Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 3:49 pm
Where's the white-on-white rioting? Let's have some consistency from the far-right, please!
Tough one for the police. Ideally they shouldn't need to release the ethnic or immigration status of a suspect with such rapidity. Who else would need that other than bigots looking for an excuse to smash things? It puts them in a bind if the next homicidal maniac is from a minority. But the police don't really have the luxury of taking the long-term view given what happened last summer.
Whether anyone would really be so quick to riot now given the instant sentencing delivered last year is another question. I predict the next lot of rioters will be heavily masked.
And social media continues to go to new lows, as a photograph and name are circulated online, identifying the driver as Peter Cunningham from Huyton in Liverpool... except that's not the person in police custody or a picture of him, that's somebody who is entirely unconnected to the incident and is now in fear for his life and his children's lives in case some vigilante comes after him.
That’s shyte and I would like those who spread false rumours to experience some kind of slap for that. This is the utter problem with social media which just doesn’t follow the editorial rules that the traditional media did.
It's not social or media at times, just the racist pub bore being allowed to spread toxic shite as far as he (and sometimes she) wants to.
It's disappointing that noone has the stomach to regulate it, or at least legislate for some lesser offences than obvious incitement
And, obviously, some sort of severe penalty on the platforms for allowing and publishing material that literally ruins lives.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 3:49 pm
Where's the white-on-white rioting? Let's have some consistency from the far-right, please!
Tough one for the police. Ideally they shouldn't need to release the ethnic or immigration status of a suspect with such rapidity. Who else would need that other than bigots looking for an excuse to smash things? It puts them in a bind if the next homicidal maniac is from a minority. But the police don't really have the luxury of taking the long-term view given what happened last summer.
Whether anyone would really be so quick to riot now given the instant sentencing delivered last year is another question. I predict the next lot of rioters will be heavily masked.
And social media continues to go to new lows, as a photograph and name are circulated online, identifying the driver as Peter Cunningham from Huyton in Liverpool... except that's not the person in police custody or a picture of him, that's somebody who is entirely unconnected to the incident and is now in fear for his life and his children's lives in case some vigilante comes after him.
What kind of deficient human being starts a rumour like that?
It reminds me of years ago when when some total dick persecuted an innocent woman because he thought she was Maxine Carr living under a different identity.
The problem is that every step is probably innocent. Some people are in a conversation doing amateur detective work and find some clue that points towards this guy. It ends up in some kind of public forum with a "Hey, this is possible but to be clear I'm nowhere near 100% sure" - that then gets shared to somewhere else as, "Look what this person thinks is possible," and then shared again as, "This website says it could be him," then shared again as, "This source says they've identified the killer," then shared again as, "This is the person the police have in custody."
I don't know that you can really arrest that process, as that's humanity in a nutshell and no-one's really doing anything deliberate (usually). What you can do is moderate the social media: downgrade the reach of people and orgs who accidentally spread incorrect info regularly, ban those that do it deliberately, seek out what's trending and check its veracity, be responsive to requests to remove misinformation and active in actually blatting it, set in place and police rules about mentioning and targetting individuals, make hate speech and racism banned language on the platform, and generally discourage Nazis. Unfortunately the people in charge of all the platforms have no interest in doing that because you have to hire people to do that which is bad for the profit margins, hatred and controversy is good for the profit margins, and shyster politicians will give tax breaks if you promote them which is good for the profit margins. And heavens forfend that Zuckerberg should have to somehow scrape by with $220.99bn rather than $221bn - that would be unconscionable.
NB - this following bit is for the example of how misinformation grows, as it's a good example and I found what I learned about how this 'fact' coalesced into being and mutated through repetition to be interesting, in a horrifying sort of way (like watching bacteria grow on a petri dish). I am very specifically not inviting a debate about the topic of the misinformation, both because it's against board rules to do so and also because I don't particularly want to. DM me if you absolutely must comment on the topic rather than the discussion of how bullshit on the internet happens.
