Skip to content

New poll brings comfort for Andy Burnham – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,190
edited 11:21AM in General
New poll brings comfort for Andy Burnham – politicalbetting.com

This new poll from the British Polling Council members from Convergent Research should calm the nerves in Burnham towers as his margin of victory is comfortably more than the Reform & Restore combined.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,234
    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,476
    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    Quality vague posting.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,542
    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    You've been to Burnham Towers?
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,234
    Taz said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    Quality vague posting.
    Farnham.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,234
    rottenborough said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    You've been to Burnham Towers?
    Farnham.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,890
    All those of you listing films that made you sob have for some incomprehensible reason forgotten to list the end of "Silent Running"

    "...There's a little robot. With a watering can. And he's trying to keep the last trees alive. In the whole universe. AND HE'S ALL ON HIS OWN. BWAAAAH-HAH!..."
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,984
    As others see us.

    yoshimi battles video game addiction
    @nise_yoshimi
    Watching this in 2026 feels like if Austria-Hungary had internet

    https://x.com/nise_yoshimi/status/2065747034523808195?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,028
    A good poll for Burnham, giving him a 4% lead over even Reform, Restore and the Conservatives combined even if it is from Labour pollsters. Though with other polls giving Reform and Restore combined more votes than Burnham he still can’t be complacent if Reform squeezed the Restore vote
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,104
    edited 11:40AM
    FPT…
    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't noticed this detail.

    few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
    https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

    I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

    There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

    The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

    Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

    Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

    I’m not disagreeing with everything you say there, but I wish to dispute the notion that protest that involves breaking the law has fascistic overtones. This country has a long tradition of protest that involves breaking the law, as do other Anglophone nations like the US.

    The Suffragettes get mentioned often, but better examples include the Tolpuddle martyrs, the early years of trade unionism, some of the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland, helping slaves to escape, etc.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 2,136
    FPT:
    DavidL said:



    One of my pals sent me a social media image last night made up of flags wishing every country in the WC good luck. In the middle was the cross of St George and on that it said "not you". I really don't get that and will be cheering England on on Wednesday, just as I would support any other British team, unless they were playing Scotland, of course.

    I'm of the same opinion! I'd always support a UK team, unless they were playing a 'higher' ranked team in terms of my support. (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland in that order)

    But yes, some people allow their hatred of the 'other team' take over.
    Long time ago, had a colleague in work who 'supported Everton'. I asked him one Monday morning, what he would have preferred to have seen the day before. Liverpool lose and Everton lose, or Liverpool win and Everton win. He answered without a second's hesitation, he'd rather both Merseyside teams lost than both of them win.

    His dislike of Liverpool FC had turned into something rotten when he'd rather Everton lost too.
    (A far better attitude was displayed by another colleague who simply said, "I want Everton to win every game they play. I don't care what that team across the park does." [1]"

    [1] Pre Bramley-Moore move obviously.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,476
    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    Taz said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    Quality vague posting.
    Farnham.
    Buck Furnham
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,862
    bondegezou said:

    FPT…

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't noticed this detail.

    few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
    https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

    I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

    There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

    The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

    Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

    Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

    I’m not disagreeing with everything you say there, but I wish to dispute the notion that protest that involves breaking the law has fascistic overtones. This country has a long tradition of protest that involves breaking the law, as do other Anglophone nations like the US.

    The Suffragettes get mentioned often, but better examples include the Tolpuddle martyrs, the early years of trade unionism, some of the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland, helping slaves to escape, etc.
    Except that causing lifechanging injuries to a police officer and £1m of damage to a private company, for a political cause, isn’t protesting it’s terrorism.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,104
    Sandpit said:

    bondegezou said:

    FPT…

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't noticed this detail.

    few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
    https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

    I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

    There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

    The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

    Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

    Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

    I’m not disagreeing with everything you say there, but I wish to dispute the notion that protest that involves breaking the law has fascistic overtones. This country has a long tradition of protest that involves breaking the law, as do other Anglophone nations like the US.

    The Suffragettes get mentioned often, but better examples include the Tolpuddle martyrs, the early years of trade unionism, some of the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland, helping slaves to escape, etc.
    Except that causing lifechanging injuries to a police officer and £1m of damage to a private company, for a political cause, isn’t protesting it’s terrorism.
    I am not seeking to defend or excuse any particular recent action. As I said, I wasn’t disagreeing with most of what algarkirk said.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,881
    Taz said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    Taz said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    Quality vague posting.
    Farnham.
    Buck Furnham
    Sounds like someone who was transported from Wild West America to space year 3000.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,356
    Sandpit said:

    bondegezou said:

    FPT…

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't noticed this detail.

    few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
    https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

    I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

    There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

    The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

    Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

    Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

    I’m not disagreeing with everything you say there, but I wish to dispute the notion that protest that involves breaking the law has fascistic overtones. This country has a long tradition of protest that involves breaking the law, as do other Anglophone nations like the US.

