Britain - The Official Thread

[Liquid]

I wonder why the Heil isn't focusing on Welby's relationship with King Charles, Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Strange.

 

[Sprite]

Armed with that information, is 3 years and 4 months appropriate when you have no jail time for this guy:

Yeh

I assume you’re discounting…

• Made £15k selling illegally modified streaming devices (Amazon Firesticks) to over 500 people.
• Had previous convictions for fraud.
• Was on license at the time of the offense (probation is a term people outside the UK may know better).
• After serving three years for dealing cocaine.

You’re really so far down a **** covered rabbit hole you know long can see which way is up.

I’m actually starting to pitty you and getting concerned for your mental well-being. You seem to live in a world dominated by negative media which is spun on purpose to draw people with nothing but anger or hate deep within and try and draw it to the surface.

Then as others have pointed out you lay this as a foundation to a good talking point to get your thoughts across. Then when you’re asked to act in better faith and provide other sources of information or take into account other details which debunk or at least show other reasoning you just blindly lead on.

I take back my statement of “tantamount to trolling” and I put fourth you are trolling.

Sad really as you seemed like quite an impassioned and clever person.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yeh

I assume you’re discounting…

So, what we have presently is a massive prison crisis where some prisons are down to hardly any space left for new inmates. People who are involved with the system are looking at the Netherlands and Texas (as examples) for ideas on how to fix it, with things like better technology being mooted as well as reduced sentencing for some offences (both those examples have seen a reduction in prisoners per capita; Texas has also seen a reduction in the crime rate).

You’re really so far down a **** covered rabbit hole you know long can see which way is up.

I’m actually starting to pitty you and getting concerned for your mental well-being. You seem to live in a world dominated by negative media which is spun on purpose to draw people with nothing but anger or hate deep within and try and draw it to the surface.

So far, I've been using BBC Radio 4, LBC, The Times, Twitter, Reddit, New Statesman, Prospect, Vox, Unherd, Mirror, Daily Mail, Guardian, Independent among others to keep abreast of current UK/international affairs. What do you recommend adding?

It's very, very hard to ignore issues which is what you seem to be suggesting....

The head-in-the-sand approach is tempting but not really my bag.

Then as others have pointed out you lay this as a foundation to a good talking point to get your thoughts across. Then when you’re asked to act in better faith and provide other sources of information or take into account other details which debunk or at least show other reasoning you just blindly lead on.

I take back my statement of “tantamount to trolling” and I put fourth you are trolling.

The problem is....we're still discussing "me" and not producing productive discussion. It's very narrowly focussed and if we don't move on, what's the point of posting?

Sad really as you seemed like quite an impassioned and clever person.

Definitely passionate about improving the country/preventing a Trumpian response from the electorate. Not sure about "clever".

 

[Scaff]

The problem is....we're still discussing "me" and not producing productive discussion.

So close to getting it...

 

[HenrySwanson]

OK, I get it, I'm abrasive at times.

But the truth needs to be told.

Your, ResetEra's and other's bubbles are losing.

It's not a crime if you're ripping off rich dudes, right? The guy's virtually Robin Hood with a coke straw. Let's concentrate on asylum seekers receiving private healthcare instead. They obviously don't deserve it and Trafford council must be lying if they say it isn't happening.

At least the red meat portion of my diet is fully covered for today. We should all be more outraged.

/s

You guys have completely neglected to post his defence:

Julian Nutter, defending, said: "The background is he had lost his employment in a restaurant as a result of the Covid emergency, and he had been doing this on an ad hoc basis, but nothing like what it became, and after he lost his job he used this to maintain his family. There are two children, aged nine and 12.

"He was taking far too much cannabis and he was not his normal self. He was a bottom feeder and not some exotic big fish. He was operating from his own home, and this was not a sophisticated business scheme. There was none of the trappings of a proper business enterprise."

