Off Topic The Politics Thread

I would like to encourage everyone to watch the following video (36 minutes) about the "New World Order".

It´s about time to wake up.

 

I don't find it odd. The reality is that the media generally has a very short attention span, largely because of the need to fill countless hours / website space daily. Anything that does that is grabbed at immediately. Issues that are massive one day are rapidly off the front pages once the next story comes along. Remember the media storm around statues? Front pages every day for a week. Or the inquiry into Russian alleged election interference?

The boats in the channel is getting the attention now. It will be wiped off the front pages soon too when the media get bored and need another headline

Same will happen with exam results

And even people making money out of government contracts. I've been involved in a lot of contracts with public bodies over the years but the media doesn't seem interested in me

 

Apologies everyone

I hadn't intended to summon Butts to this thread

 

You probably went through a proper tender process and delivered what you were paid to though. If we had the world-bearing system we were promised it wouldn’t be as big an issue.

I think it’s a bit naive of you to not think the government drives this.

 

Or are you over thinking it?

I wouldn't get your blood pressure up too much over it....zero boat coverage on BBC Breakfast this morning

 

Maybe you’re under-thinking it.

 

You should watch the Murdoch documentary on BBC.

 

Not aimed at anyone on here but anyone who might think it was is probably in Dover shouting at boats anyway. Just thought it was funny.

 

No problem, my post was meant for the bright people.

 

Classy Butts, classy

 

The Illuminati....

 

Well, you are obviously dumb enough believing the virus hoax by defending it´s exististance. That´s called supervised thinking. Those organizing that believe that it´s the best way how to handle lifestock.

 

please log in to view this image

Labour Press
@labourpress

“For years, the Conservative government has failed to address stark NHS workforce shortages and unfortunately the country has paid the price for this.” -
@justinmadders




bloody tories and their savage cuts
how many employees does the nhs have
how much does the actual director screw out of them that the assistants on 65 to 75 grand

please log in to view this image

 

indian lives matter

 

I'm sure that my widowed neighbour and her two daughters (51 year old police officer husband / father died of the virus back in March) would fully agree with you Butts

Utterly pathetic and insensitive

 

breaking news


priti patel has found a way to stop economic migrants fleeing the hellhole that france must be

please log in to view this image

 

eating ben and jerrys might kill you

Ben and Jerry's ice cream sold in UK contains traces of controversial pesticide widely used on GM farms

• Weedkiller glyphosate was found in flavours including Half Baked cookie dough
• World Health Organisation called it a probable human carcinogen’ in 2015
• But the pesticide was subsequently given the all clear by EU food watchdogs

By Sean Poulter Consumer Affairs Editor For The Daily Mail

Published: 05:16 AEST, 11 October 2017 | Updated: 06:02 AEST, 11 October 2017



66 shares

50

View comments



Ice cream sold under the Ben & Jerry’s brand contains traces of the weedkiller glyphosate, tests have revealed.

The chemical which is best known under the brand name Roundup is widely used on food crops, particularly in GM farming, around the world.

Twelve out of 14 samples of the ice cream bought across Europe were positive for glyphosate.

please log in to view this image

+2
Traces of the weedkiller glyphosate were found in Ben & Jerry's ice creams sold in the UK

Three of these were bought in the UK - Half Baked cookie dough and chocolate ice cream, Peanut Butter, and Chocolate Fudge Brownie.

Contamination is thought to have come from the ingredients, such as wheat in cookie dough, used to flavour the ice cream.

The levels were very low and well below the levels set by food safety authorities in the US and Europe.

However glyphosate is at the centre of controversy around the world with some studies suggesting it is a cancer risk.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Previous
• 1
• Next

• please log in to view this image
  Is this proof food can be better at fighting disease than...
  please log in to view this image
  The surprising foods that could put you in hospital: We all...

Share this article
Share
In 2015, the World Health Organisation(WHO) identified glyphosate as a ‘probable human carcinogen’. However, the chemical was subsequently given the all clear by EU food watchdogs.

British academics from Kings College London have also linked the chemical to the development of liver disease in feeding trials with rats.

Earlier this year glyphosate traces were found in Ben & Jerry’s products sold in the USA. As a result, the Anglo-Dutch manufacturer, Unilever, plans to launch an organic – glyphosate free – range in the USA although not, as yet, in Europe.