    The Suffragettes get mentioned often, but better examples include the Tolpuddle martyrs, the early years of trade unionism, some of the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland, helping slaves to escape, etc.
    Except that causing lifechanging injuries to a police officer and £1m of damage to a private company, for a political cause, isn’t protesting it’s terrorism.
    It would be good to test that in a court of law.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,104
    Make platforms that promote violent content pay towards riot costs, Streeting says

    Exclusive: Former minister calls for urgent action against companies such as X that allow incitement to violence

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/14/make-platforms-that-promote-violent-content-pay-towards-riot-costs-streeting-says
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,476
    solarflare said:

    Taz said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    Taz said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    Quality vague posting.
    Farnham.
    Buck Furnham
    Sounds like someone who was transported from Wild West America to space year 3000.
    Seventies TV dynamite

    A Quinn-Martin production
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 50,915
    bondegezou said:

    Make platforms that promote violent content pay towards riot costs, Streeting says

    Exclusive: Former minister calls for urgent action against companies such as X that allow incitement to violence

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/14/make-platforms-that-promote-violent-content-pay-towards-riot-costs-streeting-says

    Well the owner has a trillion burning a hole.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,097
    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    rottenborough said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    You've been to Burnham Towers?
    Farnham.
    I've just had a meal with friends at the Giggling Squid in Farnham.

    It was very quiet.
    Nothing to complain to the police about.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,465
    bondegezou said:

    FPT…

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't noticed this detail.

    few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
    https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

    I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

    There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

    The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

    Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

    Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

    I’m not disagreeing with everything you say there, but I wish to dispute the notion that protest that involves breaking the law has fascistic overtones. This country has a long tradition of protest that involves breaking the law, as do other Anglophone nations like the US.

    The Suffragettes get mentioned often, but better examples include the Tolpuddle martyrs, the early years of trade unionism, some of the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland, helping slaves to escape, etc.
    bondegezou said:

    FPT…

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't noticed this detail.

    few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
    https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

    I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

    There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

    The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

    Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

    Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

    I’m not disagreeing with everything you say there, but I wish to dispute the notion that protest that involves breaking the law has fascistic overtones. This country has a long tradition of protest that involves breaking the law, as do other Anglophone nations like the US.

    The Suffragettes get mentioned often, but better examples include the Tolpuddle martyrs, the early years of trade unionism, some of the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland, helping slaves to escape, etc.
    Thanks. Two points:

    My views about the rule of law are situationist; I am talking about a universal franchise functioning democracy in a liberal society with the rule of law. I am not telling North Koreans how to operate. (Or, these days, even our American friends.)

    The examples you give are all from a different place from the here and now in the UK. I think there are obvious fascistic overtones in the sorts of protest engaged in by the far right, including Tommy Robinson and friends, and other ad hoc intimidatory mobs following Southport, the Southampton case etc. What I am saying is that what is true about the far right is true for all, including the case in hand.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 46,517
    Taz said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    Quality vague posting.
    You call it as the usual bollox Taz
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,715
    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't noticed this detail.

    few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
    https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

    I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

    There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

    The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

    Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

    Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

    I agree with this. On the basis that claimed motivations should neither remove from, nor add to, the criminality of the actions, and sentences should be handed down purely on what people are convicted of - I would say Sam Corner who hit the policeman with the sledgehammer got a relatively light sentence of seven and half years, while the others got a too heavy sentence of five years - should be about two years.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,934
    viewcode said:

    All those of you listing films that made you sob have for some incomprehensible reason forgotten to list the end of "Silent Running"

    "...There's a little robot. With a watering can. And he's trying to keep the last trees alive. In the whole universe. AND HE'S ALL ON HIS OWN. BWAAAAH-HAH!..."

    Grave of the Fireflies.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,028
    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,934
    edited 12:30PM
    If anyone wants a ten minute primer on the defence spending argument, Jack Watling lays it out exceptionally clearly at the beginning of WATO.

    The points about the hidden run down of the forces (beyond the headline figures) under the Tories, along with Starmer's impossible pledges to NATO without a lot more money, are particularly damning.

    He also sets out well the broad choices facing government. For now they simply haven't made them.

    Actually the whole episode is very good.
  • PeterCairnsPeterCairns Posts: 129
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    All those of you listing films that made you sob have for some incomprehensible reason forgotten to list the end of "Silent Running"

    "...There's a little robot. With a watering can. And he's trying to keep the last trees alive. In the whole universe. AND HE'S ALL ON HIS OWN. BWAAAAH-HAH!..."

    Grave of the Fireflies.
    Son of Saul!

    Peter.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,234
    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Idiot.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,514
    At the airport (plane delayed).

    Glanced through a copy of the Mail on Sunday. It has become a hideous Farage fluff rag, despairing that Restore are going to cost him Makerfield.

    Heh.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,514
    edited 12:43PM
    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Not sure that will survive through to the election.

    The Mail on Sunday is girding its loins for the fight to keep it, natch.
  • PeterCairnsPeterCairns Posts: 129
    Malmesbury said:

    bondegezou said:

    Make platforms that promote violent content pay towards riot costs, Streeting says

    Exclusive: Former minister calls for urgent action against companies such as X that allow incitement to violence

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/14/make-platforms-that-promote-violent-content-pay-towards-riot-costs-streeting-says

    Simpler.

    Make using algorithms (aside from time order) make the site/app a publisher.

    So they have the same legal liabilities as newspapers, magazines and books.

    If you simply publish comments to stories in time order, and delete ones for illegality for offence your are not a publisher
    Due Care!

    They claim they are like the Post office merely distributing not publishing, but the post office not only has rules about what you can and cannot post but must also do what it reasonably can to spot things like explosives or batteries in the post.

