thanksforallthefish
@thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe
- Comment on BBC to force more to pay licence fee with ‘YouTube tax’ 6 days ago:
And further to that I note an article in today’s Guardian referencing a Reuters article (I’ll dig that out and update with it if I can find it)
theguardian.com/…/uk-outlier-europe-farage-politi…
“However, an international study has confirmed that the UK’s decision to allow politicians to present such shows is highly unusual across Europe. In 35 of the 37 European nations studied, regulators found no recent examples of serving politicians presenting news or current affairs programmes”
“The study, by an academic from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism for the Demos thinktank, will be used as evidence by critics who believe that Ofcom, Britain’s media regulator, has failed to protect impartiality by allowing the politician-led shows.”
- Comment on BBC to force more to pay licence fee with ‘YouTube tax’ 1 week ago:
The top two layers are literally stacked with Tories, it’s already biased as hell (I’ve posted peer reviewed papers on here previously that’s fact not opinion).
Changing the funding model doesn’t affect that.
Changes to remove overt bias can be done regardless of funding.
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Before the entryists gave fuel to the right wing press he was a pretty good chance of winning it - they’ve successfully killed his chances now. Which was, I assume, the whole point of it.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
That’s literally a month old. WTF ? The election vote is today
- Comment on Sussex officers sacked for using excessive force on care home resident 2 weeks ago:
92 year old amputee in a wheelchair, bludgeoned with a baton, pepper sprayed and tasered. Jesus christ. And the assault charges were dropped.
I’m glad they were sacked and banned, better than the US would have done, but utterly appalling they weren’t tried for assault, that is so clearly disproportional.
- Comment on Major incident declared near RAF Fairford as men held on suspicion of explosives offences 3 weeks ago:
Well that’s a third option I wouldn’t have thought of, but that it is very plausible. Would also make sense of how they could be initially suspected of having explosive materials before it getting discarded.
If so they were rather stupid in choosing where to try and rob - right next to a RAF base on high alert wasn’t exactly the lowest profile location in the country
- Comment on Major incident declared near RAF Fairford as men held on suspicion of explosives offences 3 weeks ago:
Yeah the news they were released this morning was surprising.
Only two options I can come up with are a) your suggestion that the UK counter terrorism police are comically inept or b) they were just protesters with more balls than brains
My opinion is that the UK police generally are heavily leaning to the right and hence will only arrest protesters and investigate perceived terrorism if it’s coming from the left. They’re not institutionally incompetent although they are institutionally racist. Point being I don’t think comically inept is a good explanation.
I’m thinking it’s a group who were planning some sort of stupid protest (that was likely to get them shot) like hanging an anti-Iran bombing sign on the airbase wall. Particularly given the supposed explosives in the back turned out to not be
theguardian.com/…/men-arrested-raf-fairford-count…
theguardian.com/…/raf-fairford-uk-bomb-plot-marco…
“An initial examination of the vans led police to suspect they carried explosive materials, with assessments made as to whether they were viable improvised explosive devices. After the suspects’ release it emerged that no explosive material had been found.”
- Comment on Major incident declared near RAF Fairford as men held on suspicion of explosives offences 3 weeks ago:
Yeah, that’s a good point. I assumed Russia because they have the pre-existing spy / subversives network and we have been being warned for months they have plans, but the Iranians also have good cause to want to attack a joint UK/US airbase
- Comment on Major incident declared near RAF Fairford as men held on suspicion of explosives offences 3 weeks ago:
Yes, that’s one spin. Another is the new tyrant make seek to blame everything that is wrong with Russia on Putin - there’s plenty of historical support for that being a likely tactic (across many dictatorship changeovers).
In that event the war becomes another piece of evidence about Putin’s incompetence and how the great new leader is fixing everything by exiting it.
