leicsmac

And all the time, that base supply of water is dwindling due to the obvious cause (which the Telegraph and at least some of their readership still appear to deny) as well. Indeed. I also wonder how ethically acceptable it is to buy into the Malthusian idea that there's "too many people" and that a catastrophic population crash is not only inevitable but desirable. Perhaps better resource management and actually addressing the problem that is causing that diminished water supply at the base level is a better idea?

Sorry, to clarify: By "your mileage may vary" I mean that the idea you put forward that "challenging the left wing narrative gets you banned" is clearly open to debate, given that it's clearly untrue for at least some posters. And for the last section, that's me saying there are some issues too important to be left to daft "left" or "right" political compassing and it's annoying how pretty much every public issue, including those issues, appear to have a political slant these days.

Well, Prussian and a few others appear to not have had that particular difficulty, so I guess your mileage may vary on that one? Is thinking that a fair few matters really should transcend political compassing itself a political position? One for the philosophers, that, I reckon.

Again, only speaking for myself here but for me it's a simple matter of necessity when the world is what it is and the stakes are so high. Pretty much anything that can actually limit the damage the ideology that the current US government embodies is causing is pretty much fair, I think.

Think this applies here.

Most definitely. And, for the purposes of the current discussion, the current US administration has more than enough media that it's cowed into being its mouthpieces for its own deception and subversion of the truth. It would be horrendous if the Beeb were even looking like joining them.

And aren't we seeing so many attempts at that right now... Such are the times we appear to live in.

Thankfully not! Pollock is such a Vardy-type player - shithousery and skill in equal prodigious measure. Great to have.

Hm...ref doing his best to let NZ back into this one, it would appear.

Shades of that famous 2012 game here.

Looks like it could be a cracker of a second half vs the ABs.

I would think a lot of people want a bit more transparency about what happened that day... and the key players on it, as well. So, considering the above, I've just thought of a few more questions. - Why were the people there, if not to interrupt and/or stop the confirmation of the results? - if that wasn't their intent, why were a lot of them headed for the room where there the results were being confirmed with flexicuffs and weaponry? - if Trump really wanted a peaceful proceeding that day, why did he not comment while it was happening? - if he thought what the people did there was wrong, why did he pardon so many of them? - and (connected to a question above) if he really wanted a peaceful transition of power and accepting the loss, why all the talk about a "stolen election" and looking for more votes in Georgia, "stop the count" etc? I'm really looking for a reason to trust the word of Trump over other parties on this matter, given his record of deception and self interest, is there any reason at all to trust him on this? Genuinely interested. And by the by, it's good to see you commenting again. There's been far too much disingenuous deflection going on from people who likely are Trump advocates but for whatever reason don't want to say it out loud. Your honesty about that is refreshing and it's good to see around here once more.

This applies here too. And to add, to my mind the man shouldn't be facing libel issues like this, because he should already be in prison for directly inciting an overthrow of the results of a free and fair election (evidently the friendly US Senate was too afraid of his populist wrath) and for policy decisions representing a threat to a great many people short term and everyone long term. But, as you say, Presidential immunity goes a long way and so it isn't going to happen, so making sure his life ends up uncomfortable in as many smaller ways as possible will have to do.

And at the very least, all the details would have to come out in court. This exact argument can be used in the other direction. If Trump can prove direct dishonesty and defamation and therefore slander in court, the Beeb can certainly prove it the other way round as well.

Then let it be proven in court, and at the same time, prove that what they've done is in fact worse than the vast majority of the other stuff out there and so also prove that Trump, along with a lot of people with a bee in their bonnet about this matter, aren't a bunch of raging hypocrites. There's so much Perfect Solution Fallacy being used as a blunt instrument to justify that hypocrisy on this one it's not even funny.

Was thinking this as well. Popular rumour says that she has a bone to pick with Trump regarding him not backing her for a higher office in her state, so she's taking retribution in this fashion. Unexpected, but useful in it's own way.

Can only speak for myself on this one, but for me it's a matter of looking at practically every other source of news (except for the dry, simple facts ones that only news nerds watch) and then imagining a world where the Beeb is no longer a factor and they have much more control over what they want "truth" to be... and then thinking, quite politely, no fvcking thank you. Edit: also, the nature documentaries alone make it worth it.

Yep, as said before, it's a bit weird. It's ethnonationalism, but clearly valuing the ethno over the nationalism as the movement itself appears rather international in structure. Rather different beast to what's come before.

There's more to this than just Giuffre, naturally. But yes, I agree, full disclosure please. I'm inclined to think that, given what he's said and done on the matter so far, that Trump was heavily involved (much more so than he's saying), but then a lot of other people will have been too.

That's pretty erudite. To be honest I'd be fine with however the solution is framed, simply because that solution has to be supplied. Or very, very bad things happen, to lots of people.

Yes, the group that neither genuinely can afford to buy right now, and for reasons beyond their control, can take none of the options you suggest here. There's more of them than you might think, I reckon. I know that framing things like this purely in terms of personal responsibility feels good because, you know, "I did it so everyone else can and if they can't they're not trying hard enough" Just World Fallacy, but sometimes people do just need a bit of help - as, indeed, you do mention.

Let's take this as read...then what is the solution? I can certainly believe @Leicester_Loyal remarks about smaller landlords being replaced by the bigger corpo ones, and that's not good at all, but the market certainly seems inflated enough for far too many people to be priced out in terms of buying as well. So, what's the way forward that might help with that inequality? Honestly don't know here.

I'd agree with the "most" there, though I would caveat that by saying direct reports on what that man says or does (of which there are quite a few here) are reasonably solid. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c620q30w0q0o Good news, bad news.

Classic bit of deflection. Hopefully it won't succeed. Is there any actual proof that an apolitical organisation has made a political move here, or is this just speculative?