On topic the further splintering of the Unionist vote by the growth of Reform makes it almost inevitable that the SNP will win the most seats. It is doubtful that their rival, Alba, will trouble the scorers or even stand in most places. In light of this the 1/6 for SNP to have most seats does indeed seem quite generous although I agree with @rcs1000 that 12/1 for Reform is pretty generous too. The temptation to put a small bet on both is high.
Everyone's vote is split - Swinney is trying to pin together an uneasy coalition inside the party, never mind hold all the people who have already gone.
Reform are very confident of taking a slug of votes off the SNP on a change agenda.
A lot of SNP last time voters seriously pissed off with the state of things and not listening to the "its the fault of the English" line any more.
BREAKING: France's president Emmanuel Macron and Finnish president Alexander Stubb are the latest European leaders to say they will attend Zelenskyy and Trump's meeting
Is that a good thing? Is this a Z/T meeting or a meeting at which Z/T are among the participants?
Nobody, including and perhaps least of all, the attendees has any fucking clue. It's make-it-up-as-go-along school of statecraft.
It's probably a combination of FOMO from the European leaders, nobody wants to be the first lift sanctions on Russia but also they definitely don't want to be the last, and DJT enjoying summoning them across the Atlantic so he can be rude/incomprehensible to them.
I think they should all send body doubles.
But really shit ones, like the rubbish waxworks of famous people in those Madame Tussaud’s rip-offs.
Maybe they could send Mark Kermode for Keir Starmer.
That's quite a good one. Definitely close enough to fool Trump, I think.
They could send David Lammy in place of Keir and it would fool Trump.
They could send a fucking scatter cushion instead of David Lammy, to anywhere on earth, and no one would notice the intellectual difference
David Lammy, the Harvard-educated lawyer who got Britain a better trade deal?
No, David Lammy who thinks Henry VII came AFTER Henry VIII
The tweets Lammy wrote about Trump circa 2018/19 are comedy gold
BREAKING: France's president Emmanuel Macron and Finnish president Alexander Stubb are the latest European leaders to say they will attend Zelenskyy and Trump's meeting
Is that a good thing? Is this a Z/T meeting or a meeting at which Z/T are among the participants?
Nobody, including and perhaps least of all, the attendees has any fucking clue. It's make-it-up-as-go-along school of statecraft.
It's probably a combination of FOMO from the European leaders, nobody wants to be the first lift sanctions on Russia but also they definitely don't want to be the last, and DJT enjoying summoning them across the Atlantic so he can be rude/incomprehensible to them.
I think they should all send body doubles.
But really shit ones, like the rubbish waxworks of famous people in those Madame Tussaud’s rip-offs.
Maybe they could send Mark Kermode for Keir Starmer.
That's quite a good one. Definitely close enough to fool Trump, I think.
They could send David Lammy in place of Keir and it would fool Trump.
They could send a fucking scatter cushion instead of David Lammy, to anywhere on earth, and no one would notice the intellectual difference
David Lammy, the Harvard-educated lawyer who got Britain a better trade deal?
No, David Lammy who thinks Henry VII came AFTER Henry VIII
The tweets Lammy wrote about Trump circa 2018/19 are comedy gold
He clearly never thought he’d be foreign secretary and needing to be diplomatic with people who disagree with him politically.
Sadly this is wishful thinking. The US has sold out Ukraine, the EU and UK aren't in any shape to resist Russia without US help and we won't be while we prioritise welfare above border defence.
I tend to agree, but nothing is yet certain.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of it, I wonder whether the Putin demand to acquire the rest of Donbas isn't calculated to be accepted by Trump and refused by Ukraine. It's not so obviously ridiculous to put Trump off, but it's hard to see Ukraine agreeing to give up territory that they've not already lost. But if they refuse, they might lose US support and then lose all four provinces.
That said, the Ukrainian bar on surrendering territory is subject to referendum. If a hypothetical deal gave Ukraine other things that it wanted (e.g. the right to a NATO guarantee on their remaining territory, or even full NATO membership), it might pass, if Zelensky campaigned for it.
Ofcom vs 4chan, what a world we live in. Ofcom are going to get absolutely destroyed in the US courts system if they pursue it and the UK government has no power to compel an entirely US entity to pay a UK fine. As I said a few days ago, the government will quickly find that the only way to actually do this is to introduce a Chinese style great firewall that blocks all but approved websites and ban VPNs under pain of 20 years in a labour camp.
Once 4chan wins, how quickly will companies with minor UK presence just give it up entirely and shift everything to the US to protect themselves from these idiotic laws and regulators.
@benrileysmith Zelensky and VDL press conference just now lays out Ukraine and Europe’s stance on elements of the Trump-Putin talks.
1/ Strong pushback to the idea Russia gets all of Donetsk. Zelensky notes Putin hasn’t been able to take it in 12 years of fighting. So the current frontline should be starting point for talks.
2/ Zelensky wants fighting to stop before proper talks begin. VDL agrees. Whether you call that a ceasefire or peace is irrelevant, argues VDL. (Trump said ignore the former and go straight to the latter yesterday.) Fundamentally talks can only happen when Russia stops attacking. Zelensky says it’s “impossible” to negotiate “under the pressure of weapons”.
3/ That territorial talks must happen at a meeting of all three leaders - Putin, Zelensky and Trump. Zelensky says it’s “so important” an issue that is the correct format. If Putin refuses (as he’s expected to) then Zelensky argues Russia must be sanctioned. The EU is working up a 19th round of sanctions. This feels like a way of projecting to Trump that it is Russia, not Ukraine, blocking a peace deal.
4/ That Ukraine post any deal needs ‘Nato Article 5-like’ security guarantees. Ie if Russia attacks again the West - and critically America - will have its back. EU leaders are now saying Trump opened the door to being involved in this. Not clear at all how or what he would commit. Key bit of Washington talks tomorrow. Note the loose language in ‘Article 5-like’. Not being proposed every Nato member is committed to see an attack on Ukraine as an attack on all. So something short of that.
5/ That Ukraine continues on the “path” to becoming a European Union member. VDL says this in itself is a form of security guarantee. (Notable in that press conference how it was EU membership, rather than Nato membership, that was talked up.)
6/ Zelensky warns against any “division” between Ukraine and its neighbour Moldova. Says that would undercut European unity.
On topic the further splintering of the Unionist vote by the growth of Reform makes it almost inevitable that the SNP will win the most seats. It is doubtful that their rival, Alba, will trouble the scorers or even stand in most places. In light of this the 1/6 for SNP to have most seats does indeed seem quite generous although I agree with @rcs1000 that 12/1 for Reform is pretty generous too. The temptation to put a small bet on both is high.
Everyone's vote is split - Swinney is trying to pin together an uneasy coalition inside the party, never mind hold all the people who have already gone.
Reform are very confident of taking a slug of votes off the SNP on a change agenda.
A lot of SNP last time voters seriously pissed off with the state of things and not listening to the "its the fault of the English" line any more.
It will be fun!
