There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
I think they are organised as is common for charities with a subsidiary that *can* campaign. They have Hope not Hate Limited, which is a private company, and HOPE unlimited Charitable Trust.
It's a similar pattern to how charities have commercial companies for their shops.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
It's a square/rectangle thing.
Antisemitism is a form of hate.
Not all hate is antisemitism.
So an anti-hate organisation should include anti-antisemitism but an anti-antisemitism doesn't need to go wider.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
I think they are organised as is common for charities with a subsidiary that *can* campaign. They have Hope not Hate Limited, which is a private company, and HOPE unlimited Charitable Trust.
It's a similar pattern to how charities have commercial companies for their shops.
The idea of having a separate organisation for campaigning that is funded by a very closely connected entity. That doesn't sound a million miles away from Super PACs in the US. where as long as they don't coordinate directly with the candidate its ok. What stops say, just for arguments sake, a crypto billionaire doing something similar to Hope Not Hate but focused upon highlighting left wing failures?
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
Hope not hate is a manipulative organisation that coarsens and pollutes the political debate. It falls well short of the political impartiality expected of charities, but gets away with it by dividing its 'charitable arm' from its 'campaigning arm' and making the ludicrous assertion that the two are unrelated.
I'm sorry but this far right populism that's on the march all over the place is getting huge dollops of money and social media backing from shady billionaires and hostile foreign governments. So I'm not going to fret too much about a niche org like HNH working against it. These are troubling times. It's a battle for the ages and it must be won. All hands to the wheel.
Can't see any other reason other than potential national team management coming up post world cup for Pep to leave the job now instead of finishing up his contract, loads of national team jobs will come up post World Cup and I assume he'll have his pick pretty much.
I can think of 115 charges reasons why he's decided to leave.
The EPL has been utterly glacial on all that.
EFL seems to be much quicker and stricter (Compare Chelsea to Leicester, WBA, Spies(No) Saints & Sheffield Wednesday)
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
I've just read Pep's resignation statement. It's fabulous. Can we find him a seat so he can join the leadership contest?
It's very good. I wouldn't be surprised to see Burnham borrow some of the lines about Manchester - but in a way that suggests his having being the city's mayor had a good deal to do with it.
Yes he must surely be looking at it in that light. The statement definitely has a 'progressive' flavour to it. There's little for Reform or Restore there other than that slight touch of backwards looking nostalgia about the industrial revolution.
Perhaps also Oasis in their more boorish incarnations?
Actually good point. The refs to them and to 'Noel' were the one and only blot for me. But I suppose in Manchester that works. They're local and they certainly levelled up.
Andy Burnham is no more a Scouser than Boris Johnson is a New Yorker. Mind you. Knew a guy at College they called Scouser. He was from Stoke. Don't southerners listen?
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
The letter being shared on social media from Hope not Hate isn't that though. It explicitly says its a two horse race between Labour and Reform UK, only Andy Burnham for Labour can do this, that and the other "good" things, Reform will do all these "bad" things. Their "get out" I guess, is it doesn't say vote Andy Burnham, it says vote for positive change, don't vote for Reform, but the only positive change being described is Andy Burnham.
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
Yes the bloke who'd buy a pint for someone screaming foul abuse at the Chancellor. But had a meltdown when a photographer was on a pavement outside his house.
The jets, each worth £125m, arrived at Lajes International Airport on the mid-Atlantic island on 9 March on their journey from the Lockheed Martin plant at Fort Worth in Texas, and then never left...
Both Lockheed and the UK government are denying responsibility for this stranding of what are new, undelivered aircraft, that we're paying for. And have never taken delivery of.
They are on the UK military reg (ZM177 & ZM179), so they have been accepted. It's just the trans Atlantic ferry went to shit.
It's a series of long over water transits in a single engine a/c so they are going to take zero chances. About 40% of F-35 engineering posts in the RAF are unfilled and spares at about 50% of the required levels. Add in the necessary permission from LM and the US to do the repair in an insecure location and it's not surprising it's taking this long.
They'd be better off cancelling the 12 As, which were only ever ordered to try to impress Trump just before a NATO summit and then he didn't give a fuck, and spending the money on sustaining the aircraft they do have to improve the mission capable rates.
It's more than £1,000 per person in the UK. It would be compensation payouts averaging £1m to 73,400 people.
Can that possibly be right?
Blood scandal, post office scandal,???
About a billion had been paid out as part of the Horizon redress scheme, but the total quoted is a total of compensation debt - so compensation that's acknowledged as required but that hasn't been made yet.
I'm going to have to look at the report the article is based on to get the details, I guess, but it feels bonkers.
82% (£60bn) is for clinical negligence. So this must be claims that are being paid out over decades, rather than a lump sum payment. I'd thought that these claims were normally paid out as a lump sum, with a trust then established to manage the lump sum, but it would appear not.
The annual cost of all compensation schemes reached £4.9bn in 2024-25.
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
I think they are organised as is common for charities with a subsidiary that *can* campaign. They have Hope not Hate Limited, which is a private company, and HOPE unlimited Charitable Trust.
It's a similar pattern to how charities have commercial companies for their shops.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
GBNews is a manipulative organisation that coarsens and pollutes the political debate. It falls well short of the political impartiality expected of TV news, but gets away with it (even when found guilty) by dividing its 'news shows' from its 'talk shows' and making the ludicrous assertion that the two are unrelated.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
Hope not hate is a manipulative organisation that coarsens and pollutes the political debate. It falls well short of the political impartiality expected of charities, but gets away with it by dividing its 'charitable arm' from its 'campaigning arm' and making the ludicrous assertion that the two are unrelated.
I'm sorry but this far right populism that's on the march all over the place is getting huge dollops of money and social media backing from shady billionaires and hostile foreign governments. So I'm not going to fret too much about a niche org like HNH working against it. These are troubling times. It's a battle for the ages and it must be won. All hands to the wheel.
Essentially you've been radicalised and the sad thing is you still believe yourself to be a moderate.
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
The amount of anti-drone protection the Ukrainians have put over major roadways in very short space of time. We should really get them on HS2 project. I reckon they would have it built by near year.
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
Sounds like just the right time to drive the knife into Russia by toughening sanctions.
Oh, guess what? Our moronic government is loosening them ...
They really are completely unfit for office.
I'm sure we would be tightening sanctions - apart from the fact Trump stupidly blocked off half the gulf so everyone is scrambling round for any oil that can be delivered..
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
Sounds like just the right time to drive the knife into Russia by toughening sanctions.
Oh, guess what? Our moronic government is loosening them ...
They really are completely unfit for office.
I'm sure we would be tightening sanctions - apart from the fact Trump stupidly blocked off half the gulf so everyone is scrambling round for any oil that can be delivered..
So where’s the UK contribution to getting Hormuz open?
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
Hope not hate is a manipulative organisation that coarsens and pollutes the political debate. It falls well short of the political impartiality expected of charities, but gets away with it by dividing its 'charitable arm' from its 'campaigning arm' and making the ludicrous assertion that the two are unrelated.
I'm sorry but this far right populism that's on the march all over the place is getting huge dollops of money and social media backing from shady billionaires and hostile foreign governments. So I'm not going to fret too much about a niche org like HNH working against it. These are troubling times. It's a battle for the ages and it must be won. All hands to the wheel.
Essentially you've been radicalised and the sad thing is you still believe yourself to be a moderate.
I am radically opposed to the UK succumbing to morally and financially ruinous populism, yes. All the moderation in the world will be no use if that happens.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
I think they are organised as is common for charities with a subsidiary that *can* campaign. They have Hope not Hate Limited, which is a private company, and HOPE unlimited Charitable Trust.
It's a similar pattern to how charities have commercial companies for their shops.