He added: "Whether of not he made a significant profit is an issue which is raised. The point should be made on his behalf that the people who would buy his products would not be people who are likely to have the money to buy a Sky subscription. They have limited income. The people he would be been dealing with in the Merseyside area would hardly be the same as toffs in London who would have money coming in from the city. He was providing a service to people who would probably not be able to afford it otherwise. There's an element of a Robin Hood to all that."

He said Edge was "a rather wretched individual who has got out of his depth".

The media?

Dad jailed for selling 'dodgy Fire Sticks’ to stream Premier League football compared himself to 'Robin Hood'

A father-of-two has been jailed for selling “dodgy” Amazon Fire Sticks that illegally streamed Premier League football matches to users across the country.

www.lbc.co.uk

Dad who sold 'dodgy firesticks' that stream Premier League jailed for 3 years

A DAD-of-two who was jailed for selling “dodgy” Firesticks that streamed Premier League matches said he was “helping the poor like Robin hood”. Jonathan Edge, 29, from …

www.thesun.co.uk

The comments? Over a thousand on the DM:

Father jailed for illicit streaming with 'dodgy' Firesticks

Jonathan Edge, 29, (pictured) from Liverpool, was remanded in custody at the end of last month and sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court today after pleading guilty to three offences.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Who do you think Joe Public is gonna listen to? Who do you think they'll relate to?

You're free to disagree with my conclusions on the sentence within the wider context of the justice system and its role in society. But saying I need to conform to your worldview is rather silly and counter-productive. Remember the Notting Hill Carnival debacle? Why would I change my opinion on that? It's ridiculous.

 

[Liquid]

Who do you think Joe Public is gonna listen to? Who do you think they'll relate to?

Does that mean they're right?

 

[Famine]

But saying I need to conform to your worldview is rather silly and counter-productive.

Interpreting what has been said of your chicanery as that is insane, given that the whole problem with your discussion "technique" is to misrepresent what's been said to you and throw the victim card.

I thought that a couple of weeks off to reflect on why you lie about what other people say to you and to grow up would have helped.

 

[UKMikey]

He probably just went off and found another bubble to amplify his rage during his vacation instead.

 

[Scaff]

OK, I get it, I'm abrasive at times.

Not the issue, once again the point has flown over you at SR-71 levels

The comments? Over a thousand on the DM:

The comments section at the Mail, that's your appeal?

But saying I need to conform to your worldview is rather silly and counter-productive.

Literally no one has said that at all.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Definitely passionate about improving the country/preventing a Trumpian response from the electorate.

.. by advocating for justice based on the Daily Mail comments section.

Utterly stupid.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Interpreting what has been said of your chicanery as that is insane, given that the whole problem with your discussion "technique" is to misrepresent what's been said to you and throw the victim card.

I thought that a couple of weeks off to reflect on why you lie about what other people say to you and to grow up would have helped.

You didn't answer my last question.

It is not a victim card, it's an observation based on the quoted post (that the problem lies with me since I'm not "getting it" rather than just acknowledging that we disagree and moving on). Consider what is happening here:

The exodus from X to Bluesky has happened – the era of mass social media platforms is over | Gaby Hinsliff

There’s comfort in being surrounded by like-minded people, but challenge is important, and we may have to look for it elsewhere, says Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff

www.theguardian.com

Everyone retreats to places without selective pressure to open themselves up to change or debate.

Does that mean they're right?

Thank you.

I believe so, in that the sentence is too harsh considering all factors (expanded on below).

The people who posted here don't and are siding with the judge's decision. That's....fine, but so far I haven't seen a convincing defence of why they agree with that (insofar as the aggravating factors overriding the mitigating ones and warranting such a lengthy sentence, especially in light of many recent decisions by the judiciary), and I'm pointing out they are almost certainly in the minority once outside of the forum.

He probably just went off and found another bubble to amplify his rage during his vacation instead.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm.

I listed sites I go to - do you believe I should expose myself to others?