At one point I thought we would end up going back to a Labour/Lib Dem coalition as we had before the SNP hegemony but it now looks as if Labour will be too weak and Reform will deny that bloc any kind of majority. I cannot see how we get a viable, stable, rational government out of Holyrood. It might be even worse than what Yousaf and Swinney have served up.
The sad thing in today's politics is that division rules. The yes crowd are fighting each other. Remain are fighting against the double threat of foreigners and windfarms. The Tories and Remain fighting each other for relevance. Scottish Labour fighting Westminster Labour.
As you say, forming a coalition out of the kind of Holyrood we are likely to election would be an interesting exercise...
Of course, Lab and (IIRC the prime movers for that particular wheeze) the LDs *designed* Holyrood* to have a permanent and immutable Slab-SLD coalition, lasting longer than the Lewisian Gneiss is old. How long ago it seems now.
*Edit: specifically, by the use of a bent/modified (take your pick) d'Hondt system.
BREAKING: France's president Emmanuel Macron and Finnish president Alexander Stubb are the latest European leaders to say they will attend Zelenskyy and Trump's meeting
Is that a good thing? Is this a Z/T meeting or a meeting at which Z/T are among the participants?
Nobody, including and perhaps least of all, the attendees has any fucking clue. It's make-it-up-as-go-along school of statecraft.
It's probably a combination of FOMO from the European leaders, nobody wants to be the first lift sanctions on Russia but also they definitely don't want to be the last, and DJT enjoying summoning them across the Atlantic so he can be rude/incomprehensible to them.
I think they should all send body doubles.
But really shit ones, like the rubbish waxworks of famous people in those Madame Tussaud’s rip-offs.
Maybe they could send Mark Kermode for Keir Starmer.
That's quite a good one. Definitely close enough to fool Trump, I think.
@benrileysmith Zelensky and VDL press conference just now lays out Ukraine and Europe’s stance on elements of the Trump-Putin talks.
1/ Strong pushback to the idea Russia gets all of Donetsk. Zelensky notes Putin hasn’t been able to take it in 12 years of fighting. So the current frontline should be starting point for talks.
2/ Zelensky wants fighting to stop before proper talks begin. VDL agrees. Whether you call that a ceasefire or peace is irrelevant, argues VDL. (Trump said ignore the former and go straight to the latter yesterday.) Fundamentally talks can only happen when Russia stops attacking. Zelensky says it’s “impossible” to negotiate “under the pressure of weapons”.
3/ That territorial talks must happen at a meeting of all three leaders - Putin, Zelensky and Trump. Zelensky says it’s “so important” an issue that is the correct format. If Putin refuses (as he’s expected to) then Zelensky argues Russia must be sanctioned. The EU is working up a 19th round of sanctions. This feels like a way of projecting to Trump that it is Russia, not Ukraine, blocking a peace deal.
4/ That Ukraine post any deal needs ‘Nato Article 5-like’ security guarantees. Ie if Russia attacks again the West - and critically America - will have its back. EU leaders are now saying Trump opened the door to being involved in this. Not clear at all how or what he would commit. Key bit of Washington talks tomorrow. Note the loose language in ‘Article 5-like’. Not being proposed every Nato member is committed to see an attack on Ukraine as an attack on all. So something short of that.
5/ That Ukraine continues on the “path” to becoming a European Union member. VDL says this in itself is a form of security guarantee. (Notable in that press conference how it was EU membership, rather than Nato membership, that was talked up.)
6/ Zelensky warns against any “division” between Ukraine and its neighbour Moldova. Says that would undercut European unity.
I agree with these stances. They sound sensible but flexible.
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. Where are the consequences?
WELKER: Why not impose more sanctions on Russia and force them to agree to a ceasefire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?
RUBIO: That's something people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions are gonna force them to accept a ceasefire.
I can only presume Labour has internal polling or focus group responses that tell them that these attack lines on Reform are going to work, because they seem like transparent bullshit to me, but I’m obviously not the target voter they have in mind:
“Rayner says Farage ‘failing young women’ with plan to scrap Online Safety Act”
Either that, or they’re getting a bit panicky about the whole thing. I note in passing that 4Chan have stuck two fingers up to OFCOM after being threatened with a £20k fine plus daily penalties for being in contravention of the OSA.
It’s also notable that they’re making no effort whatsoever to defend the act itself or engage with any of the criticism of it - it’s all ad hominem attacks on the critics.
Rubio repeatedly won't name a single specific concession that Russia will have to give up as part of a peace deal, then pivots to talking about land that Ukraine will have to give up
Ofcom vs 4chan, what a world we live in. Ofcom are going to get absolutely destroyed in the US courts system if they pursue it and the UK government has no power to compel an entirely US entity to pay a UK fine. As I said a few days ago, the government will quickly find that the only way to actually do this is to introduce a Chinese style great firewall that blocks all but approved websites and ban VPNs under pain of 20 years in a labour camp.
Once 4chan wins, how quickly will companies with minor UK presence just give it up entirely and shift everything to the US to protect themselves from these idiotic laws and regulators.
4chan don’t need to do anything. There is explicit US law denying the ability to pursue in the US courts for such foreign judgements.
I can only presume Labour has internal polling or focus group responses that tell them that these attack lines on Reform are going to work, because they seem like transparent bullshit to me, but I’m obviously not the target voter they have in mind:
“Rayner says Farage ‘failing young women’ with plan to scrap Online Safety Act”
Either that, or they’re getting a bit panicky about the whole thing. I note in passing that 4Chan have stuck two fingers up to OFCOM after being threatened with a £20k fine plus daily penalties for being in contravention of the OSA.
It’s also notable that they’re making no effort whatsoever to defend the act itself or engage with any of the criticism of it - it’s all ad hominem attacks on the critics.
I can only presume Labour has internal polling or focus group responses that tell them that these attack lines on Reform are going to work, because they seem like transparent bullshit to me, but I’m obviously not the target voter they have in mind:
“Rayner says Farage ‘failing young women’ with plan to scrap Online Safety Act”
Either that, or they’re getting a bit panicky about the whole thing. I note in passing that 4Chan have stuck two fingers up to OFCOM after being threatened with a £20k fine plus daily penalties for being in contravention of the OSA.
It’s also notable that they’re making no effort whatsoever to defend the act itself or engage with any of the criticism of it - it’s all ad hominem attacks on the critics.
I can only presume Labour has internal polling or focus group responses that tell them that these attack lines on Reform are going to work, because they seem like transparent bullshit to me, but I’m obviously not the target voter they have in mind:
“Rayner says Farage ‘failing young women’ with plan to scrap Online Safety Act”
Either that, or they’re getting a bit panicky about the whole thing. I note in passing that 4Chan have stuck two fingers up to OFCOM after being threatened with a £20k fine plus daily penalties for being in contravention of the OSA.