    Are the doing enough to intercept the things being posted. You’d think that between Algorithms and AI they could do a better job, unless of course they just prefer not to.

    Set up a standard they have to meet and then fine them if they don’t. You can start by going beyond age verification to identification. You can post under any name you like but both the poster and the provider need to be able to verify your true identity so that if you deliberately post something illegal or derogatory you can be found.

    They would f course fight that tooth and nail because that really would undermine their business model.

    Peter.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,805
    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    That's fine. Don't frighten the horses. He can always renege when he gets into power. Everyone else does.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,514
    PeterCairns said:

    Malmesbury said:

    bondegezou said:

    Make platforms that promote violent content pay towards riot costs, Streeting says

    Exclusive: Former minister calls for urgent action against companies such as X that allow incitement to violence

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/14/make-platforms-that-promote-violent-content-pay-towards-riot-costs-streeting-says

    Simpler.

    Make using algorithms (aside from time order) make the site/app a publisher.

    So they have the same legal liabilities as newspapers, magazines and books.

    If you simply publish comments to stories in time order, and delete ones for illegality for offence your are not a publisher
    Due Care!

    They claim they are like the Post office merely distributing not publishing, but the post office not only has rules about what you can and cannot post but must also do what it reasonably can to spot things like explosives or batteries in the post.

    Are the doing enough to intercept the things being posted. You’d think that between Algorithms and AI they could do a better job, unless of course they just prefer not to.

    Set up a standard they have to meet and then fine them if they don’t. You can start by going beyond age verification to identification. You can post under any name you like but both the poster and the provider need to be able to verify your true identity so that if you deliberately post something illegal or derogatory you can be found.

    They would f course fight that tooth and nail because that really would undermine their business model.

    Peter.
    Their business model needs destroying. It will come to be seen as the poison at the heart of the first quarter of the 21st century. History will ask "What the fuck were they thinking?"
  • PeterCairnsPeterCairns Posts: 129
    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Not sure that will survive through to the election.

    The Mail on Sunday is girding its loins for the fight to keep it, natch.
    Is there Anything to Anyone Burnham hasn’t Promised Yet?

    Isn’t that how we got in this mess!

    Peter.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,934
    bondegezou said:

    FPT…

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't noticed this detail.

    few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
    https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

    I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

    There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

    The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

    Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

    Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

    I’m not disagreeing with everything you say there, but I wish to dispute the notion that protest that involves breaking the law has fascistic overtones. This country has a long tradition of protest that involves breaking the law, as do other Anglophone nations like the US.

    The Suffragettes get mentioned often, but better examples include the Tolpuddle martyrs, the early years of trade unionism, some of the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland, helping slaves to escape, etc.
    It's a hard case. Like algarkirk, I have very little sympathy with the defendants.
    What seriously troubles me is the twisting into pretzels of the legal system to achieve the conviction.

    A justice system risks abandoning justice if it sets aside the rules to reach a desired outcome.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,514
    Barnesian said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    rottenborough said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    You've been to Burnham Towers?
    Farnham.
    I've just had a meal with friends at the Giggling Squid in Farnham.

    It was very quiet.
    Nothing to complain to the police about.
    People only spending a measly six squid....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,717
    A
    MarqueeMark said:

    PeterCairns said:

    Malmesbury said:

    bondegezou said:

    Make platforms that promote violent content pay towards riot costs, Streeting says

    Exclusive: Former minister calls for urgent action against companies such as X that allow incitement to violence

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/14/make-platforms-that-promote-violent-content-pay-towards-riot-costs-streeting-says

    Simpler.

    Make using algorithms (aside from time order) make the site/app a publisher.

    So they have the same legal liabilities as newspapers, magazines and books.

    If you simply publish comments to stories in time order, and delete ones for illegality for offence your are not a publisher
    Due Care!

    They claim they are like the Post office merely distributing not publishing, but the post office not only has rules about what you can and cannot post but must also do what it reasonably can to spot things like explosives or batteries in the post.

    Are the doing enough to intercept the things being posted. You’d think that between Algorithms and AI they could do a better job, unless of course they just prefer not to.

    Set up a standard they have to meet and then fine them if they don’t. You can start by going beyond age verification to identification. You can post under any name you like but both the poster and the provider need to be able to verify your true identity so that if you deliberately post something illegal or derogatory you can be found.

    They would f course fight that tooth and nail because that really would undermine their business model.

    Peter.
    Their business model needs destroying. It will come to be seen as the poison at the heart of the first quarter of the 21st century. History will ask "What the fuck were they thinking?"
    Making them legally liable, as I suggested, would wipe it out.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,717
    PeterCairns said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Not sure that will survive through to the election.

    The Mail on Sunday is girding its loins for the fight to keep it, natch.
    Is there Anything to Anyone Burnham hasn’t Promised Yet?

    Isn’t that how we got in this mess!

    Peter.
    No candidate has got to the Core of my issues - the right to own significant quantities of fissile material.

    No, wait, a parcel has just arrived. Signed Andy Burnham. Return address is Aldermaston.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,988
    MarqueeMark said:

    PeterCairns said:

    Malmesbury said:

    bondegezou said:

    Make platforms that promote violent content pay towards riot costs, Streeting says

    Exclusive: Former minister calls for urgent action against companies such as X that allow incitement to violence

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/14/make-platforms-that-promote-violent-content-pay-towards-riot-costs-streeting-says

    Simpler.