I'm also confused by the "amplify his rage" comment. You seem to be taking the view of others here in that I should ignore the news because it provokes emotions. This, again, is head-in-the-sand thinking and, like I said before, isn't what I'm about.

You can continue to pretend otherwise but that doesn't make it reality.

.. by advocating for justice based on the Daily Mail comments section.

Utterly stupid.

This is profoundly silly.

I've laid out my case logically:

1) We have a prison crisis
2) Many people who have committed subjectively "worse" crimes are getting shorter sentences/not seeing the inside of a cell at all
3) We are reviewing sentencing with the view of better-serving society
4) The guy's crimes harmed companies that make money from charging high fees to watch certain events and he provided an (illegal) service to people who wouldn't normally be able to afford it.
5) From the limited history given in my last post, I'm quite sympathetic to the story (such as has been revealed) of how he got there (losing job, providing for family, drug abuse). Sure, he could be playing the system, but I don't think making such an example of him benefits many. That's without going into copyright law and how the prevalence of these Firesticks could lead to a shift similar to when people were pirating music all the time.
6) Comments about this story in the DM, on Twitter, and on Reddit mostly suggest that people think it was too harsh—this place is the exception.

 

[UKMikey]

I can't tell if this is sarcasm.

Not this time.

I listed sites I go to - do you believe I should expose myself to others?

Not on this issue where you've emphasised only the MailOnline and social media responses.

I'm also confused by the "amplify his rage" comment. You seem to be taking the view of others here in that I should ignore the news because it provokes emotions. This, again, is head-in-the-sand thinking and, like I said before, isn't what I'm about.

No one has said you need to "ignore" the news headlines rather than look at them critically, let alone that you need to conform to our worldview (as you previously asserted). If anything, you're the one who's constantly haranguing us to conform to the worldview of the Mail comments section simply because there are a lot of responses.

Since you yourself appear to be steadfastly ignoring posts which attempt to discuss the issue dispassionately in favour of concentrating on pithy soundbites, seemingly in order to raise the temperature of the discussion, I'd say ragebaiting is exactly what you're about.

 

[Scaff]

Everyone retreats to places without selective pressure to open themselves up to change or debate.

That's your take on why people and organisations are leaving Twitter?

The people who posted here don't and are siding with the judge's decision. That's....fine, but so far I haven't seen a convincing defence of why they agree with that (insofar as the aggravating factors overriding the mitigating ones and warranting such a lengthy sentence, especially in light of many recent decisions by the judiciary),

Yes you have, you've just ignored it.

and I'm pointing out they are almost certainly in the minority once outside of the forum.

You don't have the data to back that up.

I've laid out my case logically:

1) We have a prison crisis
2) Many people who have committed subjectively "worse" crimes are getting shorter sentences/not seeing the inside of a cell at all
3) We are reviewing sentencing with the view of better-serving society
4) The guy's crimes harmed companies that make money from charging high fees to watch certain events and he provided an (illegal) service to people who wouldn't normally be able to afford it.
5) From the limited history given in my last post, I'm quite sympathetic to the story (such as has been revealed) of how he got there (losing job, providing for family, drug abuse). Sure, he could be playing the system, but I don't think making such an example of him benefits many. That's without going into copyright law and how the prevalence of these Firesticks could lead to a shift similar to when people were pirating music all the time.
6) Comments about this story in the DM, on Twitter, and on Reddit mostly suggest that people think it was too harsh—this place is the exception.

To judge this we need to go back and look at the post you used to open this discussion.

EDIT:



Yes, these sentences are because of sentencing guidelines. No, that doesn't mean we should accept it and not try to instigate change by highlighting how ridiculous the justice system can be.

