which, but the YouGov survey had the public believing one as to the left of Mao and the other to the right of Thatcher.
Dunno about the polis money.
Nigel Farage is not 'marching to power'. With pretty much everything going for him atm, and under no scrutiny, and with his propagandists working like energiser bunnies, he has a nice little lead in the polls for something that is not even on the horizon let alone in clear view.
They have just been trying to make up for the death of Alan Clark and the expulsion of Tacky Taki.
Labour will benefit from being the government, the Tories from being HMO at times. Reform won't keep everyone absolutely raging about immigration for 4 years and will have to show they can run things at council and devolved levels as well as present a plan for government.
If things are like this after next years voting then perhaps their support is hard. As it stands, they benefit from dissatisfaction and NOTA
The big divide in politics now is not right v left, it's populist v anti-populist. I'm the latter. My politics are left of centre but getting that is less of a priority than avoiding the utter nonsense of Reform.
If I were in a Ref/Con marginal I'd vote Con (unless Jenrick). Can't believe I typed that but it's true. Thankfully I'm spared the horror because my constituency is solid Lab.
Pretty sure that MPs have gone the other way before and only taken the Chiltern Hundreds upon winning, not upon standing.
The war would have staggered on for a while without the Americans, but Germany was already defeated.
I'd have guessed 15%.
Labour recently changed theirs to prevent Regional Mayors being MPs, I believe - for example.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
https://x.com/cgarciae88/status/1954185762540335105
Tracy Brabin resigned her seat after the election, not before, due to that incompatibility.
Burnham if he were to run for Parliament might choose to resign first, but following the precedence set by Brabin I don't see why he'd be legally obliged to do so.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Right wing, Racist Rovers.
Trying to win ugly.
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwye62e1ndjo
I am sure the party will be delighted with me posting what I think rather than the party line!
To kick things off with a bang, LIZ TRUSS WAS RIGHT: https://x.com/ianincyaak/status/1954192388047483102
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
The problem is that means (a) this involves videos of Taylor Swift and Gal Gadot and (yes) Liz Truss ripping off their shirts and dancing topless... and (b) it was also quite willing (at first) to generate child pornography, using the faces of real children.
It appears they have mostly solved the second issue.
But I am unable to get those Liz Truss videos out of my mind
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2024-09-23/metro-mayor-dan-norris-not-able-to-stand-next-year
Dan Jarvis was South of Yorkshire MP, whilst MP for Barnsley, 2018-2022.
Some standardisation would perhaps be helpful
By and large Brits are welcoming people. But they feel like (a) population has grown and capacity hasn’t expanded so they are suffering from reduced quality of services - GP appointments, schools, etc.; (b) they don’t like the closed monocultural communities that multiculturalists appears to have encouraged.
Immigration is fine, but it should make life better for the current inhabitants as well. Over the last decade or so that doesn’t appear to have been the case
Decision rooted in 'commitment to inclusivity and the safety of all our members,' organization says
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/girl-guides-canada-suspending-us-trips-1.7604706
The final blow was on the Western front, but largely by British Imperial and French forces, but a major factor in the German defeat was their army and navy being mutinous and demoralised. Ironically this was a contagion brought from the Eastern front troops transferred in to the West front spreading Bolshiveikism.
So, while the arrival of American forces tipped the numbers, it was an Allied victory, particularly the British Imperial forces.
That’s not really saying the same as the headline from Amnesty, which rants about X, and it is more generic too and tediously long.
The Online Safety Act is mentioned in the context it would not have stopped this.
Let’s expand the scope.
A topless dancing Liz Truss (AI or not) would not pass that test imo. Nor anything of that ilk.
They are terrorists and fuck them. These wankers think it’s only terrorism when it’s someone they don’t like or agree with.
Terrorism includes doing serious damage to property with a political motivation in order to force change to your politics outside of the ballot box.
Doing millions of pounds of criminal damage as part of a campaign of violence you intend to continue unless you get your way is terrorism under the law. If youre not happy with that, liberalise the law, don't say "but I like these guys so don't charge them with the law they’ve broken".
I have a feeling when election time comes there will be an overwhelming number of British voters who decide they'll do what's necessary and they wont let their country to be seen as home for Farage and his fascists.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
There are other definitions in the law which have allowed non-violent Islamist groups and far right groups to also be proscribed, despite none of them having carried out a violent attack.
If we should have such a wide ranging law is a different matter, but that is the law that has been used for 20 years to ban all sorts of groups with plenty not being the IRA or ISIS of this world in their activities.
https://bsky.app/profile/tomrobinson.com/post/3lv3xdtr4zs26
And there is absolutely no question that Palestine Action 100% meets that definition.
If you want to repeal the law, then do so, or campaign for that. But acting as if the law should be applied to Islamists and the far right but not Palestine Action without a good reason is not on.
Liberalism and fight the extremists under free speech would be my preference. I oppose no platforming even for those I vehemently dislike.
Laws should be applied equally to all who break them though.
I’m sure it’s nothing to fret over.
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1954184893992518083?s=61
However, both identify the role of Twitter and an algorithm that pushes ragebait and outright lies.
But, you know, things aren't terrible and they can and will improve. Hope, positivity, realism, reject xenophobia, nativism, and simplistic populist nonsense, this is where I am and I'd love people to join me. They should. It's nice here.
Told the guy in the farm shop I was going to cut it into slices and cook it in a jar of Dolmio.
For a brief moment he believed me !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Action#:~:text=In June 2025, the Home,spraying paint into their engines.
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
The Parliament report includes testimony from the unaccountable and self appointed CCDH whose attitude to Twitter has been hostile since the day Musk took over and who peer reviews any of their reports.
It’s political actors criticising other/opposing political actors.
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.
I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.
If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.
Does the law forbid expressing support for proscribed groups? Yes.
Did PA exceed the threshold for getting proscribed? Yes.
Were they rightly proscribed under the law we have today? Yes.
Its far from the first time the government have used this legislation to proscribe troubling groups. But they weren't a load of middle class protestors having a go at playing as freedom fighters, which has included more than spraying paint.
I think it is a tricky case, as were the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir. One thing we don't know is the full extent of the intelligence the authorities have on PA, the Telegraph clearly have a mole and were in on meetings when they captured evidence that the organisers were discussing plans to repeat raids on a load of other military bases.
The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.
Could you, if you used a pizza stone, do a good pizza in it as well ?
You probably only need 450/500 C and 50 seconds
I was looking at an Ooni with my Xmas money but didn’t this year.
Many of Blair's laws were authoritarian and he got his way many attempts that were defeated were even worse.
However his law was passed, decades ago now, and yes PA well and truly meet the definition. As much, if not more, than most other proscribed groups.
So campaign to repeal and liberalise the law. I have no qualms with liberalism.
Pretending the law was not broken or suggesting selective application of the law? That is worse.
The rule of law means these guys are terrorists and anyone supporting them is breaking the law too.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
What violence in the UK had the other 2 groups done? And were they more or less violent than PA? Violence includes damage to property as PA did.
Why aren't you whinging about all the other groups on the list who haven't killed people?
Its a weird hill to die on given the fact the authorities are a) very happy to facilitate anti-Israel / pro-Palestine protests organised by the likes of Stop the War every single week and b) the government is taking action.
We aren't in an situation where the government is stopping peaceful protest on this issue. They are being more than accommodating allowing such protests to take place on such a regular basis at not insignificant cost to the tax payer.
"The British police are the best in the world ..."