There’s a few ways this can go, but realistically given the massive impact it is having on the Russian economy and hence the next tyrant’s ability to siphon off assets I’m betting it goes towards stopping the war than doubling down on it
- Comment on Counter-terror police investigate Iran link over suspected bomb plot at RAF base used by US 3 weeks ago:
So on the one hand you have the farmer saying - no action visible until I called it in, on the other hand Defence Minister Streeting saying “thanks farmer but it was under control”
I know who I believe given I think Streeting is one of the lyingest liars we’ve had in power since BoJo.
Mysterious info my arse, you got lucky and saved by a local’s vigilance. Which btw is exactly the way it should be - local support is the best safety net you can get.
Paste from article below Streeting said he was grateful for the vigilance of the members of the public who are thought to have helped alert the emergency services to the suspected terror plot.
He renewed his thanks in particular to the local farmer who rang the police after she reportedly saw “a large group of hooded and masked men” near RAF Fairford early on Sunday morning.
Speaking to the BBC, the farmer said she thinks “someone dropped the ball” by allowing the suspects and their vehicles to get so close to people’s homes.
Streeting told Sky News:
Thank you to that member of the public. She has done exactly what we would hope that someone in that extraordinary situation would do. I’m really grateful to her – I think she acted, by her own admission, quickly and thoughtfully, and she did the right thing. With respect, though, she does only have a partial picture. And that’s as far as I wish to go this morning.
- Comment on Major incident declared near RAF Fairford as men held on suspicion of explosives offences 3 weeks ago:
Mmm, I’d agree that there’s a larger cultural issue with Russia, but Putain turning up his toes will make a difference, because then they have an excuse to quit a war that isn’t going well for them. Sure, give it a couple of years and who ever replaces the vampire will pull something similar, but in the mean time we get a respite and an opportunity for Europe to swivel away from US dependency and towards self sufficiency.
- Comment on Major incident declared near RAF Fairford as men held on suspicion of explosives offences 3 weeks ago:
We’ve been warned multiple times, it’s no surprise. Won’t stop until Putin is buried and MAGAts and the tech bros pushing it are defenestrated
- Comment on Undercover police officer lied to spycops inquiry about sexual relationship 3 weeks ago:
Quelle surprise. Liars gunna lie
- Comment on Trans rights activists protest Haringey debate on single-sex spaces petition 4 weeks ago:
“she heard chants and the word TERF being used”
Well it’s good to know she’s not deaf I guess, but are we supposed to be upset that a TERF got called out as a TERF ?
- Comment on War may be coming. Are we psychologically ready? 4 weeks ago:
From the article
But what is the threat? In 1940 the danger of a German invasion of the UK was very real. But the chances of Russian tanks rolling up Whitehall are surely negligible.
“It’s not the tanks you need to worry about,” says historian Margaret MacMillan, author of War: How Conflict Shaped Us.
“It’s the cutting of cables on the ocean floor. It’s the hacking into systems on which so many things depend. The possibility for asymmetric war, for cyber war, is growing by leaps and bounds.”
Russia is winning the war they’ve been in with Western Europe for the last decade. Trump is in the White House, AfD just won the Saxony election. RN are on track to take the French presidency, Farage still gets 25% polling despite the rank corruption swirling around him.
Russia won’t send troops anywhere until the country in question is deeply compromised. It’s hybrid warfare and the battle started years ago, and we’re doing a shite job of defending ourselves (because we have quislings on the inside helping them).
- Comment on Horrified children look on as lollipop man in his 70s struck by car on school crossing 4 weeks ago:
Edit: also Lollipop lady/man is also used in Ireland, Australia and New Zealand apparently.
Can confirm, that is correct
- Comment on Reform given record-breaking £72m by two crypto billionaires 5 weeks ago:
This implies that everyone else used logic to arrive at their points of view.
LOL, only if you have reading comprehension issues.
It explicitly STATES (not implies) that they (not wealthy right wing populist voters) are a member of the set of those who arrived at the position emotionally. It makes zero statement about who else might be in that same set.