Now let's take a look
Point 1 isn't covered at all
Point 2 you mention but fail to expand on with a comparison, or even context
Point 3 is not mentioned at all
Point 4 you misrepresent (again) that part of his sentence was driven by a previous conviction for dealing in class A narcotics and a past history of fraud
Point 5 you utterly fail to mention
Point 6 again you utterly fail to mention (but is interesting enough to come back to shortly

So in summary, you failed to cover 5 of your 6 steps that lay out your case logically in your opening post on the subject, the 1 you did hint at had no context or comparison. You then spend post after post chasing squirrels to 'introduce' these points, at no time do you attempt to tie these together. The point many of us are making is that if you took the time to form the kind of logical flow and present it as part of a conversation starter it would make a massive difference. We still may disagree, but at least it wouldn't be like pulling teeth.

Now let's look at point 6 again...

"Comments about this story in the DM, on Twitter, and on Reddit mostly suggest that people think it was too harsh—this place is the exception."

...that the comments here are at odds with the key demographics of Twitter, The Daily Mail comments section, and Reddit I wear with pride. I also doubt we are alone in this regard as you claim, but I also suspect that the majority of those 'forums' have bothered to take into account all of the story. An interesting social experiment would be if we had the comments section for his coke dealing conviction, as I strongly believe the Mail's reader-base would, for the very same person, be calling for him to be strung up from a lamppost.

 

[Famine]

You didn't answer my last question.

And why would I, considering that the point of my response is that you have lied about what other people said, immediately after a site suspension for repeatedly lying about what other people have said?

There is no benefit to making a response to someone who would only lie about what was in my response...

 

[Dreadmed]

Consider what is happening here:

The exodus from X to Bluesky has happened – the era of mass social media platforms is over | Gaby Hinsliff

There’s comfort in being surrounded by like-minded people, but challenge is important, and we may have to look for it elsewhere, says Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff

www.theguardian.com

Everyone retreats to places without selective pressure to open themselves up to change or debate.

"Everyone" ≠ everyone. I would also argue that it's not the premises but the underlying personality that opens/closes people up to introspection. (A narcissist vs an empath)

That piece's premise was about moving from a place where open/honest debate has eroded for years. They conclude that such conversations should be happening and are better in a public, face-to-face setting. Even then, the early/middle days of the internet still facilitated such debates because (in most cases) they had proper moderation. It seems to me that it was only once we reached the second half of the internet age (coinciding with the boom of social media) that echo chambers and the inevitable rise in polarisation really kicked in.

The exodus from X/Twitter has occurred because (in part) it's now almost impossible to actually debate anything in there without getting swamped, as opposed to incredibly difficult. You can't really have effective conversations of that nature without proper moderation (which Twitter always struggled with considering the nature of the platform) and with the takeover/rebrand and subsequent mass layoffs the level of misinformation contributed by bad actors (along with overall toxicity) has sky-rocketed... and it was a virtual cesspit beforehand.

To paraphrase Ms Hinsliff, there's far better places to actually engage with people, not in the digital equivalent of "that" pub where the regulars have just taken 3 lines of coke and want to rearrange your face because you had the audacity to ask what time the last bus leaves.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Twitter banned me, multiple times, for Violent Speech for making objectively true statements at hyperbolic right wing commentators. Perhaps if I'd have given them $8 dollars a month they'd have permitted my voice to be in their echo chamber, but as it is, I'm now on Blue Sky. If Blue Sky would introduce sharing screen caps from the PS5 like Twitter stopped doing, it would have been a total no-brainer.

 

[HenrySwanson]

"Everyone" ≠ everyone. I would also argue that it's not the premises but the underlying personality that opens/closes people up to introspection. (A narcissist vs an empath)

It's most people as far as I can see. Just because Bluesky is more a certain kind of person's place doesn't make that place a town square.

That piece's premise was about moving from a place where open/honest debate has eroded for years. They conclude that such conversations should be happening and are better in a public, face-to-face setting. Even then, the early/middle days of the internet still facilitated such debates because (in most cases) they had proper moderation. It seems to me that it was only once we reached the second half of the internet age (coinciding with the boom of social media) that echo chambers and the inevitable rise in polarisation really kicked in.

That's an interesting thought. I'm gonna have to explore when the tide changed to see if I agree on the triggers.

