Zombie
@Zombie@feddit.uk
- Comment on Morgan McSweeney calls for rethink of UK cabinet ministers’ ‘quasi-judicial’ powers 18 hours ago:
Twat McTwatty calls for replacement of Prime Ministers with Presidents.
He talks about democracy but really wants to centralise power. The very opposite of democracy. What a snake.
- Comment on New approach boosts plastic-eating enzyme's activity nearly tenfold 1 day ago:
An enzyme (a protein that speeds up chemical reactions) that breaks down polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic works ten times quicker, using 10 times using less enzyme just by changing the liquid it works in and making small changes to the enzyme’s structure.
I never thought I’d be glad to see lack of proof reading, but in the age of LLMs at least it demonstrates likely human authorship.
- Comment on Subject matter expert 1 day ago:
*wizodum
- Comment on Canada, Japan, New Zealand, UK, EU countries and the US call on China to end 'unjust prosecutions' after sentencing of Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong 4 days ago:
The UK has no leg to stand on lecturing other countries about unjust arrests and prosecutions when it’s arresting hundreds of grannies standing with cardboard signs as terrorists.
- Comment on Line go up 6 days ago:
+2 -2 -1
Is the difference lost in the rounding errors or is that to the Scottish Greens and they’re not shown or…?
- Comment on AI teddy makes unprompted 'I can't help with killing you' remark 6 days ago:
Be careful! You’ll put us on a government watch list! We’re not allowed to talk about the super intelligence
- Comment on [deleted] 6 days ago:
Buffoons.
- Comment on AI teddy makes unprompted 'I can't help with killing you' remark 6 days ago:
When 1s and 0s need to be transferred to another 1 and 0 machine then 1s and 0s are transferred to determine how to transfer those 1s and 0s.
What’s the confusion? It’s clearly very simple!
1s and 0s are also used to determine how to display those other 1s and 0s and even how you can interact with the 1s and 0s.
I don’t understand how it can be so difficult for people to comprehend. Can they not count to 1?
- Comment on Cut number of police forces in England to as few as nine, review recommends 1 week ago:
But they were all of them deceived, for another force was formed. In the land of London, in the bowels of Thames House. The Dark Lord Capitalism forged, in secret, a master force to control all others. And into this force they poured their cruelty, their malice, and their will to dominate all life. One force to rule them all.
One by one, the Free Lands of the United Kingdom fell to the power of capitalism. But there were some who resisted. A last alliance of Irish, Scots, and Welsh marched against the armies of London. And on the slopes of Cardiff, they fought for the freedom of the United Kingdom.
- Comment on Leader of flag campaign pleads not guilty to offences 1 week ago:
Leader of flag campaign pleads not guilty to three counts of racially aggravated harassment, two counts of common assault, and eight public order offences.
Seeing as the BBC are downplaying his charges in that headline.
- Comment on ‘Well-known individual’ fails in bid for injunction against Guardian and ITN 1 week ago:
The legal team for the anonymous individual, known in court only as PPT, had claimed he was “highly likely” to attempt suicide if the Guardian and ITN published the allegations, which he denies.
Manipulative abuser tactics
- Comment on Home secretary to make some migrants wait 10 years or more for right to settle in UK 1 week ago:
People are leaving Afghanistan because it has been ravaged by war and colonial exploitation for years. Much of which is Britain’s fault.
- Comment on Home secretary to make some migrants wait 10 years or more for right to settle in UK 1 week ago:
No you don’t. Nobody does. There’s so many laws, many of them contradictory, that it’s literally impossible to abide by the law.
Over the course of the last decade, each year has seen an average of 2,685 new laws - the equivalent of almost seven and a half a day or one every three-and-a-quarter hours
www.theguardian.com/politics/…/houseofcommons.uk
That was in 2007. There have been thousands of laws since.
- Comment on Home secretary to make some migrants wait 10 years or more for right to settle in UK 1 week ago:
You speak some amount of shite. Afghanistan may not have been successfully held but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t major upheaval and displacement there.