    Make using algorithms (aside from time order) make the site/app a publisher.

    So they have the same legal liabilities as newspapers, magazines and books.

    If you simply publish comments to stories in time order, and delete ones for illegality for offence your are not a publisher
    Due Care!

    They claim they are like the Post office merely distributing not publishing, but the post office not only has rules about what you can and cannot post but must also do what it reasonably can to spot things like explosives or batteries in the post.

    Are the doing enough to intercept the things being posted. You’d think that between Algorithms and AI they could do a better job, unless of course they just prefer not to.

    Set up a standard they have to meet and then fine them if they don’t. You can start by going beyond age verification to identification. You can post under any name you like but both the poster and the provider need to be able to verify your true identity so that if you deliberately post something illegal or derogatory you can be found.

    They would f course fight that tooth and nail because that really would undermine their business model.

    Peter.
    Their business model needs destroying. It will come to be seen as the poison at the heart of the first quarter of the 21st century. History will ask "What the fuck were they thinking?"
    It's like saying "the only way our cafe has a viable business model is if we take our water supplies from the outlet of the toilet". Thta's nature's way of saying you don't really have a business.

    As for why it happened, I suspect that the time interval where the SM business had become big enough to need proper regulation, but not yet grown so big that regulating it was a terrifying prospect, was too short for anyone to do much. So now we have these megacorps that really need regulating but have the motive and means to fight back.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,890
    edited 12:53PM
    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Continuity Starmer. What is the bloody point.
    :(
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,915
    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Continuity Starmer. What is the bloody point.
    :(
    He's easily the worst PM that never was a PM. Poor old Corbyn - he thought he had that nailed.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,968
    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Continuity Starmer. What is the bloody point.
    :(
    To make sure Farage becomes Prime Minister? The way the Labour Party is behaving (particularly, but my no means exclusively the PLP), one has to wonder if they are actually all Reform 5 columnists!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,715
    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Question. Is there any major politician committed to removing the state pension triple lock?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,958
    kinabalu said:

    bondegezou said:

    Make platforms that promote violent content pay towards riot costs, Streeting says

    Exclusive: Former minister calls for urgent action against companies such as X that allow incitement to violence

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/14/make-platforms-that-promote-violent-content-pay-towards-riot-costs-streeting-says

    Well the owner has a trillion burning a hole.
    Fine him £10 billion per year, spend it on toy soldiers. Everyone happy and whats not to like?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,356
    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Not sure that will survive through to the election.

    The Mail on Sunday is girding its loins for the fight to keep it, natch.
    Of course it will - massive political cost, very little short-term saving (and that will always be the case). It's the kryptonite of UK fiscal sustainability.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,234
    Barnesian said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    rottenborough said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    You've been to Burnham Towers?
    Farnham.
    I've just had a meal with friends at the Giggling Squid in Farnham.

    It was very quiet.
    Nothing to complain to the police about.
    I used to call that place the Wanking Prawn...
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,234
    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    Quality vague posting.
    You call it as the usual bollox Taz
    Awh, thanks lovely xxx
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,958
    Sandpit said:

    bondegezou said:

    FPT…

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't noticed this detail.

    few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
    https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

    I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

    There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

    The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

    Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

    Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

    I’m not disagreeing with everything you say there, but I wish to dispute the notion that protest that involves breaking the law has fascistic overtones. This country has a long tradition of protest that involves breaking the law, as do other Anglophone nations like the US.

    The Suffragettes get mentioned often, but better examples include the Tolpuddle martyrs, the early years of trade unionism, some of the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland, helping slaves to escape, etc.
    Except that causing lifechanging injuries to a police officer and £1m of damage to a private company, for a political cause, isn’t protesting it’s terrorism.
    In that case charge them with Terrism rather than criminal damage and GBH.

    What is wrong is to convict for one offence but sentance for another.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,535
    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    Taz said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    Quality vague posting.
    Farnham.
    My grandparents lived in Farnham and we would go down to stay with them for two weeks for our summer holiday. We'd have days out at Frensham Pond or the Watercress Line or go paddling in the water meadows or go to the Maltings. We lived in a slightly iffy bit of Newcastle and this was the early/mid 1980s so Surrey was like an impossibly wealthy foreign country as well as having much better weather.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,535
    Stark_Dawning said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Question. Is there any major politician committed to removing the state pension triple lock?
    From what I'm hearing on this thread, doing so would be absolute political gold dust. I'm amazed all our politicians are failing to appreciate the magic.
    Considering that Labour’s unpopularity was triggered by the means testing of the Winter Fuel Allowance any party that tried to cut the triple lock would be absolutely murdered. The problem in the UK is not with our politicians, it is with the public.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,715
    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Question. Is there any major politician committed to removing the state pension triple lock?
    Quick Google search. Starmer, Burnham, Farage, Davey all committed to triple lock. Badenoch committed "for the time being", whatever that means. Lowe and Polanski want a "debate". It looks like Polanski is most amenable to actually changing it.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 7,234
    Stark_Dawning said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Question. Is there any major politician committed to removing the state pension triple lock?
    From what I'm hearing on this thread, doing so would be absolute political gold dust. I'm amazed all our politicians are failing to appreciate the magic.
    Starmer's government was destroyed by extremely modest changes to WFA. I know why they don't do it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,028
    edited 1:22PM
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Question. Is there any major politician committed to removing the state pension triple lock?
    Quick Google search. Starmer, Burnham, Farage, Davey all committed to triple lock. Badenoch committed "for the time being", whatever that means. Lowe and Polanski want a "debate". It looks like Polanski is most amenable to actually changing it.
    Farage at one point said he might review it but Jenrick has now stated firmly Reform will keep the triple lock.