It’s also notable that they’re making no effort whatsoever to defend the act itself or engage with any of the criticism of it - it’s all ad hominem attacks on the critics.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
I can only presume Labour has internal polling or focus group responses that tell them that these attack lines on Reform are going to work, because they seem like transparent bullshit to me, but I’m obviously not the target voter they have in mind:
“Rayner says Farage ‘failing young women’ with plan to scrap Online Safety Act”
Either that, or they’re getting a bit panicky about the whole thing. I note in passing that 4Chan have stuck two fingers up to OFCOM after being threatened with a £20k fine plus daily penalties for being in contravention of the OSA.
It’s also notable that they’re making no effort whatsoever to defend the act itself or engage with any of the criticism of it - it’s all ad hominem attacks on the critics.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather just say they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Because she knows the police and government aren’t going to start imprisoning “people like her” #Nu10K
Say that you’re supporting “Tommy”, on the other hand, and the police response might be different.
I can only presume Labour has internal polling or focus group responses that tell them that these attack lines on Reform are going to work, because they seem like transparent bullshit to me, but I’m obviously not the target voter they have in mind:
“Rayner says Farage ‘failing young women’ with plan to scrap Online Safety Act”
Either that, or they’re getting a bit panicky about the whole thing. I note in passing that 4Chan have stuck two fingers up to OFCOM after being threatened with a £20k fine plus daily penalties for being in contravention of the OSA.
It’s also notable that they’re making no effort whatsoever to defend the act itself or engage with any of the criticism of it - it’s all ad hominem attacks on the critics.
The loss of our "high trust" society due to immigration. I've noticed this one taking off like a rocket in right wing populist discourse. High trust is code for something else of course.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
That story I posted earlier notes in passing that Russia also imprisons people for supporting organisations it calls terrorist (although they are more likely to be Ukrainian resistance groups with more than orange paint).
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Would it be "supporting" PA to campaign to legalise it? Might be an interesting Court case, and an obvious freedom of speech issue
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Would it be "supporting" PA to campaign to legalise it? Might be an interesting Court case, and an obvious freedom of speech issue
A campaign to overhaul the act isn’t illegal. It might have some unintended consequences of allowing some very nasty groups that your average PA supporter would be decrying in the same breath that they should be banned / supporters locked up.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Would it be "supporting" PA to campaign to legalise it? Might be an interesting Court case, and an obvious freedom of speech issue
Freedom of speech doesn’t extend to causing millions in damage to the King’s aircraft, and planning several similar attacks on the country and its defensive infrastructure.
If they’d stuck to speaking, they wouldn’t have been proscribed in the first place.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
I hope they get prosecuted for breaking the law.
She lives in Ireland
A nation not known for its citizens being supporters of terrorism…….
As part of my work watching every single YouTube video on behalf of pb, I have to read the comments as well and discovered this gem about an MP's family history:-
A V2 came down and destroyed Woolworths in New Cross killing 168 people. My wife's grandmother was the ticket operator on board the double decker bus parked outside at the time. The blast flipped the bus and she was thrown off. She was the only survivor on board. She dedicated her life to politics after that swearing that man will not commit attrocities like this again. Her work paved the way for her granddaughter to enter the houses of parliament this year as an MP as Olivia Bailey, granddaughter of a very proud Olive Bailey.
Before everyone gets too excited about all the European leaders falling over themselves to be in Washington and not miss out: I have a strong suspicion that they are not all in agreement over what kind of peace deal is acceptable.
Does the line up make it difficult for Trump to cancel the meeting if Zelenskyy doesn’t wear a suit?
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Marco Rubio: "Life in America on a daily basis will be largely unaffected whether there's peace in Ukraine or not. That's just a fact. We have a lot of issues we're focused on not just at home, but around the world."
For those who didn’t know - years back, a certain U.K. law firm (and some fellow firms) started selling “libel tourism”.
That is, anything published on the web is visible in the U.K.
So under this bit of judicial activism, anyone on the planet could sue for libel in U.K. courts, if it is published online. No problems with the 1st Amendment in the US.
Big fees would result….
A cross party group in the US Congress passed a law making the results of any such judgements null and void in the US.
The U.K. law firms and Mr Justice Cocklecarrot* were very upset.
*See Private Eye for real name
I’m greatly disappointed Mr Justice Cocklecarrot is not his real,name
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Would it be "supporting" PA to campaign to legalise it? Might be an interesting Court case, and an obvious freedom of speech issue
Freedom of speech doesn’t extend to causing millions in damage to the King’s aircraft, and planning several similar attacks on the country and its defensive infrastructure.
If they’d stuck to speaking, they wouldn’t have been proscribed in the first place.
I still think it should be freedom of speech to verbally support a terrorist organisation. But not practical or financial support.
It should be freedom of support to say that government actions are wrong.
On balance I think it is correct that PA has been "banned" and the people who carried out the attacks should have the book thrown at them.
But I also think that people should be able to publicly support them, and publicly say they should not have been banned.
After all, you are allowed to support Israel and Russia. Russia is clearly a terrorist organisation, other than the fact it is a country and a state actor.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather just say they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Because she knows the police and government aren’t going to start imprisoning “people like her” #Nu10K
Say that you’re supporting “Tommy”, on the other hand, and the police response might be different.
I thought the "Nu10k" were supposed to be overeducated entitled jobsworths in senior positions all looking after each other.
Are we expanding it to include lefty novelists now?
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Would it be "supporting" PA to campaign to legalise it? Might be an interesting Court case, and an obvious freedom of speech issue
A campaign to overhaul the act isn’t illegal. It might have some unintended consequences of allowing some very nasty groups that your average PA supporter would be decrying in the same breath that they should be banned / supporters locked up.
I'm not saying campaigning to change the Act, but campaigning to say that the SoS was wrong to apply it to PA and it should therefore be unbanned.
For those who didn’t know - years back, a certain U.K. law firm (and some fellow firms) started selling “libel tourism”.
That is, anything published on the web is visible in the U.K.
So under this bit of judicial activism, anyone on the planet could sue for libel in U.K. courts, if it is published online. No problems with the 1st Amendment in the US.
Big fees would result….
A cross party group in the US Congress passed a law making the results of any such judgements null and void in the US.
The U.K. law firms and Mr Justice Cocklecarrot* were very upset.
*See Private Eye for real name
That’s been the case even since foreign magazines started to be imported in small numbers.
For all the politisation and polarisation in the US, one of few things on which all of the politicians agree is that the US is not a fan of foreign courts having jurisdiction over anything or anyone American.
Quite right too.
It is undemocratic.
A country should be able to enforce its laws. The “no assets or operations” is a false logic - according to that theory it’s fine for a North Korean hacking cooperative to rob a French bank
That the news organisation that's spent the last decade platforming Trump's shit can air this, without a hint of embarrassment or irony, is quite impressive, in its own way.