The exodus from X/Twitter has occurred because (in part) it's now almost impossible to actually debate anything in there without getting swamped, as opposed to incredibly difficult. You can't really have effective conversations of that nature without proper moderation (which Twitter always struggled with considering the nature of the platform) and with the takeover/rebrand and subsequent mass layoffs the level of misinformation contributed by bad actors (along with overall toxicity) has sky-rocketed... and it was a virtual cesspit beforehand.

Do you think Bluesky will lead to actual debate....or will it turn into the Resetera of the Twitter-like social media platforms?

This is also laughable:

X for the rightwing and the raging; centrists and policy nerds on Bluesky; people who hate politics on Threads or Instagram; Gen Z on TikTok; boomers on Facebook.

Why would a centrist be attracted to and make their home on Bluesky, especially as the Overton Window shifts on different topics so quickly. Is a dissenting view more likely to be engaged with....or will it turn into that poster being swamped, hounded and given the mark of Cain.

Sorry, but I remember the hope of Resetera following the fall of Neogaf.

This is what a (maybe) centrist had to say on UnHerd's comments section:

Out of curiosity and as an independent observer, I visited bluesky’s site (specifically their ‘Discover’ posts) for about two minutes. Five user-posts down, I read the following:

“It’s mostly white people who talk about echo chambers.”

I’m sure someone at bluesky will successfully explain why these type of high-volume liked posts aren’t really “promoting hate or extremist conduct that targets people or groups based on their race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, disability, or sexual orientation.” Right?
Many posts proudly display the user’s self-vaunted hatred of hatred, that the other side says is a response to their hatred of hatred, that the other side says is a response to their hatred of hatred, etc.
These self-righteous posts remind me of a sibling who fights with their sister, after which they grumpily exclaim, “but she started it!” as they run to their room, slam the door, and sulk alone for hours while thinking that their sulking will somehow teach their parents a lesson or two (even as the parents actually forgot that the child is sulking):

“It’s time to take solace and pride in what people disparigingly call a bubble. I don’t need to talk to the ‘other side’, to the hate-filled, the reactionary, the proudly low-info. I don’t have their books on my shelves, I don’t invite them over. And I don’t need to hear what they have to say online.”

[misspellings are common]
If these make you yawn, they also have an extremist corner where users preach about fighting back after this past “Dunkirk” of an election, how they’re part of the mobilization of the “Resistance,” how they’re discussing “plan of attack” and so forth. It’s like planning an insurrection is suddenly all the rage for those who declared that insurrections are bad for democracy up until a few weeks ago.
I suspect that most centrists will be mentally fatigued after merely reading the posts on the ‘Discover’ page.

=======

FWIW, I'm finding the comments sections where you have to pay (NYT, UnHerd, The Times, WaPo) much more stimulating than free social media forums.

To paraphrase Ms Hinsliff, there's far better places to actually engage with people, not in the digital equivalent of "that" pub where the regulars have just taken 3 lines of coke and want to rearrange your face because you had the audacity to ask what time the last bus leaves.

With the lack of a 1A and the rise of Non-crime hate incidents, I don't see it this way.

Not on this issue where you've emphasised only the MailOnline and social media responses.

Yes, because that is where you can gauge a lot of public opinion. It's where you can quickly get a sense of what people view as just decisions vs. unjust ones online. Where else would you like me to find such opinions?

Where apart from here do you read/post/engage with social media?

No one has said you need to "ignore" the news headlines rather than look at them critically, let alone that you need to conform to our worldview (as you previously asserted). If anything, you're the one who's constantly haranguing us to conform to the worldview of the Mail comments section simply because there are a lot of responses.

I laid out my opinion which is one that is shared by many others.

People have now said why they think it's an appropriate length/action to take and we disagree.

It just takes so long. Consider how many posts have been spent that didn't really do that.

Since you yourself appear to be steadfastly ignoring posts which attempt to discuss the issue dispassionately in favour of concentrating on pithy soundbites, seemingly in order to raise the temperature of the discussion, I'd say ragebaiting is exactly what you're about.