The idea of having a separate organisation for campaigning that is funded by a very closely connected entity. That doesn't sound a million miles away from Super PACs in the US. where as long as they don't coordinate directly with the candidate its ok. What stops say, just for arguments sake, a crypto billionaire doing something similar to Hope Not Hate but focused upon highlighting left wing failures?
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
Sounds like just the right time to drive the knife into Russia by toughening sanctions.
Oh, guess what? Our moronic government is loosening them ...
They really are completely unfit for office.
I'm sure we would be tightening sanctions - apart from the fact Trump stupidly blocked off half the gulf so everyone is scrambling round for any oil that can be delivered..
So where’s the UK contribution to getting Hormuz open?
Until Iran wants it open it's not going to happen - no amount of weapons is going to resolve that issue.
See for a different variation of the same issue how hard it is to patrol 100 miles of coastland in France all aiming to travel to 20 miles of coast in the UK...
The jets, each worth £125m, arrived at Lajes International Airport on the mid-Atlantic island on 9 March on their journey from the Lockheed Martin plant at Fort Worth in Texas, and then never left...
Both Lockheed and the UK government are denying responsibility for this stranding of what are new, undelivered aircraft, that we're paying for. And have never taken delivery of.
They are on the UK military reg (ZM177 & ZM179), so they have been accepted. It's just the trans Atlantic ferry went to shit.
It's a series of long over water transits in a single engine a/c so they are going to take zero chances. About 40% of F-35 engineering posts in the RAF are unfilled and spares at about 50% of the required levels. Add in the necessary permission from LM and the US to do the repair in an insecure location and it's not surprising it's taking this long.
They'd be better off cancelling the 12 As, which were only ever ordered to try to impress Trump just before a NATO summit and then he didn't give a fuck, and spending the money on sustaining the aircraft they do have to improve the mission capable rates.
The As were ordered in place of the Bs. They're cheaper and a bit less complicated to maintain.
It's not at all clear whether the lack of spares is our lack of funding, or a global shortage. US availability isn't as bad as ours, but at 50% is pretty poor - and that's largely for the simpler As.
Telegraph - Seven Afghan nationals, who came to Britain via small boats and lorries, have been charged with the thing we aren't allowed to discuss. They have been charged with a total 40 offences as part of an investigation in Norwich.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
GBNews is a manipulative organisation that coarsens and pollutes the political debate. It falls well short of the political impartiality expected of TV news, but gets away with it (even when found guilty) by dividing its 'news shows' from its 'talk shows' and making the ludicrous assertion that the two are unrelated.
Fixed that for you.
Hope not Hate budget - around £650k GB News - around £48m
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
Sounds like just the right time to drive the knife into Russia by toughening sanctions.
Oh, guess what? Our moronic government is loosening them ...
They really are completely unfit for office.
I'm sure we would be tightening sanctions - apart from the fact Trump stupidly blocked off half the gulf so everyone is scrambling round for any oil that can be delivered..
So where’s the UK contribution to getting Hormuz open?
The US, Israel and the Gulf States do not lack for firepower. The reason the straits are shut is not because they lack the mighty British war machine. The problem is that Trump started a war without any sort of sensible plan for how to end it, and is clearly incapable of carrying out international diplomacy, being more concerned with his ego and bank balance. The best thing the UK can do to open Hormuz is to discourage the US from continuing to f*** the situation up.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
The letter being shared on social media from Hope not Hate isn't that though. It explicitly says its a two horse race between Labour and Reform UK, only Andy Burnham for Labour can do this, that and the other "good" things, Reform will do all these "bad" things. Their "get out" I guess, is it doesn't say vote Andy Burnham, it says vote for positive change, don't vote for Reform, but the only positive change being described is Andy Burnham.
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
HNH's mission statement is to combat the organised far right in all its forms, the policies that give succour to it, in the places most susceptible.
Hence the letter. Ok, so Reform don't like it. That's understandable. But, you know, diddums. If it's illegal they know what to do. I doubt it is but of course I could be wrong. In any case it's hardly one step away from superPACs.
Tbh I rarely see merit in 'slippery slope' arguments. In my experience it's often a technique employed to mask partisanship on the issue at hand.
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
Sounds like just the right time to drive the knife into Russia by toughening sanctions.
Oh, guess what? Our moronic government is loosening them ...
They really are completely unfit for office.
I'm sure we would be tightening sanctions - apart from the fact Trump stupidly blocked off half the gulf so everyone is scrambling round for any oil that can be delivered..
So where’s the UK contribution to getting Hormuz open?
Until Iran wants it open it's not going to happen - no amount of weapons is going to resolve that issue.
See for a different variation of the same issue how hard it is to patrol 100 miles of coastland in France all aiming to travel to 20 miles of coast in the UK...
That's a very different issue. The channel boats only cross in daylight and in good weather so they are very easy to spot. It's just that the UK can't do anything at all to them in French waters and can't do anything but bring them to the UK once they are in British waters. It would be trivial to kill them all, if that's what the government wanted to do.
I do agree that there is nothing the UK government can do in the SoH. I also think they shouldn't try to anything to help. Trump caused this chaos by being Netenyahu's cabana boy. Fuck them both, let them sort it out.
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
Sounds like just the right time to drive the knife into Russia by toughening sanctions.
Oh, guess what? Our moronic government is loosening them ...
They really are completely unfit for office.
I'm sure we would be tightening sanctions - apart from the fact Trump stupidly blocked off half the gulf so everyone is scrambling round for any oil that can be delivered..
So where’s the UK contribution to getting Hormuz open?
The US, Israel and the Gulf States do not lack for firepower. The reason the straits are shut is not because they lack the mighty British war machine. The problem is that Trump started a war without any sort of sensible plan for how to end it, and is clearly incapable of carrying out international diplomacy, being more concerned with his ego and bank balance. The best thing the UK can do to open Hormuz is to discourage the US from continuing to f*** the situation up.
Iran has played their trump card - closing the straights. They have never done this before and cannot do it again (there will be other routes now because of this). They think that they are winning, and in the narrow sense they are. But ultimately they will be the losers.
What rate are Ukraine using drones? Would seem to be in the tens or hundreds a night over Russia.
Now I might be wrong, would need to check, but I want to say they are building 4 million a year and want to expand this to 8 million by the end of this year. They go through about 1000 a day.
But also they have a wide range of drones now, the FPV fibre optics and traditional ones, the DJI Mavic, they mega sized ones that were built for crop spraying. And now also have unmanned "trollies", tanks, boats etc.
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
The letter being shared on social media from Hope not Hate isn't that though. It explicitly says its a two horse race between Labour and Reform UK, only Andy Burnham for Labour can do this, that and the other "good" things, Reform will do all these "bad" things. Their "get out" I guess, is it doesn't say vote Andy Burnham, it says vote for positive change, don't vote for Reform, but the only positive change being described is Andy Burnham.
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
HNH's mission statement is to combat the organised far right in all its forms, the policies that give succour to it, in the places most susceptible.
Hence the letter. Ok, so Reform don't like it. That's understandable. But, you know, diddums. If it's illegal they know what to do. I doubt it is but of course I could be wrong. In any case it's hardly one step away from superPACs.
Tbh I rarely see merit in 'slippery slope' arguments. In my experience it's often a technique employed to mask partisanship on the issue at hand.
In context, HNH's annual budget is about an eighth of Farage's personal bung. Which he failed to declare.
Can't see any other reason other than potential national team management coming up post world cup for Pep to leave the job now instead of finishing up his contract, loads of national team jobs will come up post World Cup and I assume he'll have his pick pretty much.
I can think of 115 charges reasons why he's decided to leave.
The EPL has been utterly glacial on all that.
EFL seems to be much quicker and stricter (Compare Chelsea to Leicester, WBA, Spies(No) Saints & Sheffield Wednesday)
Why the difference do you think ?
None of the EFL clubs are owned by nation states.
So we don't want to piss off the Government of the UAE? Fair enough.
