and the other day Farage said he would rather do his radio show than "sit in the Commons and be abused by a failing Prime Minister without any right of reply". These people are shameless they don’t care about people… they are grifters…
Maybe we should still allow second jobs as they stand, but deduct those hours from their parliamentary salary. And introduce an SLA for sitting MPs. If they fail to meet them for a particular parliamentary session (including surgeries and other constituency matters) then they immediately go up for by-election. Add a cap to election spending then parties like Reform would find themselves in some financial trouble with Dodgy Dick and Farage spending more time away from parliament than they do in Dubai or GBebbies
Reform's position on the safety of women and girls (because child abuse and exploitation of boys doesn't happen, does it? ...) has always been performative rather than practical. The only reason they have engaged with the issue is that it involves ethnic minorities and immigrants (possibly). The moment they realised they could leverage the issue, they went full throttle. The haste with which Farage called for action, demanding a public inquiry and disciplinary action against those who facilitated the abuse through action and inaction, was matched only by the speed with which he dropped the issue. That has always been the core of Farage's politics. It is about getting his name in the press, his face on media channels, and promoting the only thing that really matters to him: Nigel Farage.
The same applies to his concerns about the safety of women and girls outside the Grooming Gangs orbit. Remembering that the patchy statistics on rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, child sexual exploitation, and similar activities, those who have looked into these issues paint a harrowing picture. The figures on rape victims and their experiences with the Criminal Justice System suggest that victims are more likely to win the national lottery than to see their attackers prosecuted, sentenced and incarcerated. Yvette Cooper accused the Conservatives of effectively decriminalising these crimes during their time in office. Data certainly backs her up. Nearly two years on, though, there is little evidence of change.
Yet Reform is curiously silent about the wider aspects of the problem of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG). Each time a sexual predator is prosecuted, responses from Reform accounts have been largely silent. If the offender is an immigrant or from an ethnic minority community, they shout it from the rooftops. They seem to be colour blind. What it demonstrates, though, is that the exploitation of this issue has been seized as an issue with which to promote its core, xenophobic message.
As for his Twitter activity, it is one of numerous Reform accounts that are highly active. Looking at the time he allegedly spent online, you have to wonder how much of it is actually from him (as well as Tice, Anderson, and Yusuf, not to mention countless sub accounts promoting Reform). Posts are virtually identical whenever they push an issue. There is no response from them afterwards; it is all argument and counter-arguments. So it is entirely possible that some of the money they take from this goes toward paying the staff who are actually doing the posting. That is, of course, supposition. I have no evidence that it is actually the case. It would be interesting to investigate how much time Farage spends on the various activities for which he is paid. No doubt it will be illuminating.
Elon Musk can regularly be seen reposting or commenting on Reform posts that highlight offences by migrants, especially when they pivot to attacking the current government. Anything that attacks British democratic institutions and authorities will be met with a response from Mr Musk. That also brings increased visibility and interest. That inevitably brings greater remuneration for accounts that senior Reform figures generally use. Not to mention, further eroding trust in the government and the authorities.
So the question of whether they know what Twitter has become is a curious one. They are the primary exponents of the sort of activities right-leaning figures engage in. The useful idiots of Brexit, such as Darren Grimes, simply parrot Reform UK Central Office's message of the day. Grimes does occasionally stray beyond this in his role as a County Councillor, but the pushback from several allegedly racist posts has reduced his willingness to engage in freelancing. The key point is that most of the activity on the platform is now from Reform figures, supporters, and fellow travellers. Whether it is Tommy Robinson and Nick Tenconi pushing the New British Revival, or accounts of Reform councillors and organisations trying to convince locals that their lives are being transformed by the savings Reform is achieving (largely by cutting back services, especially those that are used by children, the elderly, or the disabled), they all share a common dimension. Truth is distorted, facts are misrepresented, and dissenters face significant pushback. These then flood people's feeds.
So, there has long been a case for considering the reach of Twitter under Musk, as well as the effect it is having on British democratic debate. Admittedly, this is a difficult issue. Notwithstanding the problem of American ownership, there is a case to be made against any action limiting freedom of speech. Banning such a well-known platform gives credence to those accusing this government of totalitarianism. It is highly likely that Farage and his followers will take this line. It is one that anyone across the political spectrum is likely to find problematic.