That's a different issue (the migrant problem) to that which I last quoted you (the sentencing of Robin Hood).

Your post makes sense and accurately shows how we're in this position, but why does this:

Unfortunately from what I've read the ECHR contains a commitment to provide care to those refugees as a human right.

mean they can't access care from the NHS like any other resident?
Do taxpayers not have the same right to care?

The system is broken; it can't possibly continue as is. The migrant crisis is only going to get worse, more incidents will happen, smaller areas/towns will change and policing speech will only hold it in a little longer.

 

[Liquid]

You seem to be really overanalysing the notion that one app is horrible so people decide to try another one. Actions have consequences; if your app gets worse, people will leave.

Might as well give me stick for avoiding the GT section on this board; I'm not "scared" of people's different Gran Turismo opinions, it's just an awful section to be in that I'd rather not deal with.

 

[UKMikey]

Yes, because that is where you can gauge a lot of public opinion. It's where you can quickly get a sense of what people view as just decisions vs. unjust ones online. Where else would you like me to find such opinions?

Where apart from here do you read/post/engage with social media?

It doesn't matter so much how you form opinions (provided they're considered and carefully weighed) so much as the way that you express them. If you're constantly accusatory and confrontational, people here are likely to respond in kind. That's probably why it takes so long for you to get the answers you want because it's taken so long for the temperature to cool down after the bombs you threw into the room. A shouting match isn't a conversation.

I don't really post politics anywhere but here aside from a dwindling number of X posts. I use Facebook for family and friends only and follow a minimum of politics on that site. I try to get my information from googling news stories related to the subject rather than from influencers.

That's a different issue (the migrant problem) to that which I last quoted you (the sentencing of Robin Hood).

To say we should have quoted Nutter's defence arguments instead of listing the charges against Edge is kind of laughable. I'm sure the actual judge took it into account when handing down the sentence but he'd shown himself to be a habitual criminal.

Your post makes sense and accurately shows how we're in this position, but why does this:


mean they can't access care from the NHS like any other resident?
Do taxpayers not have the same right to care?

I'm not sure if taxpayers' right to care is enshrined in law in the same way. Our taxes pay for a health service to take care of our needs but it's been consistently underfunded and underresourced.

If Trafford council simply sent the refugees to the back of the NHS queue instead of dealing with their urgent care I think they'd be open to legal challenges from human rights lawyers.

The system is broken; it can't possibly continue as is. The migrant crisis is only going to get worse, more incidents will happen, smaller areas/towns will change and policing speech will only hold it in a little longer.

It sounds to me like we generally as a society and policymakers in particular need to have an honest conversation which is hard to do in the current environment. Like the NHS it's a problem of resources. You can't send immigrants back if there aren't enough staff to process their claims and determining whether or not they're entitled to stay.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I am surprised at the level of butt hurt over people not wanting to use an ad-laiden app that only really functions if you pay for it. At one point, it was alright, changes were made, and now it's bad. Some things I get, like if you wanted to actually flesh out a point and use more characters you could pay to make that easier - makes some sense I suppose, but Musk was open about 'freedom of reach', and curtailing it - it's neither balanced, nor curated by the user, it's curated by the platform, and the platform became too imbalanced to ignore, especially in the context of being not-very-good in other regards. Not long after Musk sacked everyone I got one of my many bans, and the landing page for suspended accounts after appeal was broken, I couldn't have got my account back even if I'd wanted it.

As far as I could tell, Twitter/X would make sure there was always a 'promoted' post visible in your feed whilst scrolling (at least on a desktop browser), as well as side-bar ads - I don't seem to see any ads on bluesky, and 50% of my feed at the moment are working class Latinos, because they're people I follow.... I'm not really seeing a problem - if Twitter/X users take that as a slight against their deeply held opinions, it's not my problem... make the platform less ****.

edit: Also,