Would the Baggies have confirmed James Morrison if they had known Pep would soon be available? I suppose we will never know now.
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
Sounds like just the right time to drive the knife into Russia by toughening sanctions.
Oh, guess what? Our moronic government is loosening them ...
They really are completely unfit for office.
I'm sure we would be tightening sanctions - apart from the fact Trump stupidly blocked off half the gulf so everyone is scrambling round for any oil that can be delivered..
So where’s the UK contribution to getting Hormuz open?
The US, Israel and the Gulf States do not lack for firepower. The reason the straits are shut is not because they lack the mighty British war machine. The problem is that Trump started a war without any sort of sensible plan for how to end it, and is clearly incapable of carrying out international diplomacy, being more concerned with his ego and bank balance. The best thing the UK can do to open Hormuz is to discourage the US from continuing to f*** the situation up.
Iran has played their trump card - closing the straights. They have never done this before and cannot do it again (there will be other routes now because of this). They think that they are winning, and in the narrow sense they are. But ultimately they will be the losers.
No, Iran is winning because the extremists still run the place and are killing by the thousands those protestors President Trump encouraged to rise up.
And Iran will win the peace because this war has shown its leaders something they'd not realised. They will reopen the Strait of Hormuz and they will charge a transit fee for ships using it.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
It's a square/rectangle thing.
Antisemitism is a form of hate.
Not all hate is antisemitism.
So an anti-hate organisation should include anti-antisemitism but an anti-antisemitism doesn't need to go wider.
Well the name, hope not hate, is very wide so you need to look at the mission statement for the focus. It's clear from there that it's the 'organised far right' who they have in the cross hairs.
That's fair enough imo. Ditto some other org whose declared target is the organised far left.
But, to your point, if they have no interest in antisemitism on the far right that would be remiss and reprehensible. I don't know if that's the case or not. I'd hope not.
Andy Burnham is no more a Scouser than Boris Johnson is a New Yorker. Mind you. Knew a guy at College they called Scouser. He was from Stoke. Don't southerners listen?
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
I’ve known Athena SWAN teams in areas with female-dominated student cohorts take seriously the challenge of how to encourage more men to apply.
Someone here will probably know if it’s feasible but is there a way they can make some sort of cross between a shotgun and claymore that soldiers can have in a squad, like they have a machine gun section, to shoot down drones that get too close?
Someone here will probably know if it’s feasible but is there a way they can make some sort of cross between a shotgun and claymore that soldiers can have in a squad, like they have a machine gun section, to shoot down drones that get too close?
Someone here will probably know if it’s feasible but is there a way they can make some sort of cross between a shotgun and claymore that soldiers can have in a squad, like they have a machine gun section, to shoot down drones that get too close?
The Ukranians already carry such things as last line of defense against fibre optic drones. When they are exposed transporting themselves in pick-ups, they have at least one guy, window down, gun and often himself hanging out of the side of the truck with this weapon ready to engage.
Someone here will probably know if it’s feasible but is there a way they can make some sort of cross between a shotgun and claymore that soldiers can have in a squad, like they have a machine gun section, to shoot down drones that get too close?
That sounds fucking heavy. The Russians have used guns that fire nets which seems to work but only once. Ultimately, an FPV drone is small and fast so not getting spotted in the first place or dispersing if you are spotted so you don't all get fucking killed are the best defences.
The /r/ukrainerussiareport subreddit is the place to be for hot drone on dude action from both sides. The SMO looks like a right larf.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
Is Farage covering up more crypto-related funding? The Byline Times (I know) reports:
Nigel Farage was paid £50,000 in personal speaking fees by two cryptocurrency businesses in October 2025 – one of them owned by Dragons’ Den investor Steven Bartlett – in the same month he told Reuters he was “not aware” of crypto businesses funding his party, Byline Times can reveal.
The Reform UK leader received £30,000 from Blockworks Inc on 13 October and a further £20,000 from Zebu Group Limited on 22 October, according to the UK Parliament Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Both payments were for keynote appearances at the companies’ crypto-industry conferences in London.
The interview with Reuters was on 22 October at Zebu Live, the London cryptocurrency summit for which Zebu Group was due to pay Farage £20,000 that same day. Asked by Reuters whether any crypto asset businesses were donors to Reform UK, Farage said: “not that I’m aware of”, and added that “we might have had some sponsorship at the conference”.
Nigel Farage was paid £50,000 in personal speaking fees by two cryptocurrency businesses in October 2025 – one of them owned by Dragons’ Den investor Steven Bartlett – in the same month he told Reuters he was “not aware” of crypto businesses funding his party, Byline Times can reveal.
The Reform UK leader received £30,000 from Blockworks Inc on 13 October and a further £20,000 from Zebu Group Limited on 22 October, according to the UK Parliament Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Both payments were for keynote appearances at the companies’ crypto-industry conferences in London.
More of a shock, looks like he properly declared these payments......
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
Nigel Farage was paid £50,000 in personal speaking fees by two cryptocurrency businesses in October 2025 – one of them owned by Dragons’ Den investor Steven Bartlett – in the same month he told Reuters he was “not aware” of crypto businesses funding his party, Byline Times can reveal.
The Reform UK leader received £30,000 from Blockworks Inc on 13 October and a further £20,000 from Zebu Group Limited on 22 October, according to the UK Parliament Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Both payments were for keynote appearances at the companies’ crypto-industry conferences in London.
More of a shock, looks like he properly declared these payments......
TBF I doubt anyone would have believed he made those appearances for nothing. Our Nigel does nothing without his palm being liberally greased...
Someone here will probably know if it’s feasible but is there a way they can make some sort of cross between a shotgun and claymore that soldiers can have in a squad, like they have a machine gun section, to shoot down drones that get too close?
There are modified shotguns, and guns that fire nets, that are being used for that purpose. I'm not sure how effective they are. They don't seem to have become standard issue, so I'd guess they aren't effective at a great enough range. Plus your infantry squad would have to spot the drone at a long enough range to bring the gun to bear in time.
The Ukrainians have a battery-powered anti-drone laser system in tests that they can put on a trailer, which is being used to defend ~fixed points like forward command posts. Perhaps some derivative of such a system will end up on APCs and IFVs in the future.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
I’ve known Athena SWAN teams in areas with female-dominated student cohorts take seriously the challenge of how to encourage more men to apply.
Is Farage covering up more crypto-related funding? The Byline Times (I know) reports:
Nigel Farage was paid £50,000 in personal speaking fees by two cryptocurrency businesses in October 2025 – one of them owned by Dragons’ Den investor Steven Bartlett – in the same month he told Reuters he was “not aware” of crypto businesses funding his party, Byline Times can reveal.
The Reform UK leader received £30,000 from Blockworks Inc on 13 October and a further £20,000 from Zebu Group Limited on 22 October, according to the UK Parliament Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Both payments were for keynote appearances at the companies’ crypto-industry conferences in London.
The interview with Reuters was on 22 October at Zebu Live, the London cryptocurrency summit for which Zebu Group was due to pay Farage £20,000 that same day. Asked by Reuters whether any crypto asset businesses were donors to Reform UK, Farage said: “not that I’m aware of”, and added that “we might have had some sponsorship at the conference”.
He should lean into this and do Nigecoin. The highly regarded Fukker voters would lap it up before the inevitable rug pull
I don't actually hate Big Nige like I do Kemi. He's just an actor playing a character for money. It'd be like hating Steve McFadden for Sharongate.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
But not, presumably, by Green party members chanting "From the River to the Sea"?
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
I think they are organised as is common for charities with a subsidiary that *can* campaign. They have Hope not Hate Limited, which is a private company, and HOPE unlimited Charitable Trust.
It's a similar pattern to how charities have commercial companies for their shops.