Fox Host: I don't know what he's trying to do but it comes across as childish and you are the governor of the biggest state in the union, what are you doing? https://x.com/Acyn/status/1956565151815197115
As part of my work watching every single YouTube video on behalf of pb, I have to read the comments as well and discovered this gem about an MP's family history:-
A V2 came down and destroyed Woolworths in New Cross killing 168 people. My wife's grandmother was the ticket operator on board the double decker bus parked outside at the time. The blast flipped the bus and she was thrown off. She was the only survivor on board. She dedicated her life to politics after that swearing that man will not commit attrocities like this again. Her work paved the way for her granddaughter to enter the houses of parliament this year as an MP as Olivia Bailey, granddaughter of a very proud Olive Bailey.
The loss of our "high trust" society due to immigration. I've noticed this one taking off like a rocket in right wing populist discourse. High trust is code for something else of course.
When supermarkets are putting security tags on milk and cheese, then we have a trust problem.
Surely something must be in motion as half of Europes leaders aren’t going to go all the way to the US for nothing.
What's in motion is this. Trumpism thinks that the western alliance should be a European thing, not a USA + Europe + Canada thing. The USA sphere of influence is wanted elsewhere.
Trumpism also thinks that Russia's sphere of influence should include part of eastern Europe, boundaries in the long run to be decided by Russia and Europe, not USA.
Western Europe wants the alliance to be the whole of NATO, including of course the USA. The USA can abandon Europe whenever it likes but is not yet ready to make it undeniably obvious that it has switched sides. The frog boils more slowly than that.
Western Europe is wondering how to get ready for that day. And is currently temporising.
Sadly this is wishful thinking. The US has sold out Ukraine, the EU and UK aren't in any shape to resist Russia without US help and we won't be while we prioritise welfare above border defence.
I tend to agree, but nothing is yet certain.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of it, I wonder whether the Putin demand to acquire the rest of Donbas isn't calculated to be accepted by Trump and refused by Ukraine. It's not so obviously ridiculous to put Trump off, but it's hard to see Ukraine agreeing to give up territory that they've not already lost. But if they refuse, they might lose US support and then lose all four provinces.
That said, the Ukrainian bar on surrendering territory is subject to referendum. If a hypothetical deal gave Ukraine other things that it wanted (e.g. the right to a NATO guarantee on their remaining territory, or even full NATO membership), it might pass, if Zelensky campaigned for it.
That’s entirely how it’s designed.
But it’s strategic very damaging to Ukraine unless you could trust Putin not to launch a further attack. They been trying to break through the Donbas defensive line for 11 years without success.
The loss of our "high trust" society due to immigration. I've noticed this one taking off like a rocket in right wing populist discourse. High trust is code for something else of course.
When supermarkets are putting security tags on milk and cheese, then we have a trust problem.
The loss of our "high trust" society due to immigration. I've noticed this one taking off like a rocket in right wing populist discourse. High trust is code for something else of course.
When supermarkets are putting security tags on milk and cheese, then we have a trust problem.
If supermarkets in certain areas have to choose between looking like Haddows in Glasgow or moving to online deliveries only, then we all lose out.
the security tags are apparent in the supermarkets next to me, and in West Wales the number of immigrants ar much fewer. I think you are conflating them with the indigenous population who just can't afford to live.
For those who didn’t know - years back, a certain U.K. law firm (and some fellow firms) started selling “libel tourism”.
That is, anything published on the web is visible in the U.K.
So under this bit of judicial activism, anyone on the planet could sue for libel in U.K. courts, if it is published online. No problems with the 1st Amendment in the US.
Big fees would result….
A cross party group in the US Congress passed a law making the results of any such judgements null and void in the US.
The U.K. law firms and Mr Justice Cocklecarrot* were very upset.
*See Private Eye for real name
That’s been the case even since foreign magazines started to be imported in small numbers.
For all the politisation and polarisation in the US, one of few things on which all of the politicians agree is that the US is not a fan of foreign courts having jurisdiction over anything or anyone American.
Quite right too.
It is undemocratic.
A country should be able to enforce its laws. The “no assets or operations” is a false logic - according to that theory it’s fine for a North Korean hacking cooperative to rob a French bank
The internet is global - you either accept that or make an idiot of yourself trying to enforce laws people will just work around or outright ignore.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Would it be "supporting" PA to campaign to legalise it? Might be an interesting Court case, and an obvious freedom of speech issue
A campaign to overhaul the act isn’t illegal. It might have some unintended consequences of allowing some very nasty groups that your average PA supporter would be decrying in the same breath that they should be banned / supporters locked up.
I'm not saying campaigning to change the Act, but campaigning to say that the SoS was wrong to apply it to PA and it should therefore be unbanned.
Well there are already legal challenges underway. There is no need to walk that line in the meantime.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Would it be "supporting" PA to campaign to legalise it? Might be an interesting Court case, and an obvious freedom of speech issue
A campaign to overhaul the act isn’t illegal. It might have some unintended consequences of allowing some very nasty groups that your average PA supporter would be decrying in the same breath that they should be banned / supporters locked up.
But more specifically, say a person goes out and protests not support for PA but only that PA should not be proscribed - is that breaking the law?
Not expecting you to know, just wondering about that point. Whether saying XYZ shouldn't be called terrorists is deemed to be supporting XYZ.
Surely something must be in motion as half of Europes leaders aren’t going to go all the way to the US for nothing.
What's in motion is this. Trumpism thinks that the western alliance should be a European thing, not a USA + Europe + Canada thing. The USA sphere of influence is wanted elsewhere.
Trumpism also thinks that Russia's sphere of influence should include part of eastern Europe, boundaries in the long run to be decided by Russia and Europe, not USA.
If that's really the case, then they should say so explicitly, and leave the negotiations to us.
You are of course right that the time for temporising is over for us.
BREAKING: France's president Emmanuel Macron and Finnish president Alexander Stubb are the latest European leaders to say they will attend Zelenskyy and Trump's meeting
Is that a good thing? Is this a Z/T meeting or a meeting at which Z/T are among the participants?
Nobody, including and perhaps least of all, the attendees has any fucking clue. It's make-it-up-as-go-along school of statecraft.
It's probably a combination of FOMO from the European leaders, nobody wants to be the first lift sanctions on Russia but also they definitely don't want to be the last, and DJT enjoying summoning them across the Atlantic so he can be rude/incomprehensible to them.
I think they should all send body doubles.
But really shit ones, like the rubbish waxworks of famous people in those Madame Tussaud’s rip-offs.
Maybe they could send Mark Kermode for Keir Starmer.
That's quite a good one. Definitely close enough to fool Trump, I think.
Kermode would be found out to be an imposter as soon as he said something interesting.
So never then?
I think he's an interesting film reviewer.
The Kermode and Mayo film review "show" after they left R5 isn't very good. Its all a bit sad now seeing them both in their back bedrooms doing the podcast.
He still has a R4 slot.
The R5 show was iconic though.
It was first,class. As Sandpit says. Stuck in traffic on a Friday listening to it. Fabulous.
Sparkling repartee and great interaction with the Audience.
The loss of our "high trust" society due to immigration. I've noticed this one taking off like a rocket in right wing populist discourse. High trust is code for something else of course.