    Kemi sensibly at one point said she would means test the triple lock. Polanski might only scrap it as hardly any pensioners vote Green. Even the Greens would still increase the state pension in line with inflation or wage growth just not 2.5%. Lowe wants to deport anyone non white on benefits and in social housing and once he did that Restore might get around to looking at the triple lock
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,492
    When I was a kid, we used to laze around in our pyjamas of a Sunday morning, and basically do f*** all, until we had to pay some attention to more serious matters when Brian Walden came on with Weekend World at midday. In later decades we had Andrew Neil and Sunday Politics screening from 11 am, forcing us to attend to the troubles of our country and the world an hour earlier, superseded by Andrew Marr who got us worrying about such things at 10. Nowadays we have to pay attention to Laura wotsit at 9am and we’ve even got our regional politics over and done with by 10.30, whereupon we’re about to get up and out.

    And yet people still say Britain has a productivity problem…
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,981
    Taz said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    Quality vague posting.
    Gay Hill Golf Club? Or is that just @Taz and @Mexicanbastard
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,981
    IanB2 said:

    When I was a kid, we used to laze around in our pyjamas of a Sunday morning, and basically do f*** all, until we had to pay some attention to more serious matters when Brian Walden came on with Weekend World at midday. In later decades we had Andrew Neil and Sunday Politics screening from 11 am, forcing us to attend to the troubles of our country and the world an hour earlier, superseded by Andrew Marr who got us worrying about such things at 10. Nowadays we have to pay attention to Laura wotsit at 9am and we’ve even got our regional politics over and done with by 10.30, whereupon we’re about to get up and out.

    And yet people still say Britain has a productivity problem…

    Peter Jay was my first memory of Weekend World until his father in law made him Ambassador to Washington. In some respects that is even more outrageous than making a friend of Epstein Ambassador.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,476
    Mexicanpete said:

    Taz said:

    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    Quality vague posting.
    Gay Hill Golf Club? Or is that just @Taz and @Mexicanbastard
    Just thee and me I suspect.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,641
    Burnham needs to win Makerfield. There's hardly any votes to be won there by saying he'd scrap the triple lock, but quite a few could potentially be lost.
    I'd treat this pronouncement with a pinch of salt.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,677
    Northern_Al said:

    Burnham needs to win Makerfield. There's hardly any votes to be won there by saying he'd scrap the triple lock, but quite a few could potentially be lost.
    I'd treat this pronouncement with a pinch of salt.

    In a GE not one tory wanker on here would vote for Burnham if he did scrap the TL. It's a catastrophically bad net electoral negative for everybody but the Greens so they aren't going to promise to do it or actually do it,
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,258
    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Only a guess, but perhaps somebody wants to win an election involving British voters.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,330
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Question. Is there any major politician committed to removing the state pension triple lock?
    Quick Google search. Starmer, Burnham, Farage, Davey all committed to triple lock. Badenoch committed "for the time being", whatever that means. Lowe and Polanski want a "debate". It looks like Polanski is most amenable to actually changing it.
    Farage at one point said he might review it but Jenrick has now stated firmly Reform will keep the triple lock.

    Kemi sensibly at one point said she would means test the triple lock. Polanski might only scrap it as hardly any pensioners vote Green. Even the Greens would still increase the state pension in line with inflation or wage growth just not 2.5%. Lowe wants to deport anyone non white on benefits and in social housing and once he did that Restore might get around to looking at the triple lock
    Flippity flop Kemi
    Then argues she didn't say what she did say
    Then Flippity flop back to what she didn't say
    Then argues she did say what she didn't say

    Are you keeping up
    ..

    There's a great Black Country saying that sums Kemi up perfectly

    "she's like a fart in a collendar"
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,644
    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    It’s funny to read places I know being posted about on here.

    Imagine having grown up in Makerfield.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,934
    Dura_Ace said:

    Northern_Al said:

    Burnham needs to win Makerfield. There's hardly any votes to be won there by saying he'd scrap the triple lock, but quite a few could potentially be lost.
    I'd treat this pronouncement with a pinch of salt.

    In a GE not one tory wanker on here would vote for Burnham if he did scrap the TL. It's a catastrophically bad net electoral negative for everybody but the Greens so they aren't going to promise to do it or actually do it,
    If a new government did it in year 1, it's fairly likely that no one would bring it back.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,492
    Huge kudos to the Ozzies’ brand new goalkeeper, whose saves from multiple Turkish shots turned their opening game from potential embarrassment to a victory celebration
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,591
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Question. Is there any major politician committed to removing the state pension triple lock?
    From what I'm hearing on this thread, doing so would be absolute political gold dust. I'm amazed all our politicians are failing to appreciate the magic.
    Considering that Labour’s unpopularity was triggered by the means testing of the Winter Fuel Allowance any party that tried to cut the triple lock would be absolutely murdered. The problem in the UK is not with our politicians, it is with the public.
    We need a Brechter solution than any politician is offering.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,561
    Looks like Curacao is actually the Dutch B team:

    "Only one of their World Cup squad, Tahith Chong, was born on the island - with the other 25 players all hailing from the mainland Netherlands."