The idea of having a separate organisation for campaigning that is funded by a very closely connected entity. That doesn't sound a million miles away from Super PACs in the US. where as long as they don't coordinate directly with the candidate its ok. What stops say, just for arguments sake, a crypto billionaire doing something similar to Hope Not Hate but focused upon highlighting left wing failures?
My main concerns are transparency (ie we know where the money comes from) and that donations come overwhelmingly from the UK, which I think important for the health of our politics. The HNH structure is fairly transparent and regulated, and has been used for decades and decades. HNH (both entities) turns over only around £2.5 million.
I think they also have public guidelines, that can be used as the basis for a challenge.
Is that more concerning than an organisation engaged in politics that chooses a specific form of incorporation that lets it not be transparent about where its money comes from?
I discount the SuperPAC comparison, as those are about funnelling unlimited amounts of money (in the billions) into US politics, and disguising dark money.
Following Speccie campaigns, they have had the Charity Commission doing an enquiry, and concerns have been allayed eg by a name change on the charitable trust. But the Speccie also issued an apology over a false claim they had been making (by overconcluding from their own assumptions).
RIght Wing groups have similar concerns when they operate as charities. In 2018 the Institute for Economic Affairs was reportedly offering access to Government Ministers in exchange for donations, and there was a Charity Commission Regulatory Enquiry. There have repeatedly been concerns about influence on "research" by donors. And there is currently another enquiry going on after campaigning by the Good Law Project.
I would like the IEA to be transparent about their funders, rather than permitting secrecy - say for donations over £5k.
That is far better than the USA's black hole.
On "right wing funded similars", we already have an entire ecosystem, surely? Look at Legatum and their Dubai links, or the figures on the right receiving money from Orban's Hungarian organisations, or Farage's moves to set up Reform to receive untraceable money?
If there is a perceived problem HNH an be sued or reported to the Charity Commission - there are enough groups on the right campaigning against them, with little to show for it.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
So the accusation "the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns" would be a reference to Hope not Hate's successful, and hugely supported, campaigning against the rise of the BNP in Barking and Dagenham?
Are some PB posters unhappy that Hope not Hate campaigned against the BNP?
Are some PB posters unhappy that HNH research and have gone undercover to expose far right organisations involved in criminality? Someone has to, the police were too busy trying to get laid by vegans.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
But not, presumably, by Green party members chanting "From the River to the Sea"?
Green Party members are not, usually, far right extremists. HNH have their mission, they carry out their mission. It’s like complaining that the RSPB does nothing for squirrels.
It's more than £1,000 per person in the UK. It would be compensation payouts averaging £1m to 73,400 people.
Can that possibly be right?
Blood scandal, post office scandal,???
About a billion had been paid out as part of the Horizon redress scheme, but the total quoted is a total of compensation debt - so compensation that's acknowledged as required but that hasn't been made yet.
I'm going to have to look at the report the article is based on to get the details, I guess, but it feels bonkers.
82% (£60bn) is for clinical negligence. So this must be claims that are being paid out over decades, rather than a lump sum payment. I'd thought that these claims were normally paid out as a lump sum, with a trust then established to manage the lump sum, but it would appear not.
The annual cost of all compensation schemes reached £4.9bn in 2024-25.
How does this report account for the move away (aiui) from "Lump Sum" settlements?
My blogging colleague Anna Raccoon (Sue Cameron-Blackie) stood in a General Election on this issue in iirc 2017 from her deathbed:
Mrs Cameron-Blackie was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer - leiomyosarcoma - six years ago and was given two months to live two years ago.
She decided to stand two weeks ago after discovering the NHS Litigation Authority annual report for April 2015-16 online.
According to the report the NHS has put aside £56.4bn for payouts to be made over several decades to people who sue the organisation for medical negligence.
Mrs Cameron-Blackie, who moved to Reedham two years ago, was 'speechless' after finding the report and is campaigning solely on the issue to prevent the NHS paying out so much money in litigation.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
But not, presumably, by Green party members chanting "From the River to the Sea"?
Someone here will probably know if it’s feasible but is there a way they can make some sort of cross between a shotgun and claymore that soldiers can have in a squad, like they have a machine gun section, to shoot down drones that get too close?
The Ukranians already carry such things as last line of defense against fibre optic drones. When they are exposed transporting themselves in pick-ups, they have at least one guy, window down, gun and often himself hanging out of the side of the truck with this weapon ready to engage.
Doesn't really work when there are four or five drones, though, which is the way it's going.
Someone here will probably know if it’s feasible but is there a way they can make some sort of cross between a shotgun and claymore that soldiers can have in a squad, like they have a machine gun section, to shoot down drones that get too close?
The Ukranians already carry such things as last line of defense against fibre optic drones. When they are exposed transporting themselves in pick-ups, they have at least one guy, window down, gun and often himself hanging out of the side of the truck with this weapon ready to engage.
Doesn't really work when there are four or five drones, though, which is the way it's going.
That is why they have been errecting huge amount of anit-drone fencing / netting across networks of roads. But the guys on the front line, its a nightmare. There was a story I think 2-3 days ago where a squadron had been stuck on the frontline for 200 days, basically hiding in fox holes, as they couldn't get any replacement troops in as everytime they tried to travel, swarms of drones would come to attack. Instead having to rely on dropping supplies via drone.
Someone here will probably know if it’s feasible but is there a way they can make some sort of cross between a shotgun and claymore that soldiers can have in a squad, like they have a machine gun section, to shoot down drones that get too close?
There are modified shotguns, and guns that fire nets, that are being used for that purpose. I'm not sure how effective they are. They don't seem to have become standard issue, so I'd guess they aren't effective at a great enough range. Plus your infantry squad would have to spot the drone at a long enough range to bring the gun to bear in time.
The Ukrainians have a battery-powered anti-drone laser system in tests that they can put on a trailer, which is being used to defend ~fixed points like forward command posts. Perhaps some derivative of such a system will end up on APCs and IFVs in the future.
There are multiple mini (and not so mini) air defence systems out there.
Ranging from literal shotguns in a turret made out of RC car parts up to… pretty much any level of capability you want.
A number of tank designs already have point defence systems.
Is Farage covering up more crypto-related funding? The Byline Times (I know) reports:
Nigel Farage was paid £50,000 in personal speaking fees by two cryptocurrency businesses in October 2025 – one of them owned by Dragons’ Den investor Steven Bartlett – in the same month he told Reuters he was “not aware” of crypto businesses funding his party, Byline Times can reveal.
The Reform UK leader received £30,000 from Blockworks Inc on 13 October and a further £20,000 from Zebu Group Limited on 22 October, according to the UK Parliament Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Both payments were for keynote appearances at the companies’ crypto-industry conferences in London.
The interview with Reuters was on 22 October at Zebu Live, the London cryptocurrency summit for which Zebu Group was due to pay Farage £20,000 that same day. Asked by Reuters whether any crypto asset businesses were donors to Reform UK, Farage said: “not that I’m aware of”, and added that “we might have had some sponsorship at the conference”.
He should lean into this and do Nigecoin. The highly regarded Fukker voters would lap it up before the inevitable rug pull
I don't actually hate Big Nige like I do Kemi. He's just an actor playing a character for money. It'd be like hating Steve McFadden for Sharongate.
It's more than £1,000 per person in the UK. It would be compensation payouts averaging £1m to 73,400 people.
Can that possibly be right?
Blood scandal, post office scandal,???
About a billion had been paid out as part of the Horizon redress scheme, but the total quoted is a total of compensation debt - so compensation that's acknowledged as required but that hasn't been made yet.
I'm going to have to look at the report the article is based on to get the details, I guess, but it feels bonkers.
82% (£60bn) is for clinical negligence. So this must be claims that are being paid out over decades, rather than a lump sum payment. I'd thought that these claims were normally paid out as a lump sum, with a trust then established to manage the lump sum, but it would appear not.
The annual cost of all compensation schemes reached £4.9bn in 2024-25.
