HumanPenguin

HumanPenguin, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

To seperate themselves from russia. As they use the Julian calander celebrateing in jan.

I assume it is also to unify with the west. As that has been aboided in the past due to russias threats.

But as theu no longer have reason to avoid joining nato. I imagine officially sharing the same calendar seem like a bery easy unifying move.

I aaaume anyone who feels the need to celebrate on the 7th jan still can

Although hard to understand why any obe would care. Its not like xmas is the actual date of any past event. But instead the time pagan religions in europe were already celibrateimg yuletide etc.

HumanPenguin, 8 days ago

Laughing at a rather dumb joke ain’t so bad. Tastless but honestly we can all grin at the odd inappropriate joke.

What is utterly disgusting is failing to comment along the lines. “I am sure that is untrue.” Followed by some speal supporting the hard word doctors do.

The former sorta shows he is human. But without the latter it becomes clear evidence. That he dose not respect the staff working for the NHS.

He had an oppertunity to turn his plan into an sales pitch in how it can help GPS and the rest of the NHS. Because lets face it most GP practices are already trying to do it to some extent. With nurses taking over many duties at different levels.

The issue is that while on paper this is far from a bad idea. It is being presented by a PM who has continued to disrespect the BHS staff and the work they do. As has his party from at least the 1980s.

HumanPenguin, 8 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

Given the history of Conservative ideals. Their whole goal grew from trying to conserve feudalism remnants post 1689. They have renamed and stuffeled about. But the basic ethos of the right wing main UK party. Is not to change the 2 class system of lords and commoners. The whigs were the representatives of the Lords in commons. While the old librals represented the idea of commons actually representing the working class.

The implementation has changed with the 1920 to 40s building up a labour party build to allow the working class to represent them selves. Rather then the early libral party ideals that the wealthy should protect its required resources.

But the right of the house is still very much built on the Idea there are 2 classes and one has higher rights then the other. They just ignore the original left of the house idea that those rights come with responsibility.

HumanPenguin, 9 days ago

Hard to be sure without knowing the exact tech developed. How efficient that is on defferent fuels will have an effect on how much effort is placed into gaining those fuels.

Of course if real options exist the easiest to obtain fuel will be used. Capatalism will ensure that. Though honestly so would most other systems.

But let’s face it. If mankind was able to generate plenty of cheap energy.

The people profiting of limited resources supply now. Will not go away. And invest what they have in controlling supply. So expect some fairly unpredictable polical moves during the roll out.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago

You simply don’t get to be a PM by being an imbecile in the low IQ sense of the term

He lost to someone who failed to outlast a lettuce. Sorry nope under the current tory party. The ability to talk crap is pretty much all they expect.

We can only hope your statement applies when a person is required to win an election. But sunak was appointed purely to avoid yet another tory infight over leadership.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago (edited 19 hours ago)

OK fair point.

But XLs were intentionally bread as fighting dogs. So while I agree extermination of the breed is cruel.

Encouraging breeder to continue the breed is also unacceptable. And as we do not currently have the ability to change laws in other nations. The current law that requires owners to register and raise the dogs safly. IE using a muzzle. Is likely the best we can do atm.

Unfortunately dogs are legally treated as property. So banning anyone from owning a dog that is less desirable. Basically translates to put the dog down if you cannot find someone willing to follow the new laws.

I’d love the laws on dogs to think of them more as a responsibility then property. But we also have to accept the nation we live in is not going to do that.

I grew up in a time of dog licencing. At that time it was basically a small fee you paid yearly token a dog.

So the idea of making that more effective would be fine by me.

But. I really worry about how such things would be implemented. We have just been through a pretty drastic change in what dog training means. Up until about 10 years ago everything we knew about dogs. Was based on 1930s scientific research.

Very flawed research based on wolves I captivity. As such pretty much all advice given up untill very recently. Was based on that research.

We now know wolves in captivity are not dogs. More importantly they do not act life free wolves.

Huge amounts of training such as alpha leader etc. Was based on wolves suffering stress. We also now know training this way leads to harm to the mental health of the dog.

For dangerous dogs. Upto date training is needed. But I am very uncomfortable with laws relating to have every day dogs not bread for fighting are trained. Because we know. Any rules we come up with now. Are likely to take forever to change if we learn they harm the dogs mental health later.

We do not hate bigger dogs. No one wants to limit Irish walf hounds or st Bernard’s. All huge dogs.

The difference is some dogs are physically bread to be able to kill. Others not. If you are attacked by a smaller dog. Or even a labradorite etc. Size dose not lead to them killing you.

Heck even a rotviler a dog bread with muscle and a strong jaw. Is entirly legal. And has no seriose desire to ban. Because they are not bread to be aggressive.

XL bully’s and many other banned dogs are not banned due to size. They are banned as the whole breed was created as a marketing gimmick. To sell to unthinking owners looking for a weapon on 4 legs.

And just like anything else sold in that manner… restrictions are applied. That basically say. Store it safly. Or you must notmow one. If you ow an XL bully. Options exist that do not require you to kill it. House it safly at you ow cost. Or find a ho e that is willing to do so.

When a small dog bites you. You are there to take the owner to court. As you always have the right to do.

When the dogs banned bite you. That is often not an option. As the dog is able to kill you. Most domestic dogs are not able and or not bread with the desire to fight.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago

The calls for murder in these comments is disturbing

Where? Just scanned through and not a single call for death let alone murder.