I experienced this in an argument on another platform, where someone confidently asserted "Official UN research into trans athletes says that trans women have won over 9,000 medals in women's sport." I looked, and this 'fact' is everywhere on the internet, but if you trace it back to its beginning, practically every word in the sentence is incorrect - it's not "UN research" but a letter that someone wrote to the UN, the number referenced in the letter was 900 not 9,000, the letter wasn't talking about 'medals won' but "costing biological women the opportunity of 900 medals", and it turns out the original source of that number (via a few links of the chain not worth reporting on here) came from a TERF website which crowdsources information by asking people to report when they think a trans woman is a medalist in something - those reports are anonymous, unverified, and unchecked, so quite a lot of the "trans medals" reported were actually where there was a cis-women that someone on the internet thought looked too unfeminine while doing a sport. Oh, and both "women's" and "sport" were questionable as well, as said website included mixed-gender events, plus counted medals in things like hot-dog eating contests!
It was fascinating to trace it back (and I was lucky that people cited their sources so well so that I could) - practically every single word in the sentence was incorrect because it had morphed along the way from "this hotdog-eating champion in the womens' category looks a bit butch for my liking" to "Official UN research" and you could follow every step along the way if you cared to, but because various people are making a profit from it, it's now everywhere on the internet and casually referenced by newspapers as an established fact.
Puja
ETA. Here's a more fun example - Kurzgesagt (amusing science-explainy youtube channel) getting asked for a source for the factoid of "If you took a human's blood vessels out of their body and laid them out in a line, you'd be arrested and they'd make true-crime documentaries about you, you monster they would be 100,000km long, which is enough to stretch twice around the circumference of Earth!" and discovering that they didn't actually have one - it was just **known**. The video's 10 minutes long (you can ignore the last 3 minutes of ads!), but it's easy-watching and very interesting to see how they tried to track down where that 'fact' originally came from and whether it's correct or not.
Puja wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 10:36 am
The problem is that every step is probably innocent. Some people are in a conversation doing amateur detective work and find some clue that points towards this guy. It ends up in some kind of public forum with a "Hey, this is possible but to be clear I'm nowhere near 100% sure" - that then gets shared to somewhere else as, "Look what this person thinks is possible," and then shared again as, "This website says it could be him," then shared again as, "This source says they've identified the killer," then shared again as, "This is the person the police have in custody."
.....
ETA. Here's a more fun example - Kurzgesagt (amusing science-explainy youtube channel) getting asked for a source for the factoid of "If you took a human's blood vessels out of their body and laid them out in a line, you'd be arrested and they'd make true-crime documentaries about you, you monster they would be 100,000km long, which is enough to stretch twice around the circumference of Earth!" and discovering that they didn't actually have one - it was just **known**. The video's 10 minutes long (you can ignore the last 3 minutes of ads!), but it's easy-watching and very interesting to see how they tried to track down where that 'fact' originally came from and whether it's correct or not.
As for the naming and framing of an innocent man, I think you may be being a bit lenient on those involved. While there may well be a number of innocent steps in the process, it at the very least involved some recklessness (extreme recklessness, given the subject matter) to name anyone at all, if not actual maliciousness.
Puja wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 11:07 amThe last one is most worrying - populists thrive on credibility and momentum. If he's the funny protest vote, then people will be discouraged because "he can't win, so it's a wasted vote." However, there's a tipping point at which he gains enough coverage and good enough results that people start to think of him as the de facto opponent to Labour and then things all start rolling downhill. Instead of "shy Reform voters" where people think they're scattered individuals who will be viewed as radical and extreme and keep away because of shame or fear of "wasting your vote", it'll become a normalised opposition to the government and, as people hear other people supporting Reform, more and more moderate people will feel comfortable "lending their vote" to Reform, because everyone else is doing it, so it's a reasonable and socially okay option. And then, pretty soon, it'll be the only option if you are against the government, because now it's voting for the Conservatives that's the wasted vote. Labour would have to start responding to his bloviations directly, which then lends him even more credibility, and accelerates the process.