How does this report account for the move away (aiui) from "Lump Sum" settlements?
My blogging colleague Anna Raccoon (Sue Cameron-Blackie) stood in a General Election on this issue in iirc 2017 from her deathbed:
Mrs Cameron-Blackie was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer - leiomyosarcoma - six years ago and was given two months to live two years ago.
She decided to stand two weeks ago after discovering the NHS Litigation Authority annual report for April 2015-16 online.
According to the report the NHS has put aside £56.4bn for payouts to be made over several decades to people who sue the organisation for medical negligence.
Mrs Cameron-Blackie, who moved to Reedham two years ago, was 'speechless' after finding the report and is campaigning solely on the issue to prevent the NHS paying out so much money in litigation.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
Generally quite correct. An antiracist is not if they are relaxed about, or don't see, or even worse share antisemitic sentiment, because antisemitism is racism against Jews. That makes them a racist.
I don't, however, think an org which openly says its mission is to combat the far right needs to also be on high alert for racism in other political spaces. There's the matter of budget and focus. Also the fact that racism is undeniably more prevalent on the far right than anywhere else.
For me the (not really hypocrisy but something far worse, something dark and telling) would be if an org that exists to expose racism on the far right in practice excludes antisemitism (on the far right) from that. I don't know enough of HNH to comment on this but I would hope that's not the case.
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
Sounds like just the right time to drive the knife into Russia by toughening sanctions.
Oh, guess what? Our moronic government is loosening them ...
They really are completely unfit for office.
I'm sure we would be tightening sanctions - apart from the fact Trump stupidly blocked off half the gulf so everyone is scrambling round for any oil that can be delivered..
So where’s the UK contribution to getting Hormuz open?
Until Iran wants it open it's not going to happen - no amount of weapons is going to resolve that issue.
See for a different variation of the same issue how hard it is to patrol 100 miles of coastland in France all aiming to travel to 20 miles of coast in the UK...
It’s open for some. Ships are going through. You just need to meet the terms required
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
But not, presumably, by Green party members chanting "From the River to the Sea"?
Green Party members are not, usually, far right extremists. HNH have their mission, they carry out their mission. It’s like complaining that the RSPB does nothing for squirrels.
No they’re far left Jew haters now they’ve onboarded lots of the old Labour left.
Oddly enough HNH are less vocal on that.
Excusing HNH simply because you approve of their political target is one take I guess
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
But not, presumably, by Green party members chanting "From the River to the Sea"?
Green Party members are not, usually, far right extremists. HNH have their mission, they carry out their mission. It’s like complaining that the RSPB does nothing for squirrels.
Morrisons is planning to close 100 stores over the coming months, as it blamed government policy choices for rising costs. The supermarket chain said the affected convenience stores had been loss-making for some time and were acquired through its McColls acquisition in 2022.
It said the difficulties had been exacerbated in more recent years by "significant cost increases resulting from government policy choices", but did not give any further detail.
The PE company are going to bust Morrisons as their model was the thought they could sell and lease back all the stores at the top of the market while interest rates were super low. And they weren't able to do do that for more than a small proportion of the stores.
Have you been in Morrisons superstore recently? They are awful. Whether Government policy is a key factor by the by. Since the US equity outfit C,D and R took them over Morrisons the stores look like branches of 1980s Kwik Save.
After the McColls stores told the bigger ones will follow.
I am not a regular Morrison shopper, my only recent experience was I went to see the Cardiff Devils Ice Hockey team play last year and the car park was rammed getting out so popped with my mate to the Morrisons over the road to get some snacks and thought I had entered a supermarket from some war torn African country with the terrible quality of produce, loads of totally empty shelves and really shabby appearance of the shop. I put it down to perhaps late in the evening / older store. However, my elderly parents were regulars, but said since the PE firm what I saw was normal in their local store as well.
I don't think its every store - our local medium sized Morrisons is ok. No empty shelves, decent range of some things, less in others.
Pretty much the same here. Was a bit threadbare on the 27th December, but that's not entirely unexpected.
My local store is OK. They still have butchers, fishmongers, etc and a good display of wine.
Someone here will probably know if it’s feasible but is there a way they can make some sort of cross between a shotgun and claymore that soldiers can have in a squad, like they have a machine gun section, to shoot down drones that get too close?
The Ukranians already carry such things as last line of defense against fibre optic drones. When they are exposed transporting themselves in pick-ups, they have at least one guy, window down, gun and often himself hanging out of the side of the truck with this weapon ready to engage.
Doesn't really work when there are four or five drones, though, which is the way it's going.
That is why they have been errecting huge amount of anit-drone fencing / netting across networks of roads. But the guys on the front line, its a nightmare. There was a story I think 2-3 days ago where a squadron had been stuck on the frontline for 200 days, basically hiding in fox holes, as they couldn't get any replacement troops in as everytime they tried to travel, swarms of drones would come to attack. Instead having to rely on dropping supplies via drone.
We are back (for now) to something analogous with WWI, with infantry holed up, or extremely vulnerable on manoeuvre, surface navies effectively neutered, and only airspace being an area of open operation.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
So the accusation "the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns" would be a reference to Hope not Hate's successful, and hugely supported, campaigning against the rise of the BNP in Barking and Dagenham?
Are some PB posters unhappy that Hope not Hate campaigned against the BNP?
Are some PB posters unhappy that HNH research and have gone undercover to expose far right organisations involved in criminality? Someone has to, the police were too busy trying to get laid by vegans.
The problem with grifting outfits like HNH is once they get on top of an issue and defeat it, like the proper Far Right as opposed to people they disagree with, then they have to redefine the issue to stay relevant and keep the cash rolling in. If my career and paycheck depended on me claiming Farage is a Nazi when he isn’t then I’d go for it.
Similar to Stonewall with gay rights. Thatswon so it’s defending men in dresses who think they’re women now.
It's more than £1,000 per person in the UK. It would be compensation payouts averaging £1m to 73,400 people.
Can that possibly be right?
Blood scandal, post office scandal,???
About a billion had been paid out as part of the Horizon redress scheme, but the total quoted is a total of compensation debt - so compensation that's acknowledged as required but that hasn't been made yet.
I'm going to have to look at the report the article is based on to get the details, I guess, but it feels bonkers.
82% (£60bn) is for clinical negligence. So this must be claims that are being paid out over decades, rather than a lump sum payment. I'd thought that these claims were normally paid out as a lump sum, with a trust then established to manage the lump sum, but it would appear not.
The annual cost of all compensation schemes reached £4.9bn in 2024-25.
How does this report account for the move away (aiui) from "Lump Sum" settlements?
My blogging colleague Anna Raccoon (Sue Cameron-Blackie) stood in a General Election on this issue in iirc 2017 from her deathbed:
Mrs Cameron-Blackie was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer - leiomyosarcoma - six years ago and was given two months to live two years ago.
She decided to stand two weeks ago after discovering the NHS Litigation Authority annual report for April 2015-16 online.
According to the report the NHS has put aside £56.4bn for payouts to be made over several decades to people who sue the organisation for medical negligence.
Mrs Cameron-Blackie, who moved to Reedham two years ago, was 'speechless' after finding the report and is campaigning solely on the issue to prevent the NHS paying out so much money in litigation.
A problem here is that, increasingly, big organisations see the costs of fines as the cost of doing business.
See the Chief Constable who committed prolonged and deliberate contempt of court. His Farce will pay the fine. No repercussions for him. Just cut some overtime for the beat.
It's more than £1,000 per person in the UK. It would be compensation payouts averaging £1m to 73,400 people.
Can that possibly be right?
Blood scandal, post office scandal,???
About a billion had been paid out as part of the Horizon redress scheme, but the total quoted is a total of compensation debt - so compensation that's acknowledged as required but that hasn't been made yet.
I'm going to have to look at the report the article is based on to get the details, I guess, but it feels bonkers.