Most of the cows producing milk for the ice cream in the USA and Europe comes from animals fed on GM soya, which is normally sprayed with glyphosate.

please log in to view this image

+2
The chemical was given the all clear by European Union food watchdogs after the World Health Organisation raised concerns in 2015

GM plants are generally modified to give them resistance to spraying with chemicals like glyphosate or Roundup, which is made by the US chemical giant, Monsanto.

This means they can survive being doused with chemicals that kill off any weeds in the field.

The UK samples of the ice cream were collected by the campaigning group Beyond GM, which is critical of GM farming.

Its director, Pat Thomas, said: ‘We became involved with this investigation because we are concerned by the increasing levels of glyphosate being used on food crops in the UK and the EU.

‘In addition, conventionally reared livestock are also fed on GM crops, mainly soya, which will is also sprayed heavily with glyphosate. That means there are multiple pathways for this known hormone-disrupter and carcinogen to get into our food.

‘The industrial food system is failing us all and people are frankly sick of having the word ‘food’ associated with words like ‘risk’, ‘scare’, ‘poison’, ‘fraud’ and ‘contamination’.

‘Big companies like Ben & Jerrys have a big responsibility that extends beyond marketing jargon. We’d like to see Ben & Jerry’s switch to an organic supply chain which would ensure the safety and integrity of the products they produce.’

Unilever said: ‘The bottom line is that our products are safe to eat and the trace levels of glyphosate detected were significantly below all allowable US and European standards.’

It said that, currently, the glyphosate is sprayed on crops, such as wheat and corn, before harvest as a drying agent.

However, the firm said it plans to phase out the use of any crops produced with glyphosate as a drying agent by 2020. It also promised to lobby for other firms to do the same.

The company said it plans to measure public demand for an organic version of the ice cream in America before deciding whether to offer it in other parts of the world.

The Crop Protection Association, which speaks for Monsanto and other chemical companies, insist glyphosate is safe.

It said: ‘Glyphosate is amongst the most thoroughly tested herbicides on the market, and those studies by expert regulators have consistently concluded that glyphosate does not pose a risk to public health.

‘Glyphosate is a crucial tool in a farmers’ armoury. To put things in perspective, glyphosate is less toxic than baking soda, table salt, the caffeine in our coffee and many other products we all use or consume regularly.’

 

don't forget
ben and jerry care about illegal people
they need them to make the ice cream they want you to buy

Ben & Jerry’s Has No Clothes
Originally published in Counterpunch by Michael Colby.

please log in to view this image

It was twenty years ago last month that Food & Water published our report on Vermont’s atrazine addiction, a toxic herbicide that is banned in Europe but continues to be used in abundance on Vermont’s 92,000 acres of GMO-derived feed corn – all for dairy cows. We used the report to get the attention of Ben & Jerry’s, and it worked. We thought when the doors swung open to the offices of Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield themselves that we’d be able to make the case to them.

Our plea at the time was the same as it is today: Ben & Jerry’s should practice what it preaches and help transition its farmers to organic production. If they took the lead, we argued, the entire state could begin a transition away from the kind of industrial, commodity-based dairy system that is wreaking so much havoc with Vermont’s agriculture – and culture. It’s a system that is doing exactly what it was designed to do: chase small farmers off the land by de-valuing production. And so it has been, for decades, an economic death spiral in which less and less is paid for more and more of the commodity product, in this case: milk.

We thought the obvious imbalance – and even direct, outright hypocrisy – between what Ben & Jerry’s was doing and what they were saying would be enough to get these do-good hippies to do the right thing. We were using logic. Because, certainly, the corporation that wanted to “save the planet” and “put the planet before profits” would want to stop being one of the state’s top polluters, right?

Wrong.

We were told at the time, by Ben himself, after a year’s worth of meetings and even an offer of a job to me “to work with us instead of going after us,” that Ben & Jerry’s was not going to transition to organic because it wouldn’t allow them to “maximize profits.” Quick, throw another tie-dyed shirt to the crowd! Or launch a new flavor! Send some ice cream to the schools! Anything, just get the attention off of what Ben & Jerry’s is doing to its homeland, and our homeland – all to maximize its profits.