What needs to be considered is the effect it is having on social discourse, community cohesion, and political debate in the UK. Concerns have been raised about how Russian, Chinese, Iranian and North Korean actors have used social media to increase division and dissent in the UK. What we see now, though, is a company located in a supposedly allied nation engaged in the same activity. This latest move is simply a continuation of an increasingly aggressive US government/corporate approach to other nations. Musk is using the reach of his platform to promote oppositional thinking and groups. Just as Trump has declared US support for Nationalist parties that are likely to give US companies and interests support (roll over and play dead). Venezuela is a taste of what it will be like for anyone with different ideas.
For the current UK government, this is a challenging situation. Do they risk the inevitable backlash from Trump for having the audacity to stand up to American interests? Do they put the protection of British Citizens first? Then again, which response achieves that? Given Musk's relationship with Trump, as well as Trump's jingoistic attitude towards foreign authorities attempting to enforce homegrown regulations that affect the ability of US companies to maximise profits in their territory, a Twitter ban could cause even greater damage than Musk's new tool and policies have inflicted on the UK.
At the very least, there should be a boycott of Twitter by UK government bodies, political parties, and non-governmental organisations. The departure should be publicly heralded to underscore an unwillingness to use a platform that is content to allow the undermining of British social norms and democratic institutions. The decision to profit from the degradation of women and girls by the activities of sexual deviants should also be mentioned. The British Government's position should ideally challenge Twitter's imposition of American values on other countries, together with facilitating activity that places groups and individuals at risk. Migrating to BlueSky would undercut accusations of censorship or damage to US business interests.
This issue is one among many that Reform is likely to struggle with. It benefits financially from using Twitter, both directly through payments for activity and indirectly through the business it drives. As you rightly observe, Iratus, Farage should be pressured into a clear statement of his position here. What is more important: the protection of women and girls, or the benefits of profiting from a platform that allows individuals to engage in activities that increase the risks of sexual predation? What he is likely to do is feign outrage and then hide until the problem fades in the public's mind. For him to adopt a principled position on the issue, one that doesn't carry the whiff of racism, is highly unlikely.
Cracking piece, Bear. Let’s hope the government flees the wretched hive of X sooner rather than later.
As for Reform, they’re less of a political movement and more of a travelling circus of entitlement. Your footnote is the absolute chef’s kiss: "This particular phrase, ‘protecting women and children’ is one that can mean pretty much almost anything, provided it never actually involves listening to women or protecting actual children."
It’s a bold strategy for a group whose followers keep popping up in court reports for—you guessed it—abusing women and children. Hypocrisy, thy name is Reform. Grifters, thy name is also Reform.
The conflict that you or I see between on the one hand claiming to be the saviours of women and girls and making cash from a site actively creating sexually abusive images of those same people will not for one moment trouble any of this cast.
It is a go to assertion wielded by all sorts of people with deeply unpleasant views to browbeat their critics into silence. Any claims to morality are spurious.
As an aside from X, Mark Zuckerberg created the infant FaceBook in his dorm to rate young women. Who wouldn't countenance having sex with him. Was he the first Incel of the Internet age?
I'm reading on other platforms comments to the effect that these abuse and illegal images can be generated also using a wide range of tools, sites and platforms which when combined with the "actual real life abuse and rape of women and children by illegal immigrants but this is being ignored" means that this recent attack on X is clearly an attempt to shut down "free speech".
I despair, I really do.
The swivel eyed lot will say this Parliamentary ban is all to do with cutting off Farage's money.
for a man who hated unelected beuracrats, he sure is spending a lot of time not participating as an elected member. mind you, same as when he was in the EU
When X started it is probably fair to say it was fun and in social conversations it was not unusual to be asked "do you tweet". It is now sunk to the level of unacceptable anonymous verbal and psychological cruel abuse which seems to have infected ordinary conversations and parliamentary debates. One can see the influence of Musk by his instant replies to some postings. The payments to users also suggests to me that X should be paying substantiality more UK tax than it does for the real profit it makes from us. The UK government users need to get out and bring it under control. Also to make sure that anything using AI in answers should note it on any answer in the same way we require labelling on physical products sold. The USA can kick and scream blue murder as much as it likes but stopping abuse must be our first priority defending us against our enemies, wherever they come from.
and the other day Farage said he would rather do his radio show than "sit in the Commons and be abused by a failing Prime Minister without any right of reply". These people are shameless they don’t care about people… they are grifters…
Maybe we should still allow second jobs as they stand, but deduct those hours from their parliamentary salary. And introduce an SLA for sitting MPs. If they fail to meet them for a particular parliamentary session (including surgeries and other constituency matters) then they immediately go up for by-election. Add a cap to election spending then parties like Reform would find themselves in some financial trouble with Dodgy Dick and Farage spending more time away from parliament than they do in Dubai or GBebbies
election spending cap! love that!