82% (£60bn) is for clinical negligence. So this must be claims that are being paid out over decades, rather than a lump sum payment. I'd thought that these claims were normally paid out as a lump sum, with a trust then established to manage the lump sum, but it would appear not.
The annual cost of all compensation schemes reached £4.9bn in 2024-25.
How does this report account for the move away (aiui) from "Lump Sum" settlements?
My blogging colleague Anna Raccoon (Sue Cameron-Blackie) stood in a General Election on this issue in iirc 2017 from her deathbed:
Mrs Cameron-Blackie was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer - leiomyosarcoma - six years ago and was given two months to live two years ago.
She decided to stand two weeks ago after discovering the NHS Litigation Authority annual report for April 2015-16 online.
According to the report the NHS has put aside £56.4bn for payouts to be made over several decades to people who sue the organisation for medical negligence.
Mrs Cameron-Blackie, who moved to Reedham two years ago, was 'speechless' after finding the report and is campaigning solely on the issue to prevent the NHS paying out so much money in litigation.
A problem here is that, increasingly, big organisations see the costs of fines as the cost of doing business.
See the Chief Constable who committed prolonged and deliberate contempt of court. His Farce will pay the fine. No repercussions for him. Just cut some overtime for the beat.
Indeed also see utilities companies leaving street scars in city centres rather than putting back to how it was before
Personally if that happened by me I’d gladly introduce the ceo of any company to a baseball bat if it was not rectified in a month or so
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
Sounds like just the right time to drive the knife into Russia by toughening sanctions.
Oh, guess what? Our moronic government is loosening them ...
They really are completely unfit for office.
I'm sure we would be tightening sanctions - apart from the fact Trump stupidly blocked off half the gulf so everyone is scrambling round for any oil that can be delivered..
So where’s the UK contribution to getting Hormuz open?
Until Iran wants it open it's not going to happen - no amount of weapons is going to resolve that issue.
See for a different variation of the same issue how hard it is to patrol 100 miles of coastland in France all aiming to travel to 20 miles of coast in the UK...
It’s open for some. Ships are going through. You just need to meet the terms required
That's not entirely clear. This was reported a couple of days ago.
Besides Universal Winner, 25 other Korean-linked vessels, including Namu, remain in the region. Four of them are tankers.
Asked whether coordination with Iran could expose the vessel to the risk of U.S. sanctions, the official said Seoul did not view the transit as a sanctionable activity because the government’s role was limited to requesting safe passage rather than negotiating commercial arrangements.
The official added that Korea had maintained communication with the U.S. on major developments related to the issue and did not see a risk of sanctions in this case...
Morrisons is planning to close 100 stores over the coming months, as it blamed government policy choices for rising costs. The supermarket chain said the affected convenience stores had been loss-making for some time and were acquired through its McColls acquisition in 2022.
It said the difficulties had been exacerbated in more recent years by "significant cost increases resulting from government policy choices", but did not give any further detail.
The PE company are going to bust Morrisons as their model was the thought they could sell and lease back all the stores at the top of the market while interest rates were super low. And they weren't able to do do that for more than a small proportion of the stores.
Have you been in Morrisons superstore recently? They are awful. Whether Government policy is a key factor by the by. Since the US equity outfit C,D and R took them over Morrisons the stores look like branches of 1980s Kwik Save.
After the McColls stores told the bigger ones will follow.
I am not a regular Morrison shopper, my only recent experience was I went to see the Cardiff Devils Ice Hockey team play last year and the car park was rammed getting out so popped with my mate to the Morrisons over the road to get some snacks and thought I had entered a supermarket from some war torn African country with the terrible quality of produce, loads of totally empty shelves and really shabby appearance of the shop. I put it down to perhaps late in the evening / older store. However, my elderly parents were regulars, but said since the PE firm what I saw was normal in their local store as well.
I don't think its every store - our local medium sized Morrisons is ok. No empty shelves, decent range of some things, less in others.
Pretty much the same here. Was a bit threadbare on the 27th December, but that's not entirely unexpected.
My local store is OK. They still have butchers, fishmongers, etc and a good display of wine.
The vexatious equal pay claim can’t help. Apart from the bank balances of parasitic lawyers.
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
Sounds like just the right time to drive the knife into Russia by toughening sanctions.
Oh, guess what? Our moronic government is loosening them ...
They really are completely unfit for office.
I'm sure we would be tightening sanctions - apart from the fact Trump stupidly blocked off half the gulf so everyone is scrambling round for any oil that can be delivered..
So where’s the UK contribution to getting Hormuz open?
Until Iran wants it open it's not going to happen - no amount of weapons is going to resolve that issue.
See for a different variation of the same issue how hard it is to patrol 100 miles of coastland in France all aiming to travel to 20 miles of coast in the UK...
It’s open for some. Ships are going through. You just need to meet the terms required
That's not entirely clear. This was reported a couple of days ago.
Besides Universal Winner, 25 other Korean-linked vessels, including Namu, remain in the region. Four of them are tankers.
Asked whether coordination with Iran could expose the vessel to the risk of U.S. sanctions, the official said Seoul did not view the transit as a sanctionable activity because the government’s role was limited to requesting safe passage rather than negotiating commercial arrangements.
The official added that Korea had maintained communication with the U.S. on major developments related to the issue and did not see a risk of sanctions in this case...
Korea still negotiating apparently along three other nations.
Someone here will probably know if it’s feasible but is there a way they can make some sort of cross between a shotgun and claymore that soldiers can have in a squad, like they have a machine gun section, to shoot down drones that get too close?
The Ukranians already carry such things as last line of defense against fibre optic drones. When they are exposed transporting themselves in pick-ups, they have at least one guy, window down, gun and often himself hanging out of the side of the truck with this weapon ready to engage.
Doesn't really work when there are four or five drones, though, which is the way it's going.
That is why they have been errecting huge amount of anit-drone fencing / netting across networks of roads. But the guys on the front line, its a nightmare. There was a story I think 2-3 days ago where a squadron had been stuck on the frontline for 200 days, basically hiding in fox holes, as they couldn't get any replacement troops in as everytime they tried to travel, swarms of drones would come to attack. Instead having to rely on dropping supplies via drone.
We are back (for now) to something analogous with WWI, with infantry holed up, or extremely vulnerable on manoeuvre, surface navies effectively neutered, and only airspace being an area of open operation.
It's all gone a bit Iran/Iraq with stalemate on the battlefield and the war of the cities. Maybe tabun next.
It's more than £1,000 per person in the UK. It would be compensation payouts averaging £1m to 73,400 people.
Can that possibly be right?
Blood scandal, post office scandal,???
About a billion had been paid out as part of the Horizon redress scheme, but the total quoted is a total of compensation debt - so compensation that's acknowledged as required but that hasn't been made yet.
I'm going to have to look at the report the article is based on to get the details, I guess, but it feels bonkers.
82% (£60bn) is for clinical negligence. So this must be claims that are being paid out over decades, rather than a lump sum payment. I'd thought that these claims were normally paid out as a lump sum, with a trust then established to manage the lump sum, but it would appear not.
The annual cost of all compensation schemes reached £4.9bn in 2024-25.
How does this report account for the move away (aiui) from "Lump Sum" settlements?
My blogging colleague Anna Raccoon (Sue Cameron-Blackie) stood in a General Election on this issue in iirc 2017 from her deathbed:
Mrs Cameron-Blackie was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer - leiomyosarcoma - six years ago and was given two months to live two years ago.
She decided to stand two weeks ago after discovering the NHS Litigation Authority annual report for April 2015-16 online.
According to the report the NHS has put aside £56.4bn for payouts to be made over several decades to people who sue the organisation for medical negligence.
Mrs Cameron-Blackie, who moved to Reedham two years ago, was 'speechless' after finding the report and is campaigning solely on the issue to prevent the NHS paying out so much money in litigation.