The good news however is that we have academic studies have actually answered that question. In short the right is heavily supported for those who select emotionally predominantly from an underlying fear basis. And that the left predominantly operates from an analytical basis. This is the source of the (very poignant) quote about “facts having a left wing bias”
To argue that your position is grounded in logic whilst the ‘other’ group is ground in emotion is an ego-inflating fantasy.
Yeah, well, facts are uncomfortable, I get that.
People most often make decisions based on emotional reasons and then use logic to post-hoc justify them.
Oh now, that is absolutely true. Academically well supported too. You know what the next sentence is going to be though, don’t you ? It’s the right, particularly the populist right, that heavily do so.
We are all closer to reform voters than we would like to believe.
Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night, meanwhile the polling shows that voting “anyone but reform” to keep reform out makes up about half of UK voters, and only 25% are willing to vote for them.
- Comment on Reform given record-breaking £72m by two crypto billionaires 5 weeks ago:
I think your view is the dangerous one.
It has been proved over and over, UK and overseas, that the non-millionaires/not wealthy people voting for right wing populists (MAGA, Reform, AfD, RN) are doing so for emotional not logical reasons. You can’t argue people out of a position they didnt use logic to get to.
So, are they real reasons underpinning their support, of course, in broad brush strokes it’s a combination of fear, a feeling they’ve been treated poorly, a certain amount of entitlement.
The problem with that is that a group of people are promising to fix all their problems at no cost to them (a patently false promise).
So yes, being realistic isn’t “tarnishing them” - if you don’t correctly diagnose the disease you can’t cure it.
The big problem is those who should pay the price for fixing the problems they caused (the Epstein class) have the wealth to divert attention away from them having caused the problem and its fixes
- Comment on 1 month ago:
What evidence are you looking for ? I’ve stated the Greens have made no formal statement on it - because that’s the process when someone is suspended and their conduct is being reviewed - unlike the Mail I don’t just make shit up to make the readers happy
- Comment on 1 month ago:
She was suspended (she hasnt yet been removed) because of a media post, not because she is toxic. I explicitly state that two lines below my opinion about her toxicity. Separate items.
Are you deliberately misreading or just seeing what you expect to see ?
- Comment on 1 month ago:
There are several other trans members on the GPC… she didn’t get suspended for being trans, she got suspended for breaking party rules on conduct by committee members.
This is from the (trans) member whose bluesky post is elsewhere in the thread (Kat Bristow) taken from the reddit post I linked
“TheKatBristow
There’s other trans women currently on GPC, including the other co-chair of LGBTIQA+ Greens, and no action has been taken against any other trans person on GPC.
So we can safely assume that Eleonora’s suspension is unrelated to her being trans.”
- Comment on 1 month ago:
No, that’s why I differentiated between anti zionist and anti-semitic, and yes I am very well aware of how anti-semitic has been used as a bludgeon against anyone critical of the Israeli genocide.
So let’s put a marker down, I am wholeheartedly against the genocide being perpertrated (sp?) by Israel in Palestine.
I don’t have the quote to hand, but it was with reference to wanting Iran to wipe all jews off the planet or some such far too widely sweeping statement to be an acceptable comment by a Greens office bearer.
- Comment on 1 month ago:
The Greens have not made ANY public statement on the subject - because the matter is under investigation - and you may notice if you do a quick search the ONLY publications putting out this story in the way you’re doing are right wing and far right - my search gives me hits for Daily Mail GB News and Telegraph, plus a handful of obscure right wing blogs. No greens announcement, and nothing out of the left wing (for the simple reason they dont have any facts to build a story on and unlike the Mail even terfy papers like the guardian don’t like to just make shit up)
If you can’t see “right wing attack job” written all over this then you need to look into your media literacy
- Comment on 1 month ago:
I can’t believe anyone believes what the right wing media write about a left wing party, but be that as it may, Eleanora wasn’t suspended because she was trans, she was suspended because she made comments on social media likely to bring the Greens into disrepute while holding an official post (ordinary members can say what they like, representatives of the party can’t). The party is investigating those comments to see what disciplinary action should be taken and her role is suspended while that happens.