Farage should have his MP salary deducted. He’s rarely in parliament or in Clacton.
Reform's position on the safety of women and girls (because child abuse and exploitation of boys doesn't happen, does it? ...) has always been performative rather than practical. The only reason they have engaged with the issue is that it involves ethnic minorities and immigrants (possibly). The moment they realised they could leverage the issue, they went full throttle. The haste with which Farage called for action, demanding a public inquiry and disciplinary action against those who facilitated the abuse through action and inaction, was matched only by the speed with which he dropped the issue. That has always been the core of Farage's politics. It is about getting his name in the press, his face on media channels, and promoting the only thing that really matters to him: Nigel Farage.
The same applies to his concerns about the safety of women and girls outside the Grooming Gangs orbit. Remembering that the patchy statistics on rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, child sexual exploitation, and similar activities, those who have looked into these issues paint a harrowing picture. The figures on rape victims and their experiences with the Criminal Justice System suggest that victims are more likely to win the national lottery than to see their attackers prosecuted, sentenced and incarcerated. Yvette Cooper accused the Conservatives of effectively decriminalising these crimes during their time in office. Data certainly backs her up. Nearly two years on, though, there is little evidence of change.
Yet Reform is curiously silent about the wider aspects of the problem of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG). Each time a sexual predator is prosecuted, responses from Reform accounts have been largely silent. If the offender is an immigrant or from an ethnic minority community, they shout it from the rooftops. They seem to be colour blind. What it demonstrates, though, is that the exploitation of this issue has been seized as an issue with which to promote its core, xenophobic message.
As for his Twitter activity, it is one of numerous Reform accounts that are highly active. Looking at the time he allegedly spent online, you have to wonder how much of it is actually from him (as well as Tice, Anderson, and Yusuf, not to mention countless sub accounts promoting Reform). Posts are virtually identical whenever they push an issue. There is no response from them afterwards; it is all argument and counter-arguments. So it is entirely possible that some of the money they take from this goes toward paying the staff who are actually doing the posting. That is, of course, supposition. I have no evidence that it is actually the case. It would be interesting to investigate how much time Farage spends on the various activities for which he is paid. No doubt it will be illuminating.
Elon Musk can regularly be seen reposting or commenting on Reform posts that highlight offences by migrants, especially when they pivot to attacking the current government. Anything that attacks British democratic institutions and authorities will be met with a response from Mr Musk. That also brings increased visibility and interest. That inevitably brings greater remuneration for accounts that senior Reform figures generally use. Not to mention, further eroding trust in the government and the authorities.
So the question of whether they know what Twitter has become is a curious one. They are the primary exponents of the sort of activities right-leaning figures engage in. The useful idiots of Brexit, such as Darren Grimes, simply parrot Reform UK Central Office's message of the day. Grimes does occasionally stray beyond this in his role as a County Councillor, but the pushback from several allegedly racist posts has reduced his willingness to engage in freelancing. The key point is that most of the activity on the platform is now from Reform figures, supporters, and fellow travellers. Whether it is Tommy Robinson and Nick Tenconi pushing the New British Revival, or accounts of Reform councillors and organisations trying to convince locals that their lives are being transformed by the savings Reform is achieving (largely by cutting back services, especially those that are used by children, the elderly, or the disabled), they all share a common dimension. Truth is distorted, facts are misrepresented, and dissenters face significant pushback. These then flood people's feeds.
So, there has long been a case for considering the reach of Twitter under Musk, as well as the effect it is having on British democratic debate. Admittedly, this is a difficult issue. Notwithstanding the problem of American ownership, there is a case to be made against any action limiting freedom of speech. Banning such a well-known platform gives credence to those accusing this government of totalitarianism. It is highly likely that Farage and his followers will take this line. It is one that anyone across the political spectrum is likely to find problematic.