A problem here is that, increasingly, big organisations see the costs of fines as the cost of doing business.
See the Chief Constable who committed prolonged and deliberate contempt of court. His Farce will pay the fine. No repercussions for him. Just cut some overtime for the beat.
Indeed also see utilities companies leaving street scars in city centres rather than putting back to how it was before
Personally if that happened by me I’d gladly introduce the ceo of any company to a baseball bat if it was not rectified in a month or so
Take the CEOs total remuneration today. Fine him 100% of any increase above that for the rest of his tenure. Be nice and give him RPI.
So any of the usual “125% merited pay rise” stuff is lost to them.
It's more than £1,000 per person in the UK. It would be compensation payouts averaging £1m to 73,400 people.
Can that possibly be right?
Blood scandal, post office scandal,???
About a billion had been paid out as part of the Horizon redress scheme, but the total quoted is a total of compensation debt - so compensation that's acknowledged as required but that hasn't been made yet.
I'm going to have to look at the report the article is based on to get the details, I guess, but it feels bonkers.
82% (£60bn) is for clinical negligence. So this must be claims that are being paid out over decades, rather than a lump sum payment. I'd thought that these claims were normally paid out as a lump sum, with a trust then established to manage the lump sum, but it would appear not.
The annual cost of all compensation schemes reached £4.9bn in 2024-25.
How does this report account for the move away (aiui) from "Lump Sum" settlements?
My blogging colleague Anna Raccoon (Sue Cameron-Blackie) stood in a General Election on this issue in iirc 2017 from her deathbed:
Mrs Cameron-Blackie was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer - leiomyosarcoma - six years ago and was given two months to live two years ago.
She decided to stand two weeks ago after discovering the NHS Litigation Authority annual report for April 2015-16 online.
According to the report the NHS has put aside £56.4bn for payouts to be made over several decades to people who sue the organisation for medical negligence.
Mrs Cameron-Blackie, who moved to Reedham two years ago, was 'speechless' after finding the report and is campaigning solely on the issue to prevent the NHS paying out so much money in litigation.
A problem here is that, increasingly, big organisations see the costs of fines as the cost of doing business.
See the Chief Constable who committed prolonged and deliberate contempt of court. His Farce will pay the fine. No repercussions for him. Just cut some overtime for the beat.
Indeed also see utilities companies leaving street scars in city centres rather than putting back to how it was before
Personally if that happened by me I’d gladly introduce the ceo of any company to a baseball bat if it was not rectified in a month or so
Take the CEOs total remuneration today. Fine him 100% of any increase above that for the rest of his tenure. Be nice and give him RPI.
So any of the usual “125% merited pay rise” stuff is lost to them.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
Generally quite correct. An antiracist is not if they are relaxed about, or don't see, or even worse share antisemitic sentiment, because antisemitism is racism against Jews. That makes them a racist.
I don't, however, think an org which openly says its mission is to combat the far right needs to also be on high alert for racism in other political spaces. There's the matter of budget and focus. Also the fact that racism is undeniably more prevalent on the far right than anywhere else.
For me the (not really hypocrisy but something far worse, something dark and telling) would be if an org that exists to expose racism on the far right in practice excludes antisemitism (on the far right) from that. I don't know enough of HNH to comment on this but I would hope that's not the case.
They have reported on the two Reform Councillors who have been defenestrated since the 7/5 for antisemitism related reasons (one "Holocaust is a hoax" type, one Hitler enthusiast - posting cover of Mein Kampf, the Sonnenrad symbol and so on).
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
It's a square/rectangle thing.
Antisemitism is a form of hate.
Not all hate is antisemitism.
So an anti-hate organisation should include anti-antisemitism but an anti-antisemitism doesn't need to go wider.
Well the name, hope not hate, is very wide so you need to look at the mission statement for the focus. It's clear from there that it's the 'organised far right' who they have in the cross hairs.
That's fair enough imo. Ditto some other org whose declared target is the organised far left.
But, to your point, if they have no interest in antisemitism on the far right that would be remiss and reprehensible. I don't know if that's the case or not. I'd hope not.
If that's their mission then they're political, and if that's allowed by current law they'd better hope Reform - or Restore - don't win the next election.
Birmingham's claim to be the second city is purely reliant on a quirk of history whereby more of the conurbation is within the boundaries of Birmingham City Council than is the case for Manchester and Manchester City Council.
Someone here will probably know if it’s feasible but is there a way they can make some sort of cross between a shotgun and claymore that soldiers can have in a squad, like they have a machine gun section, to shoot down drones that get too close?
That sounds fucking heavy. The Russians have used guns that fire nets which seems to work but only once. Ultimately, an FPV drone is small and fast so not getting spotted in the first place or dispersing if you are spotted so you don't all get fucking killed are the best defences.
The /r/ukrainerussiareport subreddit is the place to be for hot drone on dude action from both sides. The SMO looks like a right larf.
The latest Ukrainian ones are apparently almost silent so you wouldn’t know it was coming your way until it was too late
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
Comments
It's a similar pattern to how charities have commercial companies for their shops.
Antisemitism is a form of hate.
Not all hate is antisemitism.
So an anti-hate organisation should include anti-antisemitism but an anti-antisemitism doesn't need to go wider.
Mind you. Knew a guy at College they called Scouser.
He was from Stoke.
Don't southerners listen?
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
But had a meltdown when a photographer was on a pavement outside his house.
It's a series of long over water transits in a single engine a/c so they are going to take zero chances. About 40% of F-35 engineering posts in the RAF are unfilled and spares at about 50% of the required levels. Add in the necessary permission from LM and the US to do the repair in an insecure location and it's not surprising it's taking this long.
They'd be better off cancelling the 12 As, which were only ever ordered to try to impress Trump just before a NATO summit and then he didn't give a fuck, and spending the money on sustaining the aircraft they do have to improve the mission capable rates.
82% (£60bn) is for clinical negligence. So this must be claims that are being paid out over decades, rather than a lump sum payment. I'd thought that these claims were normally paid out as a lump sum, with a trust then established to manage the lump sum, but it would appear not.
The annual cost of all compensation schemes reached £4.9bn in 2024-25.
https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/2057745001979789581
Ukranian drones have eliminated all Russian air defences, and now have fire control and drones on the highway between occupied Mariopol and Metipoltol. Dozens of Russian military trucks have been smoked on the motorway.
The Russian response, is appently to tell non-military vehicles to get off the road - thus making it really easy for the Ukranians to take out anything on the road knowing it’s a legitimate target.
https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/2057779013632864521
This is the supply route to Crimea, if it gets cut the only other option is “That Bridge”.
Oh, guess what? Our moronic government is loosening them ...
They really are completely unfit for office.
See for a different variation of the same issue how hard it is to patrol 100 miles of coastland in France all aiming to travel to 20 miles of coast in the UK...
They're cheaper and a bit less complicated to maintain.
It's not at all clear whether the lack of spares is our lack of funding, or a global shortage.
US availability isn't as bad as ours, but at 50% is pretty poor - and that's largely for the simpler As.
As for the stranded pair, no one is saying.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/22/britain-only-has-enough-drones-for-one-week-of-war/
On this thinking, the British army is between 80 and 90% short of the drones it thinks it needs – for reconnaissance, air defence or attack.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/22/drone-shortage-london-underground-nato-british-military
I think we need to get making.
GB News - around £48m
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/the-impact-huge-staff-prepare-10979170
Hence the letter. Ok, so Reform don't like it. That's understandable. But, you know, diddums. If it's illegal they know what to do. I doubt it is but of course I could be wrong. In any case it's hardly one step away from superPACs.
Tbh I rarely see merit in 'slippery slope' arguments. In my experience it's often a technique employed to mask partisanship on the issue at hand.