This was all before they sold out to Unilever, when Cohen and Greenfield still had all the power they needed to do the right thing. But, even then, the harsh reality of profits over ideals was firmly in place, with the belief that if they could convince people that eating ice cream would bring world peace, they could convince them of anything. There was nothing that a little groovy marketing couldn’t fix.

It has, of course, only grown worse under Unilever in terms of corporate accountability and transparency. All the big decisions regarding Ben & Jerry’s are now made from Unilever’s London headquarters, where it also shepherds more than a dozen other billion-dollar-plus brands. But its corporate stand on most everything associated with the gross injustices of its dairy sourcing – from migrant labor exploitation to cow abuse to rural economic plunder – remains exactly the same: stay wedded to cheap, commodity milk, reject an organic transition, and keep relying on marketing to trump the nasty realities. Free cones!

Turns out, those free-cone days that Ben & Jerry’s rolls out every year for Vermonters aren’t so free, nor are the grants they provide to so many environmental and economic justice groups. With each lick and each cash of the foundation check, Ben & Jerry’s expects loyalty to its carefully orchestrated charade: the consumption of high-fat, pesticide-laden, climate-threatening, cow-abusing ice cream produced with the labor of exploited migrant workers all leads to social and ecological justice for all! Come on, people, really?

But let’s keep looking behind the curtain.

Currently, Ben & Jerry’s pays its farmers less than it costs them to produce the milk. Each load of milk that leaves these farms is, in effect, a donation to the soon-to-be billion-dollar corporation. These farms are losing — on average — upwards of $125,000 a year, piling up debt and holding onto all they know how to do in many cases. At the same time, Ben & Jerry’s annual reports are filled with the optimism of $100 million-a-year growth predictions, Teslas for the executives, and a parent corporation CEO drawing a base salary of $12 million – before the boardroom gifts are doled out.

Just think of this the next time you reach for that pint of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, with dreams of social justice still dancing in your head: On average, for each $5.00ish pint of Ben & Jerry’s, the dairy farmer who produced its foundational ingredient – milk – gets less than fifteen cents from that purchase. And, on average, it costs the farmer about 22 cents to produce that milk. Sadly, the response from Ben & Jerry’s to these facts is to cue the next puppet show, hand out a free cone or two, and sing a song about something else – anything else – but the bitter reality that the unjust and unsafe dairy system it profits from is devastating rural Vermont.

Since Ben & Jerry’s founding in 1978, nearly 3,000 dairy-farm families in Vermont have been forced off the land, with only about 800 remaining today. It’s been a rural recession that never finds bottom, and all exactly as designed, through a cold, calculated devaluation of production. But these weren’t just jobs that were lost, either. It was a way of life, and it was their dignity, too, as generations before them farmed the same piece of land, with no one wanting to be the last. But thousands were.

It is a stark extraction going on, littered with exploitation, and resulting in the kind of environmental destruction that will take generations and billions of dollars to correct. The current bill facing Vermonters for cleaning up our impaired waterways, especially Lake Champlain, the resting place for so many toxins, is approaching $2 billion. State officials estimate conservatively that the pollution from the mega-dairy farms like those supplying Ben & Jerry’s has caused at least half of the damage. Entire sections of Lake Champlain are unswimmable, properties have been devalued, aquatic life is suffering, and drinking water is testing positive for – surprise, surprise — toxins like atrazine and glyphosate (aka: Monsanto’s RoundUp), both used abundantly on Vermont’s dairy-destined cornfields.

Cleaning up the messes from these mega-dairies becomes the public’s problem, with the likes of Ben & Jerry’s and Cabot Cheese taking dairy’s profits while relying on taxpayers to remedy the ecological and social damage in its wake. Consider, for example, the legislative handwringing that went on earlier this year when trying to figure out who and/or what to tax to come up with the down payments for cleaning up the water pollution primarily caused by the mega-dairies. There were all kinds of suggestions – everything from taxing nail salons to property-transfer taxes – but not one proposed source of funds involved having those profiting from the pollution (Ben & Jerry’s and Cabot Cheese, for example) stepping up to pay for the damage.