Following the defeat of Italian forces in East Africa during World War II, Eritrea came under British administration as a United Nations trust territory from 1942 to 1952.[3]
en.wikipedia.org/…/Eritrea–United_Kingdom_relatio…
The Third Anglo-Afghan War (Pashto: دریم انګلو افغان جنګ), also known as the Third Afghan War, the British-Afghan war of 1919[37] and in Afghanistan as the War of Independence,[37] began on 6 May 1919 when the Emirate of Afghanistan invaded British India and ended with an armistice on 8 August 1919.[38][39][40][41][42] The war resulted in the Afghans winning back control of foreign affairs from Britain, and the British recognizing Afghanistan as an independent nation.[43]
The United Kingdom did not contribute nor actively oppose the communist-led Saur Revolution. It opposed the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and provided both indirect and direct support for the Afghan mujahideen fighters in their struggle against the Soviet Union which included arming, funding, training and supplying various factions covertly, most notably support for Ahmad Shah Massoud in the Panjshir Valley.
en.wikipedia.org/…/Afghanistan–United_Kingdom_rel…
Operation Herrick was the operational name for the British Armed Forces’ operations during the War in Afghanistan, from 2002 to the end of combat operations in 2014.
- Comment on Home secretary to make some migrants wait 10 years or more for right to settle in UK 1 week ago:
Ministers – including the housing secretary, Angela Rayner – had raised concerns about the effect the rules would have on care workers already in the UK who would be likely to face a 15-year wait for settlement, also known as indefinite leave to remain (ILR).
The government’s response to the consultation on the reforms, which will be put before MPs on Monday, is expected give some exemption to care workers already in the UK, though most other professions will face the lengthy waits for settlement.
In June, Rayner described making care workers already in Britain wait up to 15 years for permanent residence as “un-British”. In September, the energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, said the plans would have been “tough” for her family, who came to Britain as refugees.
Signatories argue that changing the rules for people who have planned their lives around existing settlement requirements would be unfair and could encourage essential workers to leave the country.
- Comment on Home secretary to make some migrants wait 10 years or more for right to settle in UK 1 week ago:
15 years of precarity is evil. I wouldn’t expect a monarchist and Prince Andrew fan to understand the difference between right and wrong though.
- Comment on Home secretary to make some migrants wait 10 years or more for right to settle in UK 1 week ago:
Evil.
- Comment on Police Threaten to Arrest Anyone Helping Protesters at Palestine Action Demo 1 week ago:
Your comments reminded of this chapter on socialist politicians from Alexander Berkman’s Now and After. This was written in the 1920s… Nothing has changed.
‘These men who rose to power on the backs of labor and then betrayed the workers are scoundrels,’ I hear you say in just indignation. True, but that is not all. There is a deeper reason for this constant and regular betrayal, a greater and more significant cause for this almost universal phenomenon. Socialists are not essentially different from other men. They are human, just as you and I. And no man turns scoundrel or traitor over night.
It is power which corrupts. The consciousness that you possess power is itself the worst poison that corrodes the finest metal of man. The filth and contamination of politics everywhere sufficiently prove that. Moreover, even with the best intentions Socialists in legislative bodies or in government positions find themselves entirely powerless to accomplish anything of a socialistic nature, anything of benefit to the workers. For politics is not a means to better the conditions of labor. It never was and never can be.