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,492
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Only a guess, but perhaps somebody wants to win an election involving British voters.
    The question is at what point is our “I love to be liked” amiable Mr Manchester going to enter the telephone box and emerge to make some hard decisions and tell the country some hard truths……?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,591
    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Only a guess, but perhaps somebody wants to win an election involving British voters.
    The question is at what point is our “I love to be liked” amiable Mr Manchester going to enter the telephone box and emerge to make some hard decisions and tell the country some hard truths……?
    That’s easy.

    Never.
  • PeterCairnsPeterCairns Posts: 129
    edited 2:01PM
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Question. Is there any major politician committed to removing the state pension triple lock?
    Quick Google search. Starmer, Burnham, Farage, Davey all committed to triple lock. Badenoch committed "for the time being", whatever that means. Lowe and Polanski want a "debate". It looks like Polanski is most amenable to actually changing it.
    Farage at one point said he might review it but Jenrick has now stated firmly Reform will keep the triple lock.

    Kemi sensibly at one point said she would means test the triple lock. Polanski might only scrap it as hardly any pensioners vote Green. Even the Greens would still increase the state pension in line with inflation or wage growth just not 2.5%. Lowe wants to deport anyone non white on benefits and in social housing and once he did that Restore might get around to looking at the triple lock
    Polanski might but then look at the demographic of Party supporters!

    Conservative Party: 63 years,
    Reform UK: 56 years,
    Liberal Democrats: 48 years,
    Labour Party: 46 years,
    Green Party: 39 years

    Turkey's at Christmas!

    Peter.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,561
    IanB2 said:

    When I was a kid, we used to laze around in our pyjamas of a Sunday morning, and basically do f*** all, until we had to pay some attention to more serious matters when Brian Walden came on with Weekend World at midday. In later decades we had Andrew Neil and Sunday Politics screening from 11 am, forcing us to attend to the troubles of our country and the world an hour earlier, superseded by Andrew Marr who got us worrying about such things at 10. Nowadays we have to pay attention to Laura wotsit at 9am and we’ve even got our regional politics over and done with by 10.30, whereupon we’re about to get up and out.

    And yet people still say Britain has a productivity problem…

    You mean you weren't up early doors for the OU and Nai Zindagi Naya Jeevan?
  • glwglw Posts: 10,927
    theProle said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Continuity Starmer. What is the bloody point.
    :(
    To make sure Farage becomes Prime Minister? The way the Labour Party is behaving (particularly, but my no means exclusively the PLP), one has to wonder if they are actually all Reform 5 columnists!
    Surely there must be someone competent with a backbone in the Labour Party? They are in a bloody deep hole, and never mind stopping digging at the moment they are pledging to dig faster.

  • TazTaz Posts: 28,476
    SandyRentool said:

    Looks like Curacao is actually the Dutch B team:

    "Only one of their World Cup squad, Tahith Chong, was born on the island - with the other 25 players all hailing from the mainland Netherlands."

    Remember Tahith Chong @Brixian59
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,274
    Dura_Ace said:

    Northern_Al said:

    Burnham needs to win Makerfield. There's hardly any votes to be won there by saying he'd scrap the triple lock, but quite a few could potentially be lost.
    I'd treat this pronouncement with a pinch of salt.

    In a GE not one tory wanker on here would vote for Burnham if he did scrap the TL. It's a catastrophically bad net electoral negative for everybody but the Greens so they aren't going to promise to do it or actually do it,
    This conservative and pensioner most certainly would vote to scrap TL

    Indeed I would go further and ensure that the pension itself was not awarded to millionaires
  • PeterCairnsPeterCairns Posts: 129
    edited 2:04PM
    Eabhal said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Not sure that will survive through to the election.

    The Mail on Sunday is girding its loins for the fight to keep it, natch.
    Of course it will - massive political cost, very little short-term saving (and that will always be the case). It's the kryptonite of UK fiscal sustainability.
    The Polanski factor.

    Avergae Age of Newspaper readers;


    The Observer: Average age of 47
    The Sunday Times: Average age of 49 to 58
    The Mail on Sunday: Average age of 60
    The Sunday Telegraph: Average age of 61 to 62!

    Peter.
  • TresTres Posts: 3,684
    Sandpit said:

    bondegezou said:

    FPT…

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't noticed this detail.

    few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
    https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

    I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

    There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

    The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

    Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

    Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

    I’m not disagreeing with everything you say there, but I wish to dispute the notion that protest that involves breaking the law has fascistic overtones. This country has a long tradition of protest that involves breaking the law, as do other Anglophone nations like the US.

    The Suffragettes get mentioned often, but better examples include the Tolpuddle martyrs, the early years of trade unionism, some of the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland, helping slaves to escape, etc.
    Except that causing lifechanging injuries to a police officer and £1m of damage to a private company, for a political cause, isn’t protesting it’s terrorism.
    yet the nutters who went around blowing up ulez cameras were treated with kid gloves under the tories
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,509
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    All those of you listing films that made you sob have for some incomprehensible reason forgotten to list the end of "Silent Running"

    "...There's a little robot. With a watering can. And he's trying to keep the last trees alive. In the whole universe. AND HE'S ALL ON HIS OWN. BWAAAAH-HAH!..."

