leicsmac

Possibly so, independent verification would of course be nice however the facts about the blockade stand for themselves and further distractions may at least offer a chance for something like this to be done (again).

Another bit of positive news is that thanks to the distraction posed by the flotilla, at least some Gazans were able to go out in their boats and fish. On that note, how inhumane is it that the blockade stops them even reaching a subsistence level of getting food on that score anyway?

To add a further reason why our names are going to be mud, Google "Planned Obsolescence" and despair.

There's only two ways to solve the immigration conundrum: - be a part and make steps on the geopolitical and environmental issues that cause people to migrate in the first instance - vastly reduce immigration with strict enforcement and accept the death and suffering of a truly massive amount of people that goes with it If there's a third option, I'd be happy to hear it.

To add to the discussion and responses since this post which I broadly agree with, Reform would also look to reduce migration while contributing wholesale to a number of global matters that would keep the numbers of migrants high or flat-out increase them to truly gargantuan proportions. The irony would be really funny were the stakes not so high and the consequences not so dire.

I fvcking hope so.

The only comfort I can offer there is that their reign, should they take it, will be nasty, brutish and short. The Earth will see to their fate.

And isn't that the damn truth, more's the pity. It's a difficult balance to strike but I don't see what other choice there is but to try.

Agreed, and I'm suspicious of those who would use that suspicion to be intolerant and generalise themselves. The whole thing is a bloody mess (often very bloody), but either the civilised world takes on the responsibility of at least getting things to a stage where the killing is lessened or this will keep on happening. Same goes for other matters with global reach, too.

Anyhow, for something a little different, a little international news digest: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pmy7m72lo Why is it when some women arise to positions of high political power, it's a case of "doing whatever the men can do as long as you only do what the men do" and not really advancing women's rights at all? https://news.sky.com/story/south-korean-anti-foreigner-protests-self-destructive-and-must-end-says-president-13442582 And xenophobic ideas still maintain hold in quite a few places, too.

It does indeed. But then these events will keep on occurring. So what to do?

In a time when there's so much inhumanity we hear about, it's good to have some examples of humans actually showing they can be better. Definitely emotional.

Edit: OP was removed so saved mods the trouble with this one.

Yep. Exactly as the magnificent Sir Terry wrote on the matter. The problem is not any one demographic - it's the malign among them all.

As much as this argument is understandable, I have to ask - why not? The UK does not exist in a geopolitical vacuum and some events that happen elsewhere do matter and do play into events in the UK. To ignore that, while avoiding that deep complexity mentioned, is to not only not grasp a large part of the story, but also possibly to miss key elements to prevent terrible events like this from happening again. The world is a smaller place now, some issues are global, and not treating them as such, while more comfortable for some people, will just allow those issues to snowball into something worse.

My point exactly. And other groups are rather closer to institutionalising such ideas in the UK in their own image than they are.

It's all so needless. And not only that, but also inimical to our progress and survival as a civilisation and species. A further inconvenient truth is that those groups and individuals, while a big threat in terms of incidents caused, are among the furthest away from actually achieving their political objectives and causing their brand of lunacy to be institutionalised in the UK. Other groups with similar nefarious aims are, sad to say, rather closer. I guess it comes down to whether the beholder thinks the individual incident or the less common but eventual monolithic and absolute threat is more dangerous.

Depends how many literate people there are around afterwards and whether many people will have the time to read them

Elon Musk happened, and allowed neofascists the run of the farm on Twitter in the name of "free speech". WRT the UK, I think it's a matter of record that there's always been prejudices, both institutional and otherwise. Things have gotten better in the last couple of decades, but recent events show how easy for such progress to be lost.

Ah, I see, thanks. Yes, as you say, division and tension really help no one who needs the help. Honestly, every time events like this crop up, I'm reminded of the way Terry Pratchett superbly depicted an equivalent in the book Thud. "Now, there were too many dwarfs and trolls – no, mental correction, the city had been enriched by vibrant, growing communities of dwarfs and trolls – and there was more . . . yes, call it venom in the air. Too much ancient politics, too many chips handed down from shoulder to shoulder." "...It hadn’t always been like this. Things had loosened up a lot in the last ten years or so. Dwarfs and trolls as races would never be chums, but the city stirred them together and it had seemed to Vimes that they had managed to get along with no more than surface abrasions. Now the melting pot was full of lumps again." “...For the enemy is not Troll, nor it is Dwarf, but it is the baleful, the malign, the cowardly, the vessels of hatred, those who do a bad thing and call it good.” He depicted real life matters in a fantasy universe better than almost anyone. Especially the part where the rich and powerful are perfectly fine with stoking such divisions when it serves their own self interest.

Is there a particular example that's brought this on this morning? Intrigued.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo The Conservatives have pledged to scrap the UK's landmark climate change legislation and replace it with a strategy for "cheap and reliable" energy. The Climate Change Act 2008, which put targets for cutting emissions into law, was introduced by the last Labour government and strengthened under Tory PM Theresa May. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said her party wanted to leave "a cleaner environment for our children" but argued "Labour's laws tied us in red tape, loaded us with costs, and did nothing to cut global emissions". It's unfortunate that the Conservatives are looking to follow Reform in terms of destructive short sighted gain at the expense of the future.

And it's interesting to read references to cognitive dissonance as if tens of thousands of innocent people haven't been kille- sorry, "collateral damage that will be investigated" in the past two years. People want to pick a side, that's fine, but if they want to claim clean(er) hands either way, that's a big claim.

While I understand the argument here, it can be (and sometimes is) extrapolated to any dataset and therefore any conclusion derived from it whatsoever. And we're already seeing the consequences when that thought is applied to some areas of policymaking that rely on such datasets. "No one is invalidated, but no one is right..." "... and that's the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper." At some point, people are going to have to take at least some numbers and how they're arrived at on faith and trust the action made because of them. The alternative ends very, very badly - inevitably, and in short order.

And unfortunately that appears to be merely one of a number of matters where ineffective messaging combined with either "innocent" or wilful ignorance has led or is leading to undesirable consequences.