There’s respectable academic literature around the circles of trust - your family, your extended family, your village, etc
BREAKING: France's president Emmanuel Macron and Finnish president Alexander Stubb are the latest European leaders to say they will attend Zelenskyy and Trump's meeting
Is that a good thing? Is this a Z/T meeting or a meeting at which Z/T are among the participants?
Nobody, including and perhaps least of all, the attendees has any fucking clue. It's make-it-up-as-go-along school of statecraft.
It's probably a combination of FOMO from the European leaders, nobody wants to be the first lift sanctions on Russia but also they definitely don't want to be the last, and DJT enjoying summoning them across the Atlantic so he can be rude/incomprehensible to them.
I think they should all send body doubles.
But really shit ones, like the rubbish waxworks of famous people in those Madame Tussaud’s rip-offs.
Maybe they could send Mark Kermode for Keir Starmer.
I think Daniel is missing the point here. Going after 4chan isn't about fining them, Ofcom is not (quite) that stupid. It's about removing them from the internet in the UK. If 4chan doesn't voluntarily pay the fines or implement age verification Ofcom can, and will, instruct ISPs to block the site.
This is the first step in the Great Firewall of Britain.
The administration wants simultaneously to sell Ukraine out to Putin, and pretend it's not happening.
Tapper: "Trump told Fox that he and Putin 'largely have agreed on' land swaps. Sources tell CNN that Trump told European leaders that Putin will agree to end the war...in exchange for Ukraine ceding the entire Donbas region. Is that accurate?"
The loss of our "high trust" society due to immigration. I've noticed this one taking off like a rocket in right wing populist discourse. High trust is code for something else of course.
When supermarkets are putting security tags on milk and cheese, then we have a trust problem.
If supermarkets in certain areas have to choose between looking like Haddows in Glasgow or moving to online deliveries only, then we all lose out.
The problem is the shoplifters I've seen (white, local) don't exactly match the story he's trying to imply..
Wasn’t the first burst of security tags on food (Lurpak was the one I remember) as a result of the cost of living crisis and the lifting done mainly by destitute indigenes?
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Would it be "supporting" PA to campaign to legalise it? Might be an interesting Court case, and an obvious freedom of speech issue
A campaign to overhaul the act isn’t illegal. It might have some unintended consequences of allowing some very nasty groups that your average PA supporter would be decrying in the same breath that they should be banned / supporters locked up.
But more specifically, say a person goes out and protests not support for PA but only that PA should not be proscribed - is that breaking the law?
Not expecting you to know, just wondering about that point. Whether saying XYZ shouldn't be called terrorists is deemed to be supporting XYZ.
I think you are still on dicey ground. That could be deemed moral support.
invite support for a proscribed organisation (the support invited need not be material support, such as the provision of money or other property, and can also include moral support or approval) (section 12(1))
express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation (section 12(1A))
I can't see how you fall of this if you don't mention PA, rather say you are campaigning for reform to this act as it you believe it is poorly defined in many areas, gives too much power to the government etc. Everybody will still know what you mean / why you are doing it.
You are absolute pillock to start writing in newspaper columns that you are going to send money to them.
For those who didn’t know - years back, a certain U.K. law firm (and some fellow firms) started selling “libel tourism”.
That is, anything published on the web is visible in the U.K.
So under this bit of judicial activism, anyone on the planet could sue for libel in U.K. courts, if it is published online. No problems with the 1st Amendment in the US.
Big fees would result….
A cross party group in the US Congress passed a law making the results of any such judgements null and void in the US.
The U.K. law firms and Mr Justice Cocklecarrot* were very upset.
*See Private Eye for real name
That’s been the case even since foreign magazines started to be imported in small numbers.
For all the politisation and polarisation in the US, one of few things on which all of the politicians agree is that the US is not a fan of foreign courts having jurisdiction over anything or anyone American.
Quite right too.
It is undemocratic.
A country should be able to enforce its laws. The “no assets or operations” is a false logic - according to that theory it’s fine for a North Korean hacking cooperative to rob a French bank
The internet is global - you either accept that or make an idiot of yourself trying to enforce laws people will just work around or outright ignore.
Sure. This particular law is a bad law. But I was engaging on the philosophy
'US President Donald Trump was riding along in his motorcade through Washington DC last Sunday on the way to his golf club when he saw something that clearly irked him - a homeless tent encampment on a patch of grass.
"The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY," he posted on Truth Social that morning, along with four photos.
One of these showed a man sitting in a camping chair by his tent, who I would eventually learn was Bill Theodie. Four days later, Mr Theodie was forced to move after the president announced a crackdown on homelessness in the nation's capital.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2x39d2jxvo
The administration wants simultaneously to sell Ukraine out to Putin, and pretend it's not happening.
Tapper: "Trump told Fox that he and Putin 'largely have agreed on' land swaps. Sources tell CNN that Trump told European leaders that Putin will agree to end the war...in exchange for Ukraine ceding the entire Donbas region. Is that accurate?"
Surely something must be in motion as half of Europes leaders aren’t going to go all the way to the US for nothing.
What's in motion is this. Trumpism thinks that the western alliance should be a European thing, not a USA + Europe + Canada thing. The USA sphere of influence is wanted elsewhere.
Trumpism also thinks that Russia's sphere of influence should include part of eastern Europe, boundaries in the long run to be decided by Russia and Europe, not USA.
Western Europe wants the alliance to be the whole of NATO, including of course the USA. The USA can abandon Europe whenever it likes but is not yet ready to make it undeniably obvious that it has switched sides. The frog boils more slowly than that.
Western Europe is wondering how to get ready for that day. And is currently temporising.
So where do you think he thinks the USA should be directing its economic and military might?
I think Daniel is missing the point here. Going after 4chan isn't about fining them, Ofcom is not (quite) that stupid. It's about removing them from the internet in the UK. If 4chan doesn't voluntarily pay the fines or implement age verification Ofcom can, and will, instruct ISPs to block the site.
This is the first step in the Great Firewall of Britain.
I agree, and if Elon doesn't get his act together we should do the same for Twix.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Would it be "supporting" PA to campaign to legalise it? Might be an interesting Court case, and an obvious freedom of speech issue
Freedom of speech doesn’t extend to causing millions in damage to the King’s aircraft, and planning several similar attacks on the country and its defensive infrastructure.
If they’d stuck to speaking, they wouldn’t have been proscribed in the first place.
I still think it should be freedom of speech to verbally support a terrorist organisation. But not practical or financial support.
It should be freedom of support to say that government actions are wrong.
On balance I think it is correct that PA has been "banned" and the people who carried out the attacks should have the book thrown at them.
But I also think that people should be able to publicly support them, and publicly say they should not have been banned.
After all, you are allowed to support Israel and Russia. Russia is clearly a terrorist organisation, other than the fact it is a country and a state actor.
It's a fine line, and of course Rentacrowd are expert at knowing it, but the distinction is this: You can't say on a banner in public "I support XYZ" (a banned terrorist organisation) but you can (IMO - DYOR) say "XYZ should be unbanned".