In practically every other industrial activity in Vermont, from Entergy Nuclear to the PFOA water pollution in Bennington, it is the polluter who is held accountable for their cleanup. Dairy, however, gets a free ride, even though it’s no longer the image-making endeavor it once used to be. The cows have been taken off the hillsides and locked up for what is now a short and sad existence on concrete — far, far from their once majestic grazing selves.

People don’t come to Vermont to see the cows like they used to – it’s too harsh to view now. Sadly, if tourists now think of the cows it’s more to do with how their confinement and concentration has led to runoff that has befouled beaches, made fish uneatable, and decimated the once-quaint villages and towns that thrived under smaller, more diversified agriculture.

It’s not going to be easy but it’s time for a reality check when it comes to Vermont agriculture. We’ve clung for too long to a paradigm that has brought so much economic, cultural and ecological damage – all while the billions in profits get sent elsewhere.

The question for Vermonters is: How much more of this are we willing to take? How many more farms need to go under? How much more water pollution? Cow abuse? Migrant-labor exploitation? Pesticide-contaminated land and food products? How many more billions siphoned off our land and labor?

Ben & Jerry’s has made itself very clear: It’s rather enjoying the record profits. From London, Unilever thanks Vermont for the donation of so much milk and cheap labor, for all the once-bucolic imagery, and for the tax dollars used to cleanup its messes.

For twenty years I’ve been engaging Ben & Jerry’s, showing them the damage that it is doing at every level, from the atrazine report in 1997 to the GMO report in 2016 and a slew of face-to-face meetings in between. But it always ends the same way: Ben & Jerry’s admits that the marketing is working just fine. “People think we’re organic,” is what we were told time and time again in private meetings, while asking them to actually go organic. If fooling people allows for maximizing profits, why stop fooling them?

Ladies and gentlemen, Vermont’s dairy emperor – Ben & Jerry’s – has no clothes.

 

The silence of the hacks
Why has the press said so little about the Eric Joyce child porn case?



Julie Burchill

12th August 2020

please log in to view this image

Share
Topics Politics UK
I love my profession. I’ve revelled in every moment of being a journalist, since it saved me from a poor-but-honest life when I was a schoolgirl right up till my 61st birthday last month when I raised a glass to the somewhat surprising renewal of my dear dead career. With a column in the Telegraph and a book deadline, I could look back and laugh at the time when, seven years ago, I was given the heave-ho by the Observer for the heinous crime of standing up for a fellow adult human female who had been in receipt of rape and death threats for the crime of writing what she felt. It was unacceptable to the already rabid trans lobby who rarely appeared even then to be able to see a female mouth without wanting to a) ask what lipstick shade that is and b) silence it.

When I was doorstepped for running off with a girl and abandoning a second child and called THE WORST MOTHER IN BRITAIN on the cover of the Daily Mail, I didn’t boo-hoo or feel sorry for myself. ‘If you dish it out, you must take it’ is a life-lesson beyond price.

But I’m not proud to be a hack anymore. Because what sort of press, which has fought doggedly to stay free, chooses to muzzle itself to protect one of its own when she has apparently chosen to stand by a partner who has committed one of the most repulsive crimes imaginable?

Over the past few months I’ve been astonished by how little attention the case of ex-Labour MP Eric Joyce – a man with a track record of drunken violence, given a suspended sentence last week after pleading guilty to watching the very worst category of child pornography – has garnered from the British press. Surely the politician who also watches child porn combines the top-two hate groups of any decent hack?

Cherchez la femme, as our Remainer friends might say. And one of our most hysterical pro-Remain journalists is India Knight, who wrote last year ‘I now carry a letter from the Home Office on my phone, like a Jew in 1930s Berlin’ over some trivial passport matter. (Appropriately for one so mediocre, she was born in Brussels.)

please log in to view this image

Podcast
Why white working-class boys are so lost
spiked
For those of you who have not had the pleasure, Knight is very much of the ‘Lady Muck’ school of female columnists. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the type as ‘A woman who thinks she is very important and should be treated better than everyone else’. I would elaborate that she is a woman who is convinced she is better than others with no evidence to show for it, no beauty or wit or humanitarian acts. Above all, she will never judge or mock herself, but lives in order to do so to others. In the age of Brexit, this minor monster has been given a new lease of life. To say Knight has made a little go a long way is to employ classic English understatement. She has written a dozen books; her latest, expected next summer, will be a reimagining (aka rip-off) of the Nancy Mitford classic, The Pursuit Of Love.