Oh good. This has started happening already. I'm not concerned at all.
Puja wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 11:07 amThe last one is most worrying - populists thrive on credibility and momentum. If he's the funny protest vote, then people will be discouraged because "he can't win, so it's a wasted vote." However, there's a tipping point at which he gains enough coverage and good enough results that people start to think of him as the de facto opponent to Labour and then things all start rolling downhill. Instead of "shy Reform voters" where people think they're scattered individuals who will be viewed as radical and extreme and keep away because of shame or fear of "wasting your vote", it'll become a normalised opposition to the government and, as people hear other people supporting Reform, more and more moderate people will feel comfortable "lending their vote" to Reform, because everyone else is doing it, so it's a reasonable and socially okay option. And then, pretty soon, it'll be the only option if you are against the government, because now it's voting for the Conservatives that's the wasted vote. Labour would have to start responding to his bloviations directly, which then lends him even more credibility, and accelerates the process.
Oh good. This has started happening already. I'm not concerned at all.
Puja
I'm going to have to ask you to stop invoking the monkey's paw, Pujadamus
I mean, what other kind of trade deal would we expect from our no values Prime Minister?
Puja
Man, I'm glad I'm not alone in being a reasonable chap (I think so anyway) that detests Keir and his actions, without being Owen Jones. Even Cameron could claim gay marriage as a win, I've yet to see anything from the lawyer. (Counsel, but whatever)
I mean, what other kind of trade deal would we expect from our no values Prime Minister?
Puja
Man, I'm glad I'm not alone in being a reasonable chap (I think so anyway) that detests Keir and his actions, without being Owen Jones. Even Cameron could claim gay marriage as a win, I've yet to see anything from the lawyer. (Counsel, but whatever)
And all for 0.1% of GDP over ten years, which is 0.01% per annum, ie a rounding error in the budget.
I mean, what other kind of trade deal would we expect from our no values Prime Minister?
Puja
Man, I'm glad I'm not alone in being a reasonable chap (I think so anyway) that detests Keir and his actions, without being Owen Jones. Even Cameron could claim gay marriage as a win, I've yet to see anything from the lawyer. (Counsel, but whatever)
Starmer is the epitome of a Straw Man. In fact, nearly an anagram. Such a condescending self righteous prick as well.
I mean, what other kind of trade deal would we expect from our no values Prime Minister?
Puja
Man, I'm glad I'm not alone in being a reasonable chap (I think so anyway) that detests Keir and his actions, without being Owen Jones. Even Cameron could claim gay marriage as a win, I've yet to see anything from the lawyer. (Counsel, but whatever)
And all for 0.1% of GDP over ten years, which is 0.01% per annum, ie a rounding error in the budget.
Yep, it's a photo op and a headline, both of which are horrible. The man is political kryptonite
Puja wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 10:36 am
The problem is that every step is probably innocent. Some people are in a conversation doing amateur detective work and find some clue that points towards this guy. It ends up in some kind of public forum with a "Hey, this is possible but to be clear I'm nowhere near 100% sure" - that then gets shared to somewhere else as, "Look what this person thinks is possible," and then shared again as, "This website says it could be him," then shared again as, "This source says they've identified the killer," then shared again as, "This is the person the police have in custody."
I don't know that you can really arrest that process, as that's humanity in a nutshell and no-one's really doing anything deliberate (usually). What you can do is moderate the social media: downgrade the reach of people and orgs who accidentally spread incorrect info regularly, ban those that do it deliberately, seek out what's trending and check its veracity, be responsive to requests to remove misinformation and active in actually blatting it, set in place and police rules about mentioning and targetting individuals, make hate speech and racism banned language on the platform, and generally discourage Nazis. Unfortunately the people in charge of all the platforms have no interest in doing that because you have to hire people to do that which is bad for the profit margins, hatred and controversy is good for the profit margins, and shyster politicians will give tax breaks if you promote them which is good for the profit margins. And heavens forfend that Zuckerberg should have to somehow scrape by with $220.99bn rather than $221bn - that would be unconscionable.