Your banner (IMO, DYOR) can also say (shades of Judean Liberation Front) "I am not supporting Palestine Action but I support taking action about Palestine ACTION PALESTINE TODAY!!!"
The loss of our "high trust" society due to immigration. I've noticed this one taking off like a rocket in right wing populist discourse. High trust is code for something else of course.
When supermarkets are putting security tags on milk and cheese, then we have a trust problem.
If supermarkets in certain areas have to choose between looking like Haddows in Glasgow or moving to online deliveries only, then we all lose out.
The problem is the shoplifters I've seen (white, local) don't exactly match the story he's trying to imply..
Wasn’t the first burst of security tags on food (Lurpak was the one I remember) as a result of the cost of living crisis and the lifting done mainly by destitute indigenes?
This is a British shop for British shoplifting, there's nothing for you here
The loss of our "high trust" society due to immigration. I've noticed this one taking off like a rocket in right wing populist discourse. High trust is code for something else of course.
When supermarkets are putting security tags on milk and cheese, then we have a trust problem.
There must come a point (surely) when the US media stops reporting the batshit insane things DementiaDon says, and starts reporting the consequences.
Inflation is rising. Tariffs are hurting US consumers. Armed vigilanties are detaining citizens in the street. Putin is dictating foreign policy.
It might be the media that does for The Donald but I suspect he will go the same way as Boris, whose colleagues eventually tired of being sent out to lie for him, only to discover later on that the official story had changed anyway.
There must come a point (surely) when the US media stops reporting the batshit insane things DementiaDon says, and starts reporting the consequences.
Inflation is rising. Tariffs are hurting US consumers. Armed vigilanties are detaining citizens in the street. Putin is dictating foreign policy.
It might be the media that does for The Donald but I suspect he will go the same way as Boris, whose colleagues eventually tired of being sent out to lie for him, only to discover later on that the official story had changed anyway.
Watching Rubio this morning we are some way away from that. He is not only sanewashing Trump but also Putin.
Swedish prime minister to attend Sunday's 'Coalition of the Willing' meeting, spokesperson says
Initially he said he wasn't going and would just listen in on Zoom...something is clearly in motion as every European leader can't get their Jet2 vacation flight rebooked to the US fast enough this afternoon.
For those who didn’t know - years back, a certain U.K. law firm (and some fellow firms) started selling “libel tourism”.
That is, anything published on the web is visible in the U.K.
So under this bit of judicial activism, anyone on the planet could sue for libel in U.K. courts, if it is published online. No problems with the 1st Amendment in the US.
Big fees would result….
A cross party group in the US Congress passed a law making the results of any such judgements null and void in the US.
The U.K. law firms and Mr Justice Cocklecarrot* were very upset.
*See Private Eye for real name
That’s been the case even since foreign magazines started to be imported in small numbers.
For all the politisation and polarisation in the US, one of few things on which all of the politicians agree is that the US is not a fan of foreign courts having jurisdiction over anything or anyone American.
Quite right too.
It is undemocratic.
A country should be able to enforce its laws. The “no assets or operations” is a false logic - according to that theory it’s fine for a North Korean hacking cooperative to rob a French bank
It's certainly not "undemocratic" for a democratic country to apply its laws to things that happen within it. Rather the opposite in fact.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
Would it be "supporting" PA to campaign to legalise it? Might be an interesting Court case, and an obvious freedom of speech issue
A campaign to overhaul the act isn’t illegal. It might have some unintended consequences of allowing some very nasty groups that your average PA supporter would be decrying in the same breath that they should be banned / supporters locked up.
But more specifically, say a person goes out and protests not support for PA but only that PA should not be proscribed - is that breaking the law?
Not expecting you to know, just wondering about that point. Whether saying XYZ shouldn't be called terrorists is deemed to be supporting XYZ.
There's a court case in November to overturn the proscription of PA so presumably not illegal to say they should be unbanned.
Marco Rubio: "Life in America on a daily basis will be largely unaffected whether there's peace in Ukraine or not. That's just a fact. We have a lot of issues we're focused on not just at home, but around the world."
The loss of our "high trust" society due to immigration. I've noticed this one taking off like a rocket in right wing populist discourse. High trust is code for something else of course.
When supermarkets are putting security tags on milk and cheese, then we have a trust problem.
If supermarkets in certain areas have to choose between looking like Haddows in Glasgow or moving to online deliveries only, then we all lose out.
Shoplifting and phone snatching is up. Most crimes and crime in general inc violent crime is down.
Somehow this is meant to support assertions that mass immigration has undermined our high-trust society.
It's dog-whistling.
Don’t worry. The PB centrist Dad brigade is out in force to Pooh-pooh it while burnishing their ‘right on’ credentials. Most people just don’t give such stuff the time of day. 👍
Swedish prime minister to attend Sunday's 'Coalition of the Willing' meeting, spokesperson says
It’s nice to see the European govts finally waking up on this. The Swedes and the Finns were so bothered that for many years they were not even in NATO. It was only Russia going full on into Ukraine they realised NATO was probably a better bet than not.
Marco Rubio: "Life in America on a daily basis will be largely unaffected whether there's peace in Ukraine or not. That's just a fact. We have a lot of issues we're focused on not just at home, but around the world."
I can only presume Labour has internal polling or focus group responses that tell them that these attack lines on Reform are going to work, because they seem like transparent bullshit to me, but I’m obviously not the target voter they have in mind:
“Rayner says Farage ‘failing young women’ with plan to scrap Online Safety Act”
Either that, or they’re getting a bit panicky about the whole thing. I note in passing that 4Chan have stuck two fingers up to OFCOM after being threatened with a £20k fine plus daily penalties for being in contravention of the OSA.
It’s also notable that they’re making no effort whatsoever to defend the act itself or engage with any of the criticism of it - it’s all ad hominem attacks on the critics.
BREAKING: France's president Emmanuel Macron and Finnish president Alexander Stubb are the latest European leaders to say they will attend Zelenskyy and Trump's meeting
Is that a good thing? Is this a Z/T meeting or a meeting at which Z/T are among the participants?
Nobody, including and perhaps least of all, the attendees has any fucking clue. It's make-it-up-as-go-along school of statecraft.
It's probably a combination of FOMO from the European leaders, nobody wants to be the first lift sanctions on Russia but also they definitely don't want to be the last, and DJT enjoying summoning them across the Atlantic so he can be rude/incomprehensible to them.
I think they should all send body doubles.
But really shit ones, like the rubbish waxworks of famous people in those Madame Tussaud’s rip-offs.
Maybe they could send Mark Kermode for Keir Starmer.
That's quite a good one. Definitely close enough to fool Trump, I think.
They could send David Lammy in place of Keir and it would fool Trump.
They could send a fucking scatter cushion instead of David Lammy, to anywhere on earth, and no one would notice the intellectual difference
David Lammy, the Harvard-educated lawyer who got Britain a better trade deal?
No, David Lammy who thinks Henry VII came AFTER Henry VIII
That would be the Cambridge-educated David Lammy. It's easy to get them confused.
