Big difference between regulating and banning. You're Impishly suggesting ... (any) government intervention as the slippery slope to authoritarianism. Regulation is a lot more democratic than the uncountable oligarchs' whims - and politics - which are getting even more prevailing. Unbridled capitalism is not going to fix humanity's problems. Market solutions won't address the problems social media creates.
The problem is using those above "good things" to get through wholesale "regulation" of much much more! and then trying anyone that doesn't support our "online safety bill" is supporting ****s when that suspect is a teeny tiny part of what they are trying to railroad through under that guise. but hey-ho. that is politics in a nutshell. Trying to sell your policies with as nice a disguise as possible.
You are "suggesting" that we are talking about "any" intervention when it is really more and more and more by the day. We will soon be referring to ourselves as we! Even in your second sentence. Where is the nuance? who said there should be no regulation? Just that there is also an opposite of too much regulation. The second sentence is meaningless because no-one is suggesting no regulation...just the spread and the increasing by the day "rules" that are going much further than the salespitch they use to get them through.
I’m not sure I agree reform are scrutinised that much. I mean Farage will get the coverage when he says ‘it was like an invasion’ etc with the Whitechapel march, but I guess that is their playbook anyway and the publicity they want!
Ah, so when you said ‘regulate everything,’ ....you meant it literally. I did assume some hyperbole Imps. We’ve gone from ‘communist 2025’ to ‘reasonable concerns about regulatory scope’ in a few posts! At the moment Musk and Zuckerberg et al make unilateral decisions affecting billions. You're worried about democratic regulation being a "slippery slope" to governmental authoritarianism, but you seem less concerned with oligarchic authoritarianism; if your concern is about creeping control, maybe start with the platforms already shaping/warping discourse in real time 24/7... without transparency, oversight, or consent! Do you think these platforms should be allowed to signal boost misinformation, nab data from minors, or crack down on political speech they don't "like"? Or is any attempt to address those issues already ‘too far’? But glad there's an agreement that 'some' regulation is necessary. But if so... then we’re not debating whether to regulate - we’re debating how to. That’s a different thrust to the comment you made at the start.
Schoolboy memories for me has a Trump being described as a loud obnoxious fart in public. Right on the button for the tangerine man.
It seems to me that Andrew may or may not have screwed Ms Giuffre (he denies it, so who knows the truth?), but she sure as hell has screwed him... This story will run and run, perhaps he should go to the States and give his evidence, (if proved guilty, punished appropriately), but what are the chances of a fair trial? Whatever, you have to feel for the victims of the circumstances and hope that what has happened will go some way to prevent any repeats, but the World is full of bad human beings, that don't conform, so there is little chance to prevent similar happenings in the future.
Misleading bollocks as usual. The £244m headline is across 7 different councils. The £73m saving is over 25 years, so £2.9m a year. Just 0.2% of Durham's £1.3bn budget. Reform do love to lie.
That's a bit ... poor Andrew. What were Virginia Giuffre's chances of even getting a trial, let alone a fair one? Over a decade of fighting and being disbelieved, where she faced victim blaming, attacks on her credibility, the mysterious and untimely death of the primary witness for a potential prosecution... many more disadvantages than a privileged and protected member of the British royal family, with unlimited legal resources and surrounded by very shady friends. But she "Sure as hell screwed him"? The £10m he paid to admit nothing, not face trial and keep claiming the innocence you're left considering wasn't even his money.
He's not accused of any crimes here so was never going to face any prosecution regardless. Obviously he wouldn't have been daft enough to set foot in the US again.
https://northeastbylines.co.uk/regi...-tale-of-public-wealth-lost-and-private-gain/ "Private Eye’s comprehensively detailed and fully evidenced exposé last week of the Teesworks saga [“Stripped Tees” in No 1660], makes for shocking reading. The story it tells reads like the screenplay for a dark political drama, one in which public money and public assets have been shockingly exploited and public trust has been completely eroded. The scale and gravity of what has been exposed demands a full and independent investigation. The investigative journalist Richard Brooks of Private Eye is to be congratulated for his public service in his determined unearthing of evidence, despite the best efforts of some to frustrate him in his quest for the facts. His findings reveal a disturbing pattern: flawed and determined decision-making, channelling vast sums of public money in particular directions, resulting in colossal financial benefit for the private developer partners, whilst leaving taxpayers carrying the risk."
Fair comment, she denied her own right to secure justice by commiting suicide and thus prevented any chance of finding the truth. Andrew is a victim of the circumstances too, doesn't seem to be any doubt that he was guilty of many bad things, especially his choice of friends. Easy to be judgemental when you are mostly only getting one side of the argument. As I said, he should be made to face the music, if he has done wrong, but the Press are making sure he wouldn't get a fair trial, guilty or not. One thought that I had, was that he served in the Falklands War and he said at the time that it had changed him, it could have had a bad effect on his mental awareness, not an excuse perhaps, but may be a reason?
You're right. But he was never charged with of the accusations, I think that's what Libby is making reference to.
Teesside, ie beside the Tees. It’s been around for about 50 years but it gets spelled wrong all the time. Even council road signs!
But was it investigated? I don’t recall the allegations in the media at that time, was it because he was a prince it didn’t get anywhere? Just strange if it wasn’t investigated.
Is it just me, or is all the attention on Andrew just a diversion tactic to shield all the American millionaires from scrutiny? Just wondering!