NB - this following bit is for the example of how misinformation grows, as it's a good example and I found what I learned about how this 'fact' coalesced into being and mutated through repetition to be interesting, in a horrifying sort of way (like watching bacteria grow on a petri dish). I am very specifically not inviting a debate about the topic of the misinformation, both because it's against board rules to do so and also because I don't particularly want to. DM me if you absolutely must comment on the topic rather than the discussion of how bullshit on the internet happens.
I experienced this in an argument on another platform, where someone confidently asserted "Official UN research into trans athletes says that trans women have won over 9,000 medals in women's sport." I looked, and this 'fact' is everywhere on the internet, but if you trace it back to its beginning, practically every word in the sentence is incorrect - it's not "UN research" but a letter that someone wrote to the UN, the number referenced in the letter was 900 not 9,000, the letter wasn't talking about 'medals won' but "costing biological women the opportunity of 900 medals", and it turns out the original source of that number (via a few links of the chain not worth reporting on here) came from a TERF website which crowdsources information by asking people to report when they think a trans woman is a medalist in something - those reports are anonymous, unverified, and unchecked, so quite a lot of the "trans medals" reported were actually where there was a cis-women that someone on the internet thought looked too unfeminine while doing a sport. Oh, and both "women's" and "sport" were questionable as well, as said website included mixed-gender events, plus counted medals in things like hot-dog eating contests!
It was fascinating to trace it back (and I was lucky that people cited their sources so well so that I could) - practically every single word in the sentence was incorrect because it had morphed along the way from "this hotdog-eating champion in the womens' category looks a bit butch for my liking" to "Official UN research" and you could follow every step along the way if you cared to, but because various people are making a profit from it, it's now everywhere on the internet and casually referenced by newspapers as an established fact.
Puja
ETA. Here's a more fun example - Kurzgesagt (amusing science-explainy youtube channel) getting asked for a source for the factoid of "If you took a human's blood vessels out of their body and laid them out in a line, you'd be arrested and they'd make true-crime documentaries about you, you monster they would be 100,000km long, which is enough to stretch twice around the circumference of Earth!" and discovering that they didn't actually have one - it was just **known**. The video's 10 minutes long (you can ignore the last 3 minutes of ads!), but it's easy-watching and very interesting to see how they tried to track down where that 'fact' originally came from and whether it's correct or not.
The only way is to regulate the platforms. Which would need global agreement so won’t happen. But whilst I largely agree that it’s probably a succession of steps mostly innocent, ts something that could be picked up on by a platform and stopped. If that process played out on this board, what would our responsibility be if a falsely accused person was lynched? I’d like to think we would have some accountability if we didn’t react to something like that.
Puja wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 10:36 am
The problem is that every step is probably innocent. Some people are in a conversation doing amateur detective work and find some clue that points towards this guy. It ends up in some kind of public forum with a "Hey, this is possible but to be clear I'm nowhere near 100% sure" - that then gets shared to somewhere else as, "Look what this person thinks is possible," and then shared again as, "This website says it could be him," then shared again as, "This source says they've identified the killer," then shared again as, "This is the person the police have in custody."
I don't know that you can really arrest that process, as that's humanity in a nutshell and no-one's really doing anything deliberate (usually). What you can do is moderate the social media: downgrade the reach of people and orgs who accidentally spread incorrect info regularly, ban those that do it deliberately, seek out what's trending and check its veracity, be responsive to requests to remove misinformation and active in actually blatting it, set in place and police rules about mentioning and targetting individuals, make hate speech and racism banned language on the platform, and generally discourage Nazis. Unfortunately the people in charge of all the platforms have no interest in doing that because you have to hire people to do that which is bad for the profit margins, hatred and controversy is good for the profit margins, and shyster politicians will give tax breaks if you promote them which is good for the profit margins. And heavens forfend that Zuckerberg should have to somehow scrape by with $220.99bn rather than $221bn - that would be unconscionable.