The loss of our "high trust" society due to immigration. I've noticed this one taking off like a rocket in right wing populist discourse. High trust is code for something else of course.
When supermarkets are putting security tags on milk and cheese, then we have a trust problem.
If supermarkets in certain areas have to choose between looking like Haddows in Glasgow or moving to online deliveries only, then we all lose out.
Shoplifting and phone snatching is up. Most crimes and crime in general inc violent crime is down.
Somehow this is meant to support assertions that mass immigration has undermined our high-trust society.
It's dog-whistling.
Don’t worry. The PB centrist Dad brigade is out in force to Pooh-pooh it while burnishing their ‘right on’ credentials. Most people just don’t give such stuff the time of day. 👍
The dogs ignore the whistle, you mean? I'd like to believe so but the whistlers must think otherwise.
Surely something must be in motion as half of Europes leaders aren’t going to go all the way to the US for nothing.
What's in motion is this. Trumpism thinks that the western alliance should be a European thing, not a USA + Europe + Canada thing. The USA sphere of influence is wanted elsewhere.
Trumpism also thinks that Russia's sphere of influence should include part of eastern Europe, boundaries in the long run to be decided by Russia and Europe, not USA.
Western Europe wants the alliance to be the whole of NATO, including of course the USA. The USA can abandon Europe whenever it likes but is not yet ready to make it undeniably obvious that it has switched sides. The frog boils more slowly than that.
Western Europe is wondering how to get ready for that day. And is currently temporising.
So where do you think he thinks the USA should be directing its economic and military might?
The first into his pockets. The second, against his domestic opponents.
Surely something must be in motion as half of Europes leaders aren’t going to go all the way to the US for nothing.
What's in motion is this. Trumpism thinks that the western alliance should be a European thing, not a USA + Europe + Canada thing. The USA sphere of influence is wanted elsewhere.
Trumpism also thinks that Russia's sphere of influence should include part of eastern Europe, boundaries in the long run to be decided by Russia and Europe, not USA.
Western Europe wants the alliance to be the whole of NATO, including of course the USA. The USA can abandon Europe whenever it likes but is not yet ready to make it undeniably obvious that it has switched sides. The frog boils more slowly than that.
Western Europe is wondering how to get ready for that day. And is currently temporising.
So where do you think he thinks the USA should be directing its economic and military might?
Interesting questions. On economic might, Trumpism is principally concerned about greater USA wealth, and has mercantilist leanings. Lots more to be said, but IANAE.
Military might? Trump likes a big military but doesn't want to fight as he doesn't want any dead USA soldiers. The might's first aim is deterrence. My next guesses are these: he wants out of Europe; he wants out of middle east even ultimately Israel except for a deterrent guarantee; he wants his military to protect the interest of the USA in a world of big power bloc spheres of influence.
Further guesses: Taiwan - Trumpism won't support, it's China's if they want it. Canada/Greenland: these two targets 100% affirm the 'USA spheres of influence' view. Israel: One state solution. protected by USA and Israel's nuclear deterrent. (But in fact insoluble). Europe: Not to be USA's direct concern. Two big blocs - Russia+as yet undetermined parts of eastern Europe; and European NATO/EU area. International Order: No concern of USA military. International order is for losers.
(I don't support any of this, but I think Trumpism is broadly along these lines. the current Ukraine/Russia pantomime is WRT to overall picture a little local issue about where the Russia bloc line is drawn in Europe. Trumpism doesn't care about the detail of this.)
The loss of our "high trust" society due to immigration. I've noticed this one taking off like a rocket in right wing populist discourse. High trust is code for something else of course.
When supermarkets are putting security tags on milk and cheese, then we have a trust problem.
If supermarkets in certain areas have to choose between looking like Haddows in Glasgow or moving to online deliveries only, then we all lose out.
Shoplifting and phone snatching is up. Most crimes and crime in general inc violent crime is down.
Somehow this is meant to support assertions that mass immigration has undermined our high-trust society.
It's dog-whistling.
Don’t worry. The PB centrist Dad brigade is out in force to Pooh-pooh it while burnishing their ‘right on’ credentials. Most people just don’t give such stuff the time of day. 👍
The dogs ignore the whistle, you mean? I'd like to believe so but the whistlers must think otherwise.
Right on, grandad 👍
Perhaps they’re just savvy enough to see it for what it is and not indulge it.
Comments
Big Progress on Russia according to the Trumpdozer !!!
@RupertLowe10
Uncontrolled mass immigration has entirely undermined our high-trust society."
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1957074571762213091
And angry...
That said, the Ukrainian bar on surrendering territory is subject to referendum. If a hypothetical deal gave Ukraine other things that it wanted (e.g. the right to a NATO guarantee on their remaining territory, or even full NATO membership), it might pass, if Zelensky campaigned for it.
Once 4chan wins, how quickly will companies with minor UK presence just give it up entirely and shift everything to the US to protect themselves from these idiotic laws and regulators.
Zelensky and VDL press conference just now lays out Ukraine and Europe’s stance on elements of the Trump-Putin talks.
1/ Strong pushback to the idea Russia gets all of Donetsk. Zelensky notes Putin hasn’t been able to take it in 12 years of fighting. So the current frontline should be starting point for talks.
2/ Zelensky wants fighting to stop before proper talks begin. VDL agrees. Whether you call that a ceasefire or peace is irrelevant, argues VDL. (Trump said ignore the former and go straight to the latter yesterday.) Fundamentally talks can only happen when Russia stops attacking. Zelensky says it’s “impossible” to negotiate “under the pressure of weapons”.
3/ That territorial talks must happen at a meeting of all three leaders - Putin, Zelensky and Trump. Zelensky says it’s “so important” an issue that is the correct format. If Putin refuses (as he’s expected to) then Zelensky argues Russia must be sanctioned. The EU is working up a 19th round of sanctions. This feels like a way of projecting to Trump that it is Russia, not Ukraine, blocking a peace deal.
4/ That Ukraine post any deal needs ‘Nato Article 5-like’ security guarantees. Ie if Russia attacks again the West - and critically America - will have its back. EU leaders are now saying Trump opened the door to being involved in this. Not clear at all how or what he would commit. Key bit of Washington talks tomorrow. Note the loose language in ‘Article 5-like’. Not being proposed every Nato member is committed to see an attack on Ukraine as an attack on all. So something short of that.
5/ That Ukraine continues on the “path” to becoming a European Union member. VDL says this in itself is a form of security guarantee. (Notable in that press conference how it was EU membership, rather than Nato membership, that was talked up.)
6/ Zelensky warns against any “division” between Ukraine and its neighbour Moldova. Says that would undercut European unity.
*Edit: specifically, by the use of a bent/modified (take your pick) d'Hondt system.
More Richard Keys I think
@atrupar.com
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. Where are the consequences?
RUBIO: That's not the aim
RADDATZ: The president said that was the aim
@atrupar.com
WELKER: Why not impose more sanctions on Russia and force them to agree to a ceasefire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?