But it’s not likely that any future autobiography will be called My Struggle as not only was her husband Jeremy Langmead editor of the Style section of The Sunday Times, for which she still works (he ended their marriage when he turned gay, for which no one can blame him), but also, helpfully, her stepfather, Andrew Knight, has been a bigwig at News UK – which owns The Sunday Times – forever.

I’m not for a woman carrying the can for what her man does. But Knight’s lack of acknowledgement is breathtaking. There was just this creepily self-centred tweet: ‘Quickly want to say that whatever happened happened nearly two years ago. It was horrible for it to become public last week, but I have had two years’ worth of incredible help and support, and am fine.’ So long as you’re fine, your Ladyship!

Knight is generally the most judgemental of people – she especially seems to loathe ‘chavs’, ‘gammons’ and Brexiteers, who are apparently responsible for the imminent downfall of civilisation. Yet somehow, like Meghan Markle, she identifies as one of the wretched of the earth. As the Iranian writer Leyla Sanai puts it: ‘Every second article she writes, she mentions that she is brown to make us admire her for her stoical attitude to her societal “oppression”. Never mind that she is wealthy and had the privilege of an Oxbridge education.’

please log in to view this image

Recommended
‘The protests were whiter than the police department’
Tom Slater
She just can’t stop judging others – last month it was ‘the people you always see in airports having pints for breakfast’ – those déclassé degenerates, as opposed to people like her partner who drink whiskey and watch babies being penetrated. (Joyce’s lawyer blamed the demon drink for his crime, but accredited the love of a good woman to his hopeful rehabilitation: ‘Since that time, he has given up drinking, found a partner that he loves, she loves him and they have made a life together.’)

But this isn’t just the story of one sordid little dysfunctional relationship. It’s about how journalism has changed for the worse. Two modern plagues dovetail in this case: wokeness and nepotism. Knight and Joyce exemplify what the commentator Daniel Norris calls the ‘Wokescreen’ – a thing vicious people hide behind in order to do harm while telling others to #bekind. A long-time Twitter bully who runs with a cyber-mob of quasi-feminist Mean Girls, Knight memorably called the columnist Liz Jones ‘a rancid ****’ who ‘****s her cats’ in between columns about how life should be like a lovely garden party.

The Times is currently attempting to rebrand itself as a woke paper in order to grab the elusive youth readership, ‘letting go’ a long line of excellent freethinking journalists from Lynn Barber to Katie Glass in favour of woke drones like Flora ‘some relation’ Gill. Wokeness is yet another marker of class privilege, and its espousal by those who got their job because of who their daddy seems likely to drive print journalism to an even prompter grave as readers see no reflection of themselves in the newspapers they once devoured.

Joyce too presents himself as a born-again woker. Judging by his Twitter, he seemed especially keen on the mad trans project of ending women-only toilets. In context of the fact that he had searched ‘for material for five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10-year-old girls… two men rape girl’ and was in possession of images of ‘the sexual abuse of very young children… featuring what appeared to be seven different children, aged between 12 months and seven years’ and the penetration of a baby, of course it makes sense he’s in favour of men being allowed in the ladies’.


Joyce is not unique. The spectre of the Woke Bro who sees pornography as a deserved treat after a long day’s keyboard activism and who feels like Martin Luther King because he has shot his worthless seed over unfortunate women of all hues has been widely noted by feminists. In the US, a prominent (white) BLM activist Christopher Devries was charged with possession of child pornography earlier this year. So widespread is this sickness that in 2017, Norfolk’s police chief constable said that those who viewed child-abuse images should not even be prosecuted, because the police were already unable to cope with the volume of cases. It is a national disgrace that men such as Joyce, who drive the market for the rape of infants, are spared jail by the courts of this country. But it is a national scandal that our newspapers – usually so keen to police the morals of our public figures – close ranks to protect one of their own. What a shameful episode in the history of British journalism – the silence of the hacks, shielding the evils which take place behind the Wokescreen.