So, on the top we have an incredible government conspiracy that attacks the very foundations of free speech. On the bottom, we have Elon working on a system that will suppress the visibility of speech by anyone who doesn't pay $8 a month, or are deemed 'uncivil' by Twitter. Which one is the attack on freedom of speech again? (Neither. The answer is neither. This isn't what FrEeDoM oF sPeEcH is.)
Also when did it become a thing for British people to incessantly go on about free speech and the first amendment? And using it in the same incorrect way that those in America do. Only even less relevant To borrow a term we heard all the time during the many scandals of the trump era - this is a “nothing burger”. But unlike all those times it was used then - this really is a nothing burger. All that seems to have come out is a bunch of stuff that people already new and the fact that Twitter didn’t allow for a nude pic of Hunter Biden to be posted With almost everything I try to picture how it would play in reverse. What would Fox News and the right wing commentators say if years down the line they found that left wingers were frothing and the mouth in a fury that Twitter didn’t allow a topless picture of Ivanka Trump to be posted? Or a dick pic of Trump Junior? They’d lose their minds and there would be cries of “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. Incidentally despite all this narrative there seems to be a fair amount of Biden Derangement Syndrome going on as well. Dark Brandon, edited videos and the hounding and obsession of his screw up son (who has nothing to do with the administration)
I can only pray that we never find ourselves in a situation where anyone is demanding either of those things.
I can't like that but it does show where priorities should lay. Not with a hysterical reaction to a twat on twitter.
I find it strange just from a political standpoint, because while the goal is obviously to make Joe Biden look bad, basically everything around his son makes him look like a decent guy concerned about a son who has a really troubled past. "Joe Biden's son suffered an unimaginable trauma as a child and it broke him, and Biden has spent 40 years trying largely in vain to keep him from self-destructing" has never really seemed like a winning angle to me. On your other point about people in the UK suddenly becoming very interested in the 1A, it's something I've mentioned before: there's a homogenization of these conservative narratives that have crossed international borders, with some really weird results. During the trucker protests, they were repeatedly threatening to arrest Canadian politicians...under American laws. Reason being that when sovereign citizen nonsense got exported to Canada, it was exported wholesale, so rather than adapt the crazy to local conditions, they just decided that Canadian citizens were subject to US law. They were also complaining that their 1A rights were being trampled on, despite the obvious issue of there being no 1A rights to trample on, owing to the lack of a 1A in Canada (we have an equivalent in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but they rarely if ever referenced that).
Sunak has previously denied this, and I don’t know if this guy is credible, although he is listed as an author and journalist. It would certainly benefit the country. Edit. If Sunak was to u-turn and go for a closer relationship with the EU, such as doing this, will that leave Starmer as the only party leader banging the let’s make Brexit work drum? Seriously, how many votes would Sunak turn back to the Tories by deciding to do this? I could never vote for the Tory party on the principle that they are evil and uncaring, but I think the UK would definitely be better off by doing this. Footnote. I don’t think Sunak will do this but Starmer has pretty much backed himself into a corner by mirroring the Tory stance on the EU.
Arrogant arsehole Nadhim Zahawi claims striking workers are playing into Putin's hands by dividing the country. What a load of bollocks. The majority of people are supporting the strikers and, as recent by-election results show, are united in condemning the incompetent incumbents.
This from the Private Eye is a lest we forget article highlight Hancock's part in the deaths of thousands. https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue...eIBe2DTgApCezO0mrnnJxevzAtdWPDiup-LTPBmhhsviY
Public ownership would certainly sort those profits out. Actually, I do feel that there are certain companies that should never have been privatised and water as an essential service is one of them. Although nationalised industries quite often do lose money, a water supplier should never be making a profit in any case. If ever there was an example of an industry not fit for purpose but at the same time making obscene profits look no further than this.
I would say all utilities and public transport should be in public ownership or run as non profit bodies with any surplus reinvested.
With regards to the underperformance of previously nationalised companies I think we now have a better understanding as to why they may have underperformed. Better information has shown that the Tories will relentlessly underfund nationalised companies to ensure that they underperform for the sole purpose of selling them off to their mates. Properly managed nationalised industries should make money for the country and I look forward to Labour gaining power and creating it’s own energy company based on renewables to see what it can do for the country. I would hope that they go a step further and set up their own telecommunications company as well. And even if a nationalised company loses money, it should still be supported by the government. If the current government can find the money to cover the losses to the railway companies, incurred during the strike action, they should be able to find money to better support nationalised industries.