    Grave of the Fireflies.
    I was watching Silent Running with my son when he was about 7 or 8.
    He got very upset when the other cute little robot got blown up.
    I managed to placate him with "It's only a film, they used a stunt droid for that bit."
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,591
    PeterCairns said:

    Eabhal said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Not sure that will survive through to the election.

    The Mail on Sunday is girding its loins for the fight to keep it, natch.
    Of course it will - massive political cost, very little short-term saving (and that will always be the case). It's the kryptonite of UK fiscal sustainability.
    The Polanski factor.

    Avergae Age of Newspaper readers;


    The Observer: Average age of 47
    The Sunday Times: Average age of 49 to 58
    The Mail on Sunday: Average age of 60
    The Sunday Telegraph: Average age of 61 to 62!

    Peter.
    That's quite astonishing.

    Who are these people on their fifties dragging the average age down on the SunTel?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,274
    Cookie said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Northern_Al said:

    Burnham needs to win Makerfield. There's hardly any votes to be won there by saying he'd scrap the triple lock, but quite a few could potentially be lost.
    I'd treat this pronouncement with a pinch of salt.

    In a GE not one tory wanker on here would vote for Burnham if he did scrap the TL. It's a catastrophically bad net electoral negative for everybody but the Greens so they aren't going to promise to do it or actually do it,
    This conservative and pensioner most certainly would vote to scrap TL

    Indeed I would go further and ensure that the pension itself was not awarded to millionaires
    Obviously I'm with the ob consensus that the triple lock is stupid, but I'm all in favour of a universal pension. Means testing the pension is a massive disincentive to saving.
    It is simply not affordable and new thinking is required
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,717
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Cookie said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Northern_Al said:

    Burnham needs to win Makerfield. There's hardly any votes to be won there by saying he'd scrap the triple lock, but quite a few could potentially be lost.
    I'd treat this pronouncement with a pinch of salt.

    In a GE not one tory wanker on here would vote for Burnham if he did scrap the TL. It's a catastrophically bad net electoral negative for everybody but the Greens so they aren't going to promise to do it or actually do it,
    This conservative and pensioner most certainly would vote to scrap TL

    Indeed I would go further and ensure that the pension itself was not awarded to millionaires
    Obviously I'm with the ob consensus that the triple lock is stupid, but I'm all in favour of a universal pension. Means testing the pension is a massive disincentive to saving.
    It is simply not affordable and new thinking is required
    Financial Year State Pension Spending (% of GDP) Notes
    1948 (approx.) 2.0% Post-war level of state pension spending
    1991–92 4.0%
    1992–93 4.0%
    1993–94 4.0%
    1994–95 3.9%
    1995–96 3.9%
    1996–97 3.8%
    1997–98 3.8%
    1998–99 3.9%
    2000s (typical range) 3.3–3.7% Broadly stable before the financial crisis
    2021–22 4.8% Latest historical figure from the State Pension Age Review
    2031–32 (projected) 4.9% Official projection
    2041–42 (projected) 5.5% Official projection
    2051–52 (projected) 6.2% Official projection
    2061–62 (projected) 7.3% Official projection
    2071–72 (projected) 8.1% Official projection
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,602
    SandyRentool said:

    Looks like Curacao is actually the Dutch B team:

    "Only one of their World Cup squad, Tahith Chong, was born on the island - with the other 25 players all hailing from the mainland Netherlands."

    He used to live next door to me.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,717
    So the projection is that pensions will take 2% more GDP in 30 years time.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,654
    An interview with Jess Asato MP, who is taking legal action against X for allowing sexualised images of her to be created by Grok and published by themselves.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fXkSyBKapc

    BBC piece:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8p0wdyelwo
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,358
    It seems logical to me that pensions should keep pace with prices. We don't want our old to starve or freeze. Keeping pace with earnings - no. If you want to keep pace with earnings, stay in the workforce or return to it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,984
    edited 2:30PM
    Stark_Dawning said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy Burnham promises to keep the state pension triple lock if he becomes PM

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2066132953785118852?s=46&t=Gsn9rlDEZH5vXP97Cgifnw

    Question. Is there any major politician committed to removing the state pension triple lock?
    From what I'm hearing on this thread, doing so would be absolute political gold dust. I'm amazed all our politicians are failing to appreciate the magic.
    I’m assuming Tim ex of PB thinks this, or perhaps he just believes the time for avoiding grasping nettles is long past.

    Ffs

    https://x.com/exstrategist/status/2066142006854754640?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • PeterCairnsPeterCairns Posts: 129
    edited 2:32PM
    Malmesbury said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Cookie said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Northern_Al said:

    Burnham needs to win Makerfield. There's hardly any votes to be won there by saying he'd scrap the triple lock, but quite a few could potentially be lost.
    I'd treat this pronouncement with a pinch of salt.

