leicsmac

Yep, I had trouble making sense of it when I first saw it too. Informative in the end, though.

I wouldn't say that much myself, but comparatively small beer in the field of corrupt politics (even in the UK), but another thing likely to be made into a mushroom cloud by hypocrites. That being said, it's pretty daft to give those hypocrites the chance to do that in the first place.

GB News with the expected buttock kissing at the White House press briefing, then. Given the events of today, the Beeb really should tell the current US administration to firstly look up the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram for their next response, and secondly to look forward to the next Panorama special focusing exclusively on Epstein and his connections with the higher ups in that same administration.

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/recyclers-switch-from-smelting-to-solvents-recovering-precious-metals-from-e-waste-with-fewer-emissions/ Some decent news first seen on Reuters today.

Pretty much verbatim what the White House is saying, oddly enough.

Unfortunately that man casts a shadow on almost every national level political action in the Anglosphere right now. That's just a sad fact. People can make points about the benefits of this incumbent government and that's fair enough, but if that's actually going to mean anything they're also going to have to point out how they're not the best of a very poor bunch at the moment.

Just to clarify, Reform clearly are a "viable" option, it's just that them in charge would be a net negative for almost everyone short term and definitely everyone long term.

I mean that a change of government to a more, shall we say, Trump-like populist one in 2029 (or earlier) will in all likelihood cause a great deal of harm for those future generations in the name of the short term self interest of a few. As I said, they'd better be in a forgiving mood, given what we might leave them.

Certainly seems that way. Here's hoping that future generations are in a forgiving mood regarding the decisions made as a result.

The poll numbers don't lie, that's for sure. And then the question becomes how much of that grievance resulting in the dip is genuine, and how much of it is skillfully manufactured consent.

Or they are at least equally likely to exploit them while offering them a better quid pro quo than the Western countries have. But the work on this particular matter is very much ongoing and there's a lot of it still to do.

It's a tricky one. In principle, people should have the freedom to pick and choose what media they pay for. However, I think at least a single source of reportage that is not subject to commercial pressure (and therefore not beholden to telling people what they want to hear rather than the truth) is vital for any society.

I'm saying that the policy platform of both the Conservatives and Reform UK are categorically, empirically worse for the populace of the UK as a whole in several critical areas. That's not difficult to prove IMO. If a decent counterargument can be thought of, I'd be happy to hear it. Of course, that does leave the ideas of both there being no viable options in the minds of many, or a different person from within Labour leading, either of which is fair enough.

It's just unfortunate that every viable other option is worse in terms of policy - certainly long term and probably short term as well. Such are the times we apparently live in.

Yep. They've played the long game and they likely will be rewarded with a position at the head of the table because of it. The only question is whether they can (or will) help enough of the rest of the world on this matter when the time comes (which it, in essence, already has).

... and when they lie well enough to convince enough people that they are speaking truth, and put that into policy with all the associated consequences? And when things go wrong, they lie again and people buy it because their manipulation is that good? Where is the accountability then?

To be honest, that post is hardly unique in this situation. I'm still waiting to hear a cogent argument from anyone wanting to see the Beeb heavily punished regarding the vital wider context here and what it would mean if truth became simply a matter of the highest bidder or the smoothest talker or the biggest bully, rather than what actually is.

It is indeed. Gramsci was right about the "time of monsters". But if we come through the interregnum, and better times are possible - probable, in fact. Unfortunately there are so many ways that can go wrong, so many people looking to steer in that wrong direction for the sake of their own short term self interest, and only a few ways to get it right.

You might be right, but given the ascendancy of such thought (as evidenced by current UK polling figures) and the consequences of them taking hold for too long, I'm inclined to take any such sentiments seriously and challenge them whenever they occur.

Still waiting. No rush, but an answer or a straight rebuttal would be appreciated.

You can't, but then those who would engage in and excuse these acts have simply pivoted to the idea of "fake news" and the subversion of the very idea of truth in order to discredit such sources and so keep on as they wish, engaging in their often bigoted abuses of power. And, regrettably, in a number of places, that idea is winning. Which is dire for everyone.

On the general topic of fake news and truth being subverted: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn51pn74l23o An example where the cost of lies and ignorance is at best heavy, and at worst absolute.

Then please do, as has been politely requested more than once.

That bit was mostly tongue in cheek, hence the emoji. I'm still interested in a different perspective on the wider matter described above, though.

There's something in that, too. The Beeb should probably tell him they'll see him in court. (And, when they do, for the sake of full disclosure ask for any and all records he has concerning Epstein. )