NB - this following bit is for the example of how misinformation grows, as it's a good example and I found what I learned about how this 'fact' coalesced into being and mutated through repetition to be interesting, in a horrifying sort of way (like watching bacteria grow on a petri dish). I am very specifically not inviting a debate about the topic of the misinformation, both because it's against board rules to do so and also because I don't particularly want to. DM me if you absolutely must comment on the topic rather than the discussion of how bullshit on the internet happens.
I experienced this in an argument on another platform, where someone confidently asserted "Official UN research into trans athletes says that trans women have won over 9,000 medals in women's sport." I looked, and this 'fact' is everywhere on the internet, but if you trace it back to its beginning, practically every word in the sentence is incorrect - it's not "UN research" but a letter that someone wrote to the UN, the number referenced in the letter was 900 not 9,000, the letter wasn't talking about 'medals won' but "costing biological women the opportunity of 900 medals", and it turns out the original source of that number (via a few links of the chain not worth reporting on here) came from a TERF website which crowdsources information by asking people to report when they think a trans woman is a medalist in something - those reports are anonymous, unverified, and unchecked, so quite a lot of the "trans medals" reported were actually where there was a cis-women that someone on the internet thought looked too unfeminine while doing a sport. Oh, and both "women's" and "sport" were questionable as well, as said website included mixed-gender events, plus counted medals in things like hot-dog eating contests!
It was fascinating to trace it back (and I was lucky that people cited their sources so well so that I could) - practically every single word in the sentence was incorrect because it had morphed along the way from "this hotdog-eating champion in the womens' category looks a bit butch for my liking" to "Official UN research" and you could follow every step along the way if you cared to, but because various people are making a profit from it, it's now everywhere on the internet and casually referenced by newspapers as an established fact.
Puja
ETA. Here's a more fun example - Kurzgesagt (amusing science-explainy youtube channel) getting asked for a source for the factoid of "If you took a human's blood vessels out of their body and laid them out in a line, you'd be arrested and they'd make true-crime documentaries about you, you monster they would be 100,000km long, which is enough to stretch twice around the circumference of Earth!" and discovering that they didn't actually have one - it was just **known**. The video's 10 minutes long (you can ignore the last 3 minutes of ads!), but it's easy-watching and very interesting to see how they tried to track down where that 'fact' originally came from and whether it's correct or not.
The only way is to regulate the platforms. Which would need global agreement so won’t happen. But whilst I largely agree that it’s probably a succession of steps mostly innocent, ts something that could be picked up on by a platform and stopped. If that process played out on this board, what would our responsibility be if a falsely accused person was lynched? I’d like to think we would have some accountability if we didn’t react to something like that.
Worryingly, there's an element of the Online Safety Bill that could make forum operators liable for the content posted. Which would kill this place and a number of other places I like because the risk just wouldn't be worthwhile.
Puja wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 10:36 am
The problem is that every step is probably innocent. Some people are in a conversation doing amateur detective work and find some clue that points towards this guy. It ends up in some kind of public forum with a "Hey, this is possible but to be clear I'm nowhere near 100% sure" - that then gets shared to somewhere else as, "Look what this person thinks is possible," and then shared again as, "This website says it could be him," then shared again as, "This source says they've identified the killer," then shared again as, "This is the person the police have in custody."
I don't know that you can really arrest that process, as that's humanity in a nutshell and no-one's really doing anything deliberate (usually). What you can do is moderate the social media: downgrade the reach of people and orgs who accidentally spread incorrect info regularly, ban those that do it deliberately, seek out what's trending and check its veracity, be responsive to requests to remove misinformation and active in actually blatting it, set in place and police rules about mentioning and targetting individuals, make hate speech and racism banned language on the platform, and generally discourage Nazis. Unfortunately the people in charge of all the platforms have no interest in doing that because you have to hire people to do that which is bad for the profit margins, hatred and controversy is good for the profit margins, and shyster politicians will give tax breaks if you promote them which is good for the profit margins. And heavens forfend that Zuckerberg should have to somehow scrape by with $220.99bn rather than $221bn - that would be unconscionable.