The demoralization and vitiation take place little by little, so gradually that one hardly notices it himself. Just visualize for a moment the condition of a Socialist elected to Congress, for instance. He is all alone, as against several hundred men of other political parties. He senses their opposition to his radical ideas, and he finds himself in a strange and unfriendly atmosphere. But he is there and he must participate in the business that is being transacted. Most of that business — the bills brought in, the laws proposed — is entirely foreign to him. It has no bearing whatever on the things the Socialist believes in, no connection with the interests of the working class voters who elected him. It is just the routine of legislation. It is only when a bill of some bearing upon labor or on the industrial and economic situation comes up, that our Socialist can take part in the proceedings. He does, and he is ignored or laughed at for his impractical ideas on the matter. For they are indeed impractical. Even at best, when the proposed law is not specially designed to grant new privileges to monopoly, it deals with matters involved in capitalist business, with some commercial treaty or agreement between one government and another. But he, the Socialist, was elected on a Socialist ticket, and it is his business to abolish the capitalistic government, to do away with the system of commerce and profit altogether, so how can he speak ‘practically’ on the submitted bills? Of course he becomes a butt of ridicule to his colleagues, and soon he begins to see how stupid and useless his presence is in the halls of legislation. That is why some of the best men of the Socialist Party in Germany turned against political action, as did John Most, for instance. But there are few persons of such honesty and courage. As a rule the Socialist remains in his position, and every day he is compelled to realize more and more what a senseless rôle he is playing. He comes to feel that he must find some way to take a serious part in the work, express sound opinions in the discussions and become a real factor in the proceedings. This is imperative in order to preserve his own dignity, to compel the respect of his colleagues, and also to show to his constituents that they did not elect a mere dummy.
So he begins to acquaint himself with the routine. He studies river dredging and coast improvement, reads up on appropriations, examines the hundred and one bills which come up for consideration, and when he occasionally gets the floor — which is not very often — he tries to explain the proposed legislation from the Socialist standpoint, as he is in duty bound to do. He ‘makes a Socialist speech.’ He dwells on the suffering of the workers and the crimes of wage slavery; he informs his colleagues that capitalism is an evil, that the rich must be abolished and the whole system done away with. He finishes his peroration and sits down. The politicians exchange glances, smile and joke, and the assembly goes over to the business in hand.
Our Socialist perceives that he is regarded as a laughing stock. His colleagues are getting tired of his ‘hot air’, and he finds more and more difficulty in securing the floor. He is often called to order and told he must speak to the point, but he knows that neither by his talk nor by his vote can he influence the proceedings in the slightest degree. His speeches don’t even reach the public; they are buried in the Congressional Record which no one reads, and he is painfully aware of being a solitary and unheeded voice in the wilderness of political machinations.
He appeals to the voters to elect more comrades to the legislative bodies. A lone Socialist cannot accomplish anything, he tells them. Years pass, and at last the Socialist Party succeeds in having a number of its members elected. Each of them goes through the same experience as their first colleague, but now they quickly come to the conclusion that preaching Socialist doctrines to the politicians is worse than useless. They decide to participate in the legislation. They must show that they are not just ‘spouting revolution’ but that they are practical men, statesmen, that they are doing something for their constituency, looking after its interests.
In this manner the situation compels them to take a ‘practical’ part in the proceedings, to ‘talk business,’ to fall in line with the matters actually dealt with in the legislative body. Full well they know that these things have no relation to Socialism or to the abolition of capitalism. On the contrary, all this law-making and political mummery only strengthens the hold of the masters upon the people; worse, it misleads the workers into believing that the legislatures may do something for them and deludes them with the false hope that they may get results by politics. In this way it keeps them looking to the law and government to ‘change things,’ to ‘improve’ their condition.
So the machinery of government carries on its work, the masters remain secure in their position, and the workers are held off with promises of ‘action’ by their representatives in the legislative bodies, by new laws that are to give them ‘relief’.
For years this process has been going on in all the countries of Europe. The Socialist parties have succeeded in electing many of their members to various legislative and government positions. Spending years in that atmosphere, enjoying good jobs and pay, the elected Socialists have themselves become part and parcel of the political machinery. They have come to feel that it is no use waiting for the Socialist revolution to abolish capitalism. It is more practical to work for some ‘betterment’, to try to get a Socialist majority in the government. For when they have a majority they will need no revolution, they now say.
Slowly, by degrees, the Socialist change has taken place. With growing success in elections and securing political power they turn more conservative and content with existing conditions. Removed from the life and suffering of the working class, living in the atmosphere of the bourgeoisie, of affluence and influence, they have become what they call ‘practical.’ Seeing at first hand the political machinery at work, knowing its debauchery and corruption, they have realized that there is no hope for Socialism in that swamp of deceit, bribery, and corruption. But few, very few Socialists find the courage to enlighten the workers about the hopelessness of politics to aid the cause of labor. Such a confession would mean the end of their political career, with its emoluments and advantages. So the great majority of them are content to keep their own counsel and let well enough alone. Power and position have gradually stifled their conscience, and they have not the strength and honesty to swim against the current.