RUBIO: That's something people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions are gonna force them to accept a ceasefire.
“Rayner says Farage ‘failing young women’ with plan to scrap Online Safety Act”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/17/rayner-says-farage-failing-young-women-plan-scrap-online-safety-act
Either that, or they’re getting a bit panicky about the whole thing. I note in passing that 4Chan have stuck two fingers up to OFCOM after being threatened with a £20k fine plus daily penalties for being in contravention of the OSA.
It’s also notable that they’re making no effort whatsoever to defend the act itself or engage with any of the criticism of it - it’s all ad hominem attacks on the critics.
Rubio repeatedly won't name a single specific concession that Russia will have to give up as part of a peace deal, then pivots to talking about land that Ukraine will have to give up
Welker plays Rubio a clip of him saying in 2022 that "you can't cut deals with guys" like Putin 😬
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lwm3k65deq2p
Just seems a bit desperate to me: Revenge porn is already illegal in the UK under existing law that predates the OSA IIRC.
The ad-hominem attacks on critics of the OSA are quite extraordinary to watch.
Saying you are going to fund a terrorist organisation is not very smart. Will get you put on all sorts of watch lists.
I don’t understand why these people instead rather stick to saying they think the act that allows the proscription of groups is ill defined. Therefore no supporting a terrorist group, but the motivation / virtue signalling is the same.
People love to say “Oh, won’t somebody please think of the children!” - but are rather less keen when *they* are targeted.
Say that you’re supporting “Tommy”, on the other hand, and the police response might be different.
Actor Terence Stamp dies at the age of 87
If they’d stuck to speaking, they wouldn’t have been proscribed in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2REypxxBRTw
As part of my work watching every single YouTube video on behalf of pb, I have to read the comments as well and discovered this gem about an MP's family history:-
A V2 came down and destroyed Woolworths in New Cross killing 168 people. My wife's grandmother was the ticket operator on board the double decker bus parked outside at the time. The blast flipped the bus and she was thrown off. She was the only survivor on board. She dedicated her life to politics after that swearing that man will not commit attrocities like this again. Her work paved the way for her granddaughter to enter the houses of parliament this year as an MP as Olivia Bailey, granddaughter of a very proud Olive Bailey.
Or does it make him feel even more powerful?
Marco Rubio: "Life in America on a daily basis will be largely unaffected whether there's peace in Ukraine or not. That's just a fact. We have a lot of issues we're focused on not just at home, but around the world."
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lwm5dmjobz2a
https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/1957094598104502783
It should be freedom of support to say that government actions are wrong.
On balance I think it is correct that PA has been "banned" and the people who carried out the attacks should have the book thrown at them.
But I also think that people should be able to publicly support them, and publicly say they should not have been banned.
After all, you are allowed to support Israel and Russia. Russia is clearly a terrorist organisation, other than the fact it is a country and a state actor.
Are we expanding it to include lefty novelists now?
Fox Host: I don't know what he's trying to do but it comes across as childish and you are the governor of the biggest state in the union, what are you doing?
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1956565151815197115
https://x.com/robprogressive/status/1956765654314361211
If supermarkets in certain areas have to choose between looking like Haddows in Glasgow or moving to online deliveries only, then we all lose out.
Trumpism also thinks that Russia's sphere of influence should include part of eastern Europe, boundaries in the long run to be decided by Russia and Europe, not USA.
Western Europe wants the alliance to be the whole of NATO, including of course the USA. The USA can abandon Europe whenever it likes but is not yet ready to make it undeniably obvious that it has switched sides. The frog boils more slowly than that.
Western Europe is wondering how to get ready for that day. And is currently temporising.
But it’s strategic very damaging to Ukraine unless you could trust Putin not to launch a further attack. They been trying to break through the Donbas defensive line for 11 years without success.
Why would Zelensky give it up?
Not expecting you to know, just wondering about that point. Whether saying XYZ shouldn't be called terrorists is deemed to be supporting XYZ.
You are of course right that the time for temporising is over for us.
Sparkling repartee and great interaction with the Audience.
It’s all a shadow of its former self.
This is the first step in the Great Firewall of Britain.
Tapper: "Trump told Fox that he and Putin 'largely have agreed on' land swaps. Sources tell CNN that Trump told European leaders that Putin will agree to end the war...in exchange for Ukraine ceding the entire Donbas region. Is that accurate?"
Witkoff: "I don't know that we have the time now to go through all the different issues."
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1957069860912931097
invite support for a proscribed organisation (the support invited need not be material support, such as the provision of money or other property, and can also include moral support or approval) (section 12(1))
express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation (section 12(1A))
I can't see how you fall of this if you don't mention PA, rather say you are campaigning for reform to this act as it you believe it is poorly defined in many areas, gives too much power to the government etc. Everybody will still know what you mean / why you are doing it.
You are absolute pillock to start writing in newspaper columns that you are going to send money to them.
Rubio making argument that whether Russia invades another sovereign country is not a US national security concern
https://x.com/lrozen/status/1957095086837133502
"The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY," he posted on Truth Social that morning, along with four photos.
One of these showed a man sitting in a camping chair by his tent, who I would eventually learn was Bill Theodie. Four days later, Mr Theodie was forced to move after the president announced a crackdown on homelessness in the nation's capital.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2x39d2jxvo
Inflation is rising. Tariffs are hurting US consumers. Armed vigilanties are detaining citizens in the street. Putin is dictating foreign policy.
Your banner (IMO, DYOR) can also say (shades of Judean Liberation Front) "I am not supporting Palestine Action but I support taking action about Palestine ACTION PALESTINE TODAY!!!"
Somehow this is meant to support assertions that mass immigration has undermined our high-trust society.
It's dog-whistling.
Swedish prime minister to attend Sunday's 'Coalition of the Willing' meeting, spokesperson says
There is already profitable legal business in using OSA threats against people who are saying inconvenient things.
https://x.com/reformparty_uk/status/1957094923154444535?s=61
The second, against his domestic opponents.
Military might? Trump likes a big military but doesn't want to fight as he doesn't want any dead USA soldiers. The might's first aim is deterrence. My next guesses are these: he wants out of Europe; he wants out of middle east even ultimately Israel except for a deterrent guarantee; he wants his military to protect the interest of the USA in a world of big power bloc spheres of influence.
Further guesses:
Taiwan - Trumpism won't support, it's China's if they want it.
Canada/Greenland: these two targets 100% affirm the 'USA spheres of influence' view.
Israel: One state solution. protected by USA and Israel's nuclear deterrent. (But in fact insoluble).
Europe: Not to be USA's direct concern. Two big blocs - Russia+as yet undetermined parts of eastern Europe; and European NATO/EU area.
International Order: No concern of USA military. International order is for losers.
(I don't support any of this, but I think Trumpism is broadly along these lines. the current Ukraine/Russia pantomime is WRT to overall picture a little local issue about where the Russia bloc line is drawn in Europe. Trumpism doesn't care about the detail of this.)
Perhaps they’re just savvy enough to see it for what it is and not indulge it.