    In a GE not one tory wanker on here would vote for Burnham if he did scrap the TL. It's a catastrophically bad net electoral negative for everybody but the Greens so they aren't going to promise to do it or actually do it,
    This conservative and pensioner most certainly would vote to scrap TL

    Indeed I would go further and ensure that the pension itself was not awarded to millionaires
    Obviously I'm with the ob consensus that the triple lock is stupid, but I'm all in favour of a universal pension. Means testing the pension is a massive disincentive to saving.
    It is simply not affordable and new thinking is required
    Financial Year State Pension Spending (% of GDP) Notes
    1948 (approx.) 2.0% Post-war level of state pension spending
    1991–92 4.0%
    1992–93 4.0%
    1993–94 4.0%
    1994–95 3.9%
    1995–96 3.9%
    1996–97 3.8%
    1997–98 3.8%
    1998–99 3.9%
    2000s (typical range) 3.3–3.7% Broadly stable before the financial crisis
    2021–22 4.8% Latest historical figure from the State Pension Age Review
    2031–32 (projected) 4.9% Official projection
    2041–42 (projected) 5.5% Official projection
    2051–52 (projected) 6.2% Official projection
    2061–62 (projected) 7.3% Official projection
    2071–72 (projected) 8.1% Official projection
    It's just about affordable if we get the dependency ratio back down towards 3.0, but at it's at the moment nudging 3.6 and heading for 4.0.

    Solutions;

    Mum's have more kids, but they can't afford to stay at home and we need the workers.

    Better support for families, but people resent free child care, long maternity leave and tend to support the two child cap.

    People having children at an younger age, but don't get me started on single mums or teenage pregnancies.

    Higher immigration, particularly people with or wanting to have children; Coming over here stealing our jobs and living on benefits (at the same time?)

    Seems all the neceasrry measure to rebalance the population are unpopular and keeping on ignoring it unsustainable.

    Peter.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,988
    Cookie said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Northern_Al said:

    Burnham needs to win Makerfield. There's hardly any votes to be won there by saying he'd scrap the triple lock, but quite a few could potentially be lost.
    I'd treat this pronouncement with a pinch of salt.

    In a GE not one tory wanker on here would vote for Burnham if he did scrap the TL. It's a catastrophically bad net electoral negative for everybody but the Greens so they aren't going to promise to do it or actually do it,
    This conservative and pensioner most certainly would vote to scrap TL

    Indeed I would go further and ensure that the pension itself was not awarded to millionaires
    Obviously I'm with the ob consensus that the triple lock is stupid, but I'm all in favour of a universal pension. Means testing the pension is a massive disincentive to saving.
    Which was the point of its introduction. If you need to means-test a pension for it to be possible to live off, you discourage people from saving. Increasing the basic pension from cruelly stingy to frugal was the right thing to do.

    The catch comes when the TL continues to act so that typical pensioners are better off than many working people. The failure there was to not define the endpoint of the policy when it was introduced.

    Do we need to add it to the list of things where Dave was waaay too casual about important details, storing up trouble for his successors? Along with immigration pledges, Euro referendums...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,767
    edited 2:36PM
    Sir Lewis Hamilton is the 🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,904
    Congratulations to the Scotland team. That will make my Scottish brother-in-law happy, though he, like me, is not a great fan of soccer, as we call it.

    And, I must add that I was surprised to see the team from Haiti. That poor nation has so many problems that I was surprised to see them doing one thing right. Perhaps they are learning from their neighbors in the Dominican Republic, which has done well by exporting baseball players to the United States.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,767
    I think Sir Lewis could win his ninth world championship this year.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,767
    He beat Mercedes on pure pace.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,358
    If Starmer was feeling incredibly mean, he could try scraping the triple lock, and daring Burnham to reverse it. It would torch Labour's chances at the election, but it would be a legacy of sorts. Don't think he'd get it through though sadly.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,557
    Sandpit said:

    bondegezou said:

    FPT…

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't noticed this detail.

    few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
    https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

    I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

    There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

    The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

    Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

    Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

    I’m not disagreeing with everything you say there, but I wish to dispute the notion that protest that involves breaking the law has fascistic overtones. This country has a long tradition of protest that involves breaking the law, as do other Anglophone nations like the US.

    The Suffragettes get mentioned often, but better examples include the Tolpuddle martyrs, the early years of trade unionism, some of the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland, helping slaves to escape, etc.
    Except that causing lifechanging injuries to a police officer and £1m of damage to a private company, for a political cause, isn’t protesting it’s terrorism.
    It's assault and criminal damage, surely.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,074
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sir Lewis Hamilton is the 🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐

    Brilliant drive. Its great to see him so up for it again after the last 2 years.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,557
    Malmesbury said:

    bondegezou said:

    Make platforms that promote violent content pay towards riot costs, Streeting says

    Exclusive: Former minister calls for urgent action against companies such as X that allow incitement to violence

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/14/make-platforms-that-promote-violent-content-pay-towards-riot-costs-streeting-says

    Simpler.

    Make using algorithms (aside from time order) make the site/app a publisher.

    So they have the same legal liabilities as newspapers, magazines and books.

    If you simply publish comments to stories in time order, and delete ones for illegality for offence your are not a publisher
    Does that make Reddit a publisher?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,094
    DavidL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sir Lewis Hamilton is the 🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐

    Brilliant drive. Its great to see him so up for it again after the last 2 years.
    A full British podium.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,767
    Benpointer said:

    DavidL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sir Lewis Hamilton is the 🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐

    Brilliant drive. Its great to see him so up for it again after the last 2 years.
    A full British podium.
    First all British podium in 58 years.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,934
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sir Lewis Hamilton is the 🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐

    Didn't a FEW PBers declare his career dead and buried ?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,934
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sir Lewis Hamilton is the 🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐

    I kid you not!
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2026