Chapter 13: Socialism
Available to read or download in multiple formats, for free, here: theanarchistlibrary.org/…/alexander-berkman-what-…
- Comment on Parents fined for employing teen son in food trailer 1 week ago:
Petite bourgeoisie fined for endangering a child and exploiting their labour for profit.
Being their son arguably makes it worse.
- Comment on Police Threaten to Arrest Anyone Helping Protesters at Palestine Action Demo 1 week ago:
Are they going to arrest bus and train drivers that transport protestors too?
Barristas that served them a coffee beforehand?
How far back does the help need to be to count? Will GPs be arrested for caring for and ensuring the protestors are physically well enough to attend?
- Comment on why i love my country 1 week ago:
- Comment on Mahmood infuriates fellow ministers by failing to reveal impact of UK migration shake-up 1 week ago:
She’s not “left over”. Burnham determines his own cabinet. He has chosen to have her as Home Secretary.
He knows exactly what her track record and views are and has decided that is who he wants in the gREaT OfFiCe oF sTAtE for justice, law enforcement, and migration.
- Comment on Mahmood infuriates fellow ministers by failing to reveal impact of UK migration shake-up 1 week ago:
So this was bollocks then.
Burnham pledges to end rough sleeping in first speech as prime minister
- Comment on Toblerone owner sues British vegan chocolate brand over chunky shape 2 weeks ago:
You could try this next time:
- Comment on Toblerone owner sues British vegan chocolate brand over chunky shape 2 weeks ago:
And contrary to Frankie Boyle’s advice: pull it out again straight away, like starting a lawnmower, before the corners have had a chance to melt
- Comment on Budget 2026: John Healey offers £100 payments to households to help navigate ‘global economic storms’ 2 weeks ago:
Oh thank you benevolent tax man for the equivalent of 8 hours on minimum wage. We’ll all make it through the winter now, thanks to m’lord’s kindness!
- Comment on [Video] Norman Finkelstein says British Jewish organisations need to be held accountable for their support of Israel 2 weeks ago:
For anybody who, like me, doesn’t know who he is:
Norman Gary Finkelstein (/ˈfɪŋkəlstiːn/ FING-kəl-steen; born December 8, 1953) is an American political scientist and activist. His primary fields of research are the politics of the Holocaust and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Finkelstein was born in New York City to Jewish Holocaust-survivor parents. He is a graduate of Binghamton University and received his Ph.D. in political science from Princeton University. He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and DePaul University
- Comment on Sean Connery in 1964 (on the set of Goldfinger) and Thomas Brodie-Sangster in 2024. Both age 34 in their respective photos. 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on What's 26 + 6 in Cyrillic? 2 weeks ago:
What’s that got to with the price of a dram?
By that very same argument Ireland itself was “along for the ride” because there were pro union Irish people as well.
80k members raising £100k isn’t exactly impressive in a nation of 5.5 million with a GDP of £231 billion.
Also, in 1992, Scotland did not have devolution. It was controlled via Westminster.
Use your heid yi numpty.
- Comment on What's 26 + 6 in Cyrillic? 2 weeks ago:
Awa’ and shite.
13-1600s: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Scottish_Wars
1300s: en.wikipedia.org/…/Wars_of_Scottish_Independence
1400s: en.wikipedia.org/…/English_invasion_of_Scotland_(…
1500s: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_Wooing
1600s: en.wikipedia.org/…/Anglo-Scottish_war_(1650–1652)
1700s:
In Scotland, the Duke of Queensberry was largely responsible for the successful passage of the Union act by the Parliament of Scotland. In Scotland, he was greeted by stones and eggs but in England he was cheered for his action.[51] He had personally received around half of the funding awarded by the Westminster Treasury.[citation needed] In April 1707, he travelled to London to attend celebrations at the royal court, and was greeted by groups of noblemen and gentry lined along the road. From Barnet, the route was lined with crowds of cheering people, and once he reached London a huge crowd had formed. On 17 April, the Duke was gratefully received by the Queen at Kensington Palace and the Acts came into effect on 1 May 1707.[51] A day of thanksgiving was declared in England and Ireland but not in Scotland, where the bells of St Giles rang out the tune of “why should I be so sad on my wedding day”.[52]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707
The Parliament met until “prorogued sine die” following months of intense debate, with 110 voting in favour for the treaty to 67 against. It is notable that 123 of the 300 members of Parliament were missing from one of the most controversial votes of the age.