I do agree that there is nothing the UK government can do in the SoH. I also think they shouldn't try to anything to help. Trump caused this chaos by being Netenyahu's cabana boy. Fuck them both, let them sort it out.
But also they have a wide range of drones now, the FPV fibre optics and traditional ones, the DJI Mavic, they mega sized ones that were built for crop spraying. And now also have unmanned "trollies", tanks, boats etc.
Which he failed to declare.
Would the Baggies have confirmed James Morrison if they had known Pep would soon be available? I suppose we will never know now.
And Iran will win the peace because this war has shown its leaders something they'd not realised. They will reopen the Strait of Hormuz and they will charge a transit fee for ships using it.
https://x.com/MajorityPAC/status/2057515204192133333
That's fair enough imo. Ditto some other org whose declared target is the organised far left.
But, to your point, if they have no interest in antisemitism on the far right that would be remiss and reprehensible. I don't know if that's the case or not. I'd hope not.
What do you consider to be Britain's second city?
Manchester: 34% of Britons
Birmingham: 30%
Edinburgh: 12%
Liverpool: 3%
Glasgow: 3%
Cardiff: 2%
Leeds: 1%
Newcastle: 1%
Bristol: 1%
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2057749703802909028
The /r/ukrainerussiareport subreddit is the place to be for hot drone on dude action from both sides. The SMO looks like a right larf.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
Nigel Farage was paid £50,000 in personal speaking fees by two cryptocurrency businesses in October 2025 – one of them owned by Dragons’ Den investor Steven Bartlett – in the same month he told Reuters he was “not aware” of crypto businesses funding his party, Byline Times can reveal.
The Reform UK leader received £30,000 from Blockworks Inc on 13 October and a further £20,000 from Zebu Group Limited on 22 October, according to the UK Parliament Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Both payments were for keynote appearances at the companies’ crypto-industry conferences in London.
The interview with Reuters was on 22 October at Zebu Live, the London cryptocurrency summit for which Zebu Group was due to pay Farage £20,000 that same day. Asked by Reuters whether any crypto asset businesses were donors to Reform UK, Farage said: “not that I’m aware of”, and added that “we might have had some sponsorship at the conference”.
But there are a wide variety of different drone types, just as not every armoured vehicle is a tank.
The Ukrainians have a battery-powered anti-drone laser system in tests that they can put on a trailer, which is being used to defend ~fixed points like forward command posts. Perhaps some derivative of such a system will end up on APCs and IFVs in the future.
https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-nigel-farage-has-court-judgement-for-debt-of-almost-10k
I don't actually hate Big Nige like I do Kemi. He's just an actor playing a character for money. It'd be like hating Steve McFadden for Sharongate.
I think they also have public guidelines, that can be used as the basis for a challenge.
Is that more concerning than an organisation engaged in politics that chooses a specific form of incorporation that lets it not be transparent about where its money comes from?
I discount the SuperPAC comparison, as those are about funnelling unlimited amounts of money (in the billions) into US politics, and disguising dark money.
Following Speccie campaigns, they have had the Charity Commission doing an enquiry, and concerns have been allayed eg by a name change on the charitable trust. But the Speccie also issued an apology over a false claim they had been making (by overconcluding from their own assumptions).
Charity Commission statement from Jan 2026:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hope-not-hate-charitable-trust-addresses-concerns-following-intervention-by-regulator
RIght Wing groups have similar concerns when they operate as charities. In 2018 the Institute for Economic Affairs was reportedly offering access to Government Ministers in exchange for donations, and there was a Charity Commission Regulatory Enquiry. There have repeatedly been concerns about influence on "research" by donors. And there is currently another enquiry going on after campaigning by the Good Law Project.
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/regulator-opens-compliance-case-into-institute-of-economic-affairs.html
I would like the IEA to be transparent about their funders, rather than permitting secrecy - say for donations over £5k.
That is far better than the USA's black hole.
On "right wing funded similars", we already have an entire ecosystem, surely? Look at Legatum and their Dubai links, or the figures on the right receiving money from Orban's Hungarian organisations, or Farage's moves to set up Reform to receive untraceable money?
If there is a perceived problem HNH an be sued or reported to the Charity Commission - there are enough groups on the right campaigning against them, with little to show for it.
Are some PB posters unhappy that Hope not Hate campaigned against the BNP?
Are some PB posters unhappy that HNH research and have gone undercover to expose far right organisations involved in criminality?
Someone has to, the police were too busy trying to get laid by vegans.
My blogging colleague Anna Raccoon (Sue Cameron-Blackie) stood in a General Election on this issue in iirc 2017 from her deathbed:
Mrs Cameron-Blackie was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer - leiomyosarcoma - six years ago and was given two months to live two years ago.
She decided to stand two weeks ago after discovering the NHS Litigation Authority annual report for April 2015-16 online.
According to the report the NHS has put aside £56.4bn for payouts to be made over several decades to people who sue the organisation for medical negligence.
Mrs Cameron-Blackie, who moved to Reedham two years ago, was 'speechless' after finding the report and is campaigning solely on the issue to prevent the NHS paying out so much money in litigation.
She said: 'It is a miracle I'm still here. I have nearly died on so many occasions. The NHS is the sole reason I am alive. We couldn't possibly pay for the care the staff are providing for free. I owe them my life.'
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/20838006.terminally-ill-norfolk-woman-campaigns-nhs-standing-labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn-general-election/
"Good poll for Burnham."
Ranging from literal shotguns in a turret made out of RC car parts up to… pretty much any level of capability you want.
A number of tank designs already have point defence systems.
I just Hope he loses.
I don't, however, think an org which openly says its mission is to combat the far right needs to also be on high alert for racism in other political spaces. There's the matter of budget and focus. Also the fact that racism is undeniably more prevalent on the far right than anywhere else.
For me the (not really hypocrisy but something far worse, something dark and telling) would be if an org that exists to expose racism on the far right in practice excludes antisemitism (on the far right) from that. I don't know enough of HNH to comment on this but I would hope that's not the case.
How long have they got to do it?
Oddly enough HNH are less vocal on that.
Excusing HNH simply because you approve of their political target is one take I guess
Similar to Stonewall with gay rights. Thatswon so it’s defending men in dresses who think they’re women now.
See the Chief Constable who committed prolonged and deliberate contempt of court. His Farce will pay the fine. No repercussions for him. Just cut some overtime for the beat.
Personally if that happened by me I’d gladly introduce the ceo of any company to a baseball bat if it was not rectified in a month or so
This was reported a couple of days ago.
Korean tanker passes through Strait of Hormuz after Seoul-Tehran coordination
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/foreignaffairs/20260520/korean-tanker-passes-through-strait-of-hormuz-after-seoul-tehran-coordination
...The Universal Winner is carrying crude oil bound for Ulsan, according to shipping data previously reported by international media.
Besides Universal Winner, 25 other Korean-linked vessels, including Namu, remain in the region. Four of them are tankers.
Asked whether coordination with Iran could expose the vessel to the risk of U.S. sanctions, the official said Seoul did not view the transit as a sanctionable activity because the government’s role was limited to requesting safe passage rather than negotiating commercial arrangements.
The official added that Korea had maintained communication with the U.S. on major developments related to the issue and did not see a risk of sanctions in this case...
https://x.com/kpler/status/2057764655976587619?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
So any of the usual “125% merited pay rise” stuff is lost to them.
Wrapped in barbed wire WWE style
https://www.clickliverpool.com/news/65310-new-bootle-councillor-quits-reform-uk/
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/reform-uk-sheffield-councillor-nathaniel-menday-suspended-8543980
Their report:
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2026/05/12/dirty-dozen-newly-elected-reform-politicians-the-party-must-expel/
Birmingham's claim to be the second city is purely reliant on a quirk of history whereby more of the conurbation is within the boundaries of Birmingham City Council than is the case for Manchester and Manchester City Council.