NB - this following bit is for the example of how misinformation grows, as it's a good example and I found what I learned about how this 'fact' coalesced into being and mutated through repetition to be interesting, in a horrifying sort of way (like watching bacteria grow on a petri dish). I am very specifically not inviting a debate about the topic of the misinformation, both because it's against board rules to do so and also because I don't particularly want to. DM me if you absolutely must comment on the topic rather than the discussion of how bullshit on the internet happens.
I experienced this in an argument on another platform, where someone confidently asserted "Official UN research into trans athletes says that trans women have won over 9,000 medals in women's sport." I looked, and this 'fact' is everywhere on the internet, but if you trace it back to its beginning, practically every word in the sentence is incorrect - it's not "UN research" but a letter that someone wrote to the UN, the number referenced in the letter was 900 not 9,000, the letter wasn't talking about 'medals won' but "costing biological women the opportunity of 900 medals", and it turns out the original source of that number (via a few links of the chain not worth reporting on here) came from a TERF website which crowdsources information by asking people to report when they think a trans woman is a medalist in something - those reports are anonymous, unverified, and unchecked, so quite a lot of the "trans medals" reported were actually where there was a cis-women that someone on the internet thought looked too unfeminine while doing a sport. Oh, and both "women's" and "sport" were questionable as well, as said website included mixed-gender events, plus counted medals in things like hot-dog eating contests!
It was fascinating to trace it back (and I was lucky that people cited their sources so well so that I could) - practically every single word in the sentence was incorrect because it had morphed along the way from "this hotdog-eating champion in the womens' category looks a bit butch for my liking" to "Official UN research" and you could follow every step along the way if you cared to, but because various people are making a profit from it, it's now everywhere on the internet and casually referenced by newspapers as an established fact.
Puja
ETA. Here's a more fun example - Kurzgesagt (amusing science-explainy youtube channel) getting asked for a source for the factoid of "If you took a human's blood vessels out of their body and laid them out in a line, you'd be arrested and they'd make true-crime documentaries about you, you monster they would be 100,000km long, which is enough to stretch twice around the circumference of Earth!" and discovering that they didn't actually have one - it was just **known**. The video's 10 minutes long (you can ignore the last 3 minutes of ads!), but it's easy-watching and very interesting to see how they tried to track down where that 'fact' originally came from and whether it's correct or not.
The only way is to regulate the platforms. Which would need global agreement so won’t happen. But whilst I largely agree that it’s probably a succession of steps mostly innocent, ts something that could be picked up on by a platform and stopped. If that process played out on this board, what would our responsibility be if a falsely accused person was lynched? I’d like to think we would have some accountability if we didn’t react to something like that.
Worryingly, there's an element of the Online Safety Bill that could make forum operators liable for the content posted. Which would kill this place and a number of other places I like because the risk just wouldn't be worthwhile.
As always, the few spoil it for the rest of us.
Agreed, that would be a huge concern for any social media site.
Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
Starmer is barely near the centre imo with all the pandering about immigration, defence and his own take on Rivers of Blood. I'll never vote for them again. It's not that relevant where I am anyway (military town, so very blue) but I think I'm Greens for life now
Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
Starmer is barely near the centre imo with all the pandering about immigration, defence and his own take on Rivers of Blood. I'll never vote for them again. It's not that relevant where I am anyway (military town, so very blue) but I think I'm Greens for life now
Agreed, that's how I feel about the parties now. But Starmer could go and Labour could get more left wing (best hope is Clive Lewis, I think), so I haven't completely given up on them. In fact, despite Starmer's heavy lean to the right, I think Labour is (under different leadership) the only realistic hope for left wing government in the UK.
Till then though, Greens. And if the Greens ever looked like they had a real shot or we had PR I'd probably always vote for them.
Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?
I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.
ts something that could be picked up on by a platform and stopped. If that process played out on this board, what would our responsibility be if a falsely accused person was lynched? I’d like to think we would have some accountability if we didn’t react to something like that.