The comments in question were blatantly anti-semitic (as opposed to anti-zionist which I have no problem with) in my opinion, and I doubt she’ll be allowed to retain the post. I’m sure everyone on here understand the difference ? The Daily Mail certainly doesn’t though.
This reddit thread has more details from Greens party members
- Comment on 1 month ago:
No it’s not real, it’s being misrepresented. Eleanora is suspended for reasons nothing to do with her being trans. She’s a toxic piece of work who also happens to be trans, and is trying to make that into the reason.
There are a number of transwomen in various positions in the party, including posts to be filled by women only.
She was suspended for the comments she made about Iran which were blatantly anti-semitic (anti-zionist is fine, but she well and truly crossed the line).
- Comment on 1 month ago:
And the reason that Scottish Greens are working with Greens E&W is…they drummed the transphobes out of the party…
Yes, the Greens E&W were at one stage captured by Terfs - that’s history and no longer the case
- Comment on The BBC Is Just Nodding Along 1 month ago:
Its the 4th party of local government with 2324 seats (SNP with just 412 btw).
First the SNP aside. Gotta love those apples to oranges comparisons - you’re the second today.
Scotland population 5m, England population 50m, number of councils and hence total number of councillors directly proportionate to population. If you want to compare local council representation then you need to adjust for percent of the available seats held.
en.wikipedia.org/…/Political_make-up_of_local_cou…
Reform 2,368 / 18,645 SNP 414 / 1,226
Hmm. So no that doesn’t make reform more representative, it does however make them more English. Anyway, it’s an aside, the main point
4th party of local government - now ignoring the difference between your number and wikipedia’s (is that the delta of all those who keep defecting out of reform lately ?):
Firstly the 3 main parties are all around 3500 seats, so it’s a distant fourth and not all that far ahead of the Greens who are as rapidly rising as Reform have been quickly falling in the polls. So why does not the 5th party of government get, say 75% of the coverage that the 4th party gets (as opposed to the current coverage which is near enough to zero unless they can find an attack headline) ?
Secondly how does holding an eighth / 12.5% of local government seats and 1.2% of national seats warrant MORE coverage than parties who respectively hold - Labour 25% & 62%, Tories 20% & 18%, Lib Dems 18% & 11%, (and for completeness, not far behind) Greens 7.5% & 0.75%
The answer is blindingly clear - there is a bias towards Reform which is exactly what the article points out. It’s not justified on any logical grounds - the stats put the lie to your argument - it’s because the people calling the shots want to see a pro-Epstein class party in power.
The sad part is the average Reform voter is going to get as shockingly shafted as the average MAGA voter is currently getting in the US but reform voters unfortunately are getting their news from the Sun headlines and other biased media and won’t hear about it until it’s too late.
The even sadder part is their supporters have some very valid complaints which have been diverted towards hating on the furriners as the cause (in the same way it was all the EU’s fault for years of Tory austerity). Labour can’t fix 40 years of Thatcherite breakage in a couple of years even if they seriously wanted to (they don’t, they’ve been bought and sold by the Epstein class too)
- Comment on The BBC Is Just Nodding Along 1 month ago:
No. Not the same coverage given to the other MINOR parties. Reform has 8 seats at Westminster, same as the SNP. The BBC gave less coverage to SNP in Scotland let alone England (wasnt even covered). They get more coverage than the LibDems every day of the week despite have literally one ninth the seats (71).
There are plenty of studies, both peer reviewed and more casual showing reform gets disproportional coverage and has done for years
- Comment on US threatens Britain over Falklands 1 month ago:
Oil
- Comment on A pattern of negative posts about the BBC 1 month ago:
Given there is literally no ad hominem in my post, some introspection about what you perceive to be an insult may be helpful about why you got the reactions you did.
FWIW my post is not at all different to the rest of the posters, so that difference is in your perception, not mine, and by the upvotes/downvotes, I’m fairly confident my read is in line with the rest of the group