What needs to be considered is the effect it is having on social discourse, community cohesion, and political debate in the UK. Concerns have been raised about how Russian, Chinese, Iranian and North Korean actors have used social media to increase division and dissent in the UK. What we see now, though, is a company located in a supposedly allied nation engaged in the same activity. This latest move is simply a continuation of an increasingly aggressive US government/corporate approach to other nations. Musk is using the reach of his platform to promote oppositional thinking and groups. Just as Trump has declared US support for Nationalist parties that are likely to give US companies and interests support (roll over and play dead). Venezuela is a taste of what it will be like for anyone with different ideas.
For the current UK government, this is a challenging situation. Do they risk the inevitable backlash from Trump for having the audacity to stand up to American interests? Do they put the protection of British Citizens first? Then again, which response achieves that? Given Musk's relationship with Trump, as well as Trump's jingoistic attitude towards foreign authorities attempting to enforce homegrown regulations that affect the ability of US companies to maximise profits in their territory, a Twitter ban could cause even greater damage than Musk's new tool and policies have inflicted on the UK.
At the very least, there should be a boycott of Twitter by UK government bodies, political parties, and non-governmental organisations. The departure should be publicly heralded to underscore an unwillingness to use a platform that is content to allow the undermining of British social norms and democratic institutions. The decision to profit from the degradation of women and girls by the activities of sexual deviants should also be mentioned. The British Government's position should ideally challenge Twitter's imposition of American values on other countries, together with facilitating activity that places groups and individuals at risk. Migrating to BlueSky would undercut accusations of censorship or damage to US business interests.
This issue is one among many that Reform is likely to struggle with. It benefits financially from using Twitter, both directly through payments for activity and indirectly through the business it drives. As you rightly observe, Iratus, Farage should be pressured into a clear statement of his position here. What is more important: the protection of women and girls, or the benefits of profiting from a platform that allows individuals to engage in activities that increase the risks of sexual predation? What he is likely to do is feign outrage and then hide until the problem fades in the public's mind. For him to adopt a principled position on the issue, one that doesn't carry the whiff of racism, is highly unlikely.
This is fantastic MrB🐻 what a revelation and one that that even their supporters may find difficult to justify !
Cracking piece, Bear. Let’s hope the government flees the wretched hive of X sooner rather than later.
As for Reform, they’re less of a political movement and more of a travelling circus of entitlement. Your footnote is the absolute chef’s kiss: "This particular phrase, ‘protecting women and children’ is one that can mean pretty much almost anything, provided it never actually involves listening to women or protecting actual children."
It’s a bold strategy for a group whose followers keep popping up in court reports for—you guessed it—abusing women and children. Hypocrisy, thy name is Reform. Grifters, thy name is also Reform.
Can't wait for Reform to become Former
Good afternoon Bear.
The conflict that you or I see between on the one hand claiming to be the saviours of women and girls and making cash from a site actively creating sexually abusive images of those same people will not for one moment trouble any of this cast.
It is a go to assertion wielded by all sorts of people with deeply unpleasant views to browbeat their critics into silence. Any claims to morality are spurious.
As an aside from X, Mark Zuckerberg created the infant FaceBook in his dorm to rate young women. Who wouldn't countenance having sex with him. Was he the first Incel of the Internet age?
I'm reading on other platforms comments to the effect that these abuse and illegal images can be generated also using a wide range of tools, sites and platforms which when combined with the "actual real life abuse and rape of women and children by illegal immigrants but this is being ignored" means that this recent attack on X is clearly an attempt to shut down "free speech".
I despair, I really do.
The swivel eyed lot will say this Parliamentary ban is all to do with cutting off Farage's money.
for a man who hated unelected beuracrats, he sure is spending a lot of time not participating as an elected member. mind you, same as when he was in the EU
When X started it is probably fair to say it was fun and in social conversations it was not unusual to be asked "do you tweet". It is now sunk to the level of unacceptable anonymous verbal and psychological cruel abuse which seems to have infected ordinary conversations and parliamentary debates. One can see the influence of Musk by his instant replies to some postings. The payments to users also suggests to me that X should be paying substantiality more UK tax than it does for the real profit it makes from us. The UK government users need to get out and bring it under control. Also to make sure that anything using AI in answers should note it on any answer in the same way we require labelling on physical products sold. The USA can kick and scream blue murder as much as it likes but stopping abuse must be our first priority defending us against our enemies, wherever they come from.
If a more loathsome quartet can be found anywhere I'd like to know where for avoidance purposes.
My MP might well scoff at your hourly rate calculation given the hours I know she puts in but the basic point about ‘time out’ stands.