After the negotiations ended on 22 July 1706, separate acts of parliament were drafted by both parliaments to implement the agreed Articles of Union. The Scots proponents of union believed that failure to agree to the Articles would result in the imposition of a union under less favourable terms, and English troops were stationed just south of the Scottish border and also in northern Ireland as an “encouragement”. Months of fierce debate in both capital cities and throughout both kingdoms followed. In Scotland, the debate on occasion dissolved into civil disorder, most notably involving the notorious “Edinburgh Mob”,[13] which threatened “Destruction to all the Promoters of the Union”.[14]
As the Parliament of Scotland was deliberating on 22 October 1706, the session had to be suspended “because the mob was threatening to break in”;[15] although this did not ultimately occur, they subsequently “attacked the house of Sir Patrick Johnston, a commissioner for union and former Lord Provost of Edinburgh.”[15] “Troops were brought into the city with orders to shoot if necessary, and several regiments were placed at Queensberry’s disposal on the Scottish border and in Ireland in the event of trouble.”[16] The prospect of a union of the kingdoms was deeply unpopular among the Scottish population at large, and talk of an uprising was widespread.[17] However, the treaty was signed and the documents were rushed south with a large military escort. Andrew Fletcher, a prominent Scottish patriot, argued that the ratification of the treaty would see Scotland “more like a conquered province”.[18]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Union
16-1800s: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobitism
1800s to today:
The “Home Rule” movement for a Scottish Assembly was first taken up in 1853 by the National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights, a body close to the Conservative Party. A key element in this movement was the comparison with Ireland. The original movement broadened its political appeal and soon began to receive Liberal Party backing.[13][failed verification] In 1885, the post of Secretary for Scotland and the Scottish Office were re-established to promote Scotland’s interests and express its concerns to the UK Parliament.
A Scottish Home Rule bill was first presented to Parliament in 1913, but its progress was soon ended as Parliament focused on emergency measures necessitated by the First World War.[15]
The Scottish Covenant was a petition to the UK Government asking for home rule. It was first proposed in 1930 by John MacCormick and formally written in 1949. The petition “was eventually signed by two million people”[17] (the population of Scotland was recorded as 5,100,000 in the 1951 UK Census[18]). The covenant was ignored by the main political parties.[17] In 1950 the Stone of Destiny was removed from Westminster Abbey by a group of Scottish nationalist students.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence
1970s:
A post-legislative referendum was held in Scotland in 1979 to decide whether there was sufficient support among the Scottish electorate for a Scottish Assembly proposed in the Scotland Act 1978. This was an act to create a devolved deliberative assembly for Scotland. A majority (51.6%) of voters supported the proposal, but an amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if less than 40% of the total electorate voted in favour. As there was a turnout of 64% the “Yes” vote represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate, and the act was subsequently repealed.
en.wikipedia.org/…/1979_Scottish_devolution_refer…
2010s:
A referendum on Scottish independence from the United Kingdom was held in Scotland on 18 September 2014.[1] The referendum question was “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, which voters answered with “Yes” or “No”.[2] The “No” side won with 2,001,926 (55.3%) voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7%) voting in favour. The turnout of 84.6% was the highest recorded for an election or referendum in the United Kingdom since the January 1910 general election, which was held before the introduction of universal suffrage.
en.wikipedia.org/…/2014_Scottish_independence_ref…
2007 Scottish elections:Image
2011 Scottish elections:
2016 Scottish elections:
2021 Scottish elections:
2026 Scottish elections:
Along for the ride, my arse.