Closest I see is one claiming she got what she deserved. But nothing even close to murder.

HumanPenguin, 10 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

Hmm not so sure.

Hear me out. I am not actually saying it is alians. Just questioning that it is not is the logical conclusion of occams razer.

First remember we have 0 idea atm. So occams assumes the simplist explanation is correct.

But over the past couple of decades. The number of planets we have identified has grown hugly.

We only recently gained the ability to detect anything earth sized. But hav already found several.

Evidence is indication that the number of potential planets that are capable of housing life is far from low. Even if we are taking one in a million planets able. Most scientists interested in the field now agree life existing somewhere is more likely then earth being unique for some reason.

So complexity wise. Other life having evolved and developed radio. Is no more complex then some unknown answer. In fact the idea that it is impossible to be alian life is more complex then the idea that it is possible.

Once we have more information. Things will likely change quickly. And I lack the optimism to claim its likely alians.

But occams razer wise. We have evidence of life creating radio waves and transmitting them into space. As we do it a lot. Where as some totally unknown thing we have never seen up to now is a little more complex as a solution.

HumanPenguin, 10 days ago

I am not actually thinking of this as a choice.

My point is we need to convince enouth people it is possible and important enough. That Starmer or Rishi Responding to the petition with their usual waffle will achive something that terrifies and elected PM.

The first 100 days ending up with lower polling numbers then the election.

The UK has since the days of TV. Judged a politician on how that handle the first 100 days. And in general the UK is pretty forgiving. To the point PMs failing to out last a lettuce was almost unheard of. Much more so post even a close election. Every PM is considered to have a mandate at that point. So the laws he or she tries to pass are considered to be the most direct will of the people. (despite fptp meaning only 30% often choose that leader).

So while Sunak polls are so low its hard to imagine anything coming across as negative if he some how pulls a win.

Stammer already has worries about being less popular dispite the potential of a big win. Polling wise. He like most will be keen to avoid anything that looks like betrayal in that first 100 days where polling is watched closly by media.

So that is where our power lies. If we can get the support on social media. And form a well worded petition with well over 100k votes. Forcing the new parliament to disuse openly in committee where everyone can see their claims.

The issue is not so much if. But how we avoid everyone watching falling for the idea we are trying to cover all lies. Rather then clear and informed false facts. Like the tresury viewed our data and agrees. When the party knows full well the treasury has told MPs to not make that claim as it is false.

HumanPenguin, 10 days ago

Sorry this gets long. Please bare with it is why I am asking for help.

Yes. But as I say lies yours and my mum will disapprove of. And ones a court will consider provable are very different.

I am honestly trying to address the issue in a way that will not be trashed by politics in general. And societal attitudes of if its to hard don’t bother.

The simple fact is trying to stop Boris bus like lies. Is to hard for the public to attempt atm. We sure as hell are not going to form a viable agreed strategy in time to effect the fist 100 days. And honestly I think that is really important to move things in the right direction.

Risky Sunk is another matter all together. Not only because his lie is unquestionable as a lie. No argument can convince anyone that the treasury supported his claims as published. Even the most liberal court in the UK would have no choice but to agree the following points.

It was false under any interpretation. The treasury claims they had informed MPs is provable. Sunak and or his campaigners had the ability to prevent the lie before the debate.

This sort of thing no one can really claim we are unable to stop, Just take forcing parliament to pull its dangles out of the gravy boat.

So I am not saying the bus was not a lie. Of course it was. It is just the sort of lie no court can really prove beyond reasonable doubt. So even if we convince parliament the law needs to exist. It will be limited in its ability to effect such claims.

But we can make the likes of BJs campaigns way more careful with their claims. By addressing the much much more dangerous attempt by Rishi.

First is is more dangerous because the status of the treasury was used to reduce the effectiveness of fact checking. Lets face it Boris Bus was very much addressed. Fact checkers trashed it instantly. And we spent most of the election pointing it out.

Unfortunately convincing the faithful, of something they dont want. Can be impossible. Brexiters as a group knew it was a lie. Did not care. And just stated that the claims about economic bankruptcy were based on similar false accounting. As dumb as that logic is. Some remainers predicting it the second we voted was asking for the response.

But Rishi Told a lie that was aimed (in my unhumble opinion) to instantly make the non faithful question the accuracy of fact checkers.

He has known for the whole election cycle. That his faithful are reduced to a minority. So if he wants the level of support for a lie Johnson had. He needs to make every day voters question the bias of fact checker.

The treasury and civil servants in general (my ex was one) have a rule to not express political opinions on the job. They can lose their job or face demotions for failing to follow this. But more importantly is the time. During an election solution of parliament. Where the only ministers around working civil servants are incumbent ministers fighting for their job.

It is more then a rule. It is a mandate and the whole purpose of having civil servants rather then political appointments run the ministries. Their whole job purpose is to remain independent and make no changes to policy during the kings dissolution of parliamentary authority.

When people with this mandate are claimed to support the facts the Tory scum are exposing. It would naturally effect lots of undecided or even opposition decided voters that the independent fact checkers are the ones that lied.

Now here the media worked well. Once the labour party had announced a letter from the treasury leader. The media pounced on it. Fortunately I dont punish myself with GB news or the daily mail. But will guess they STFU rather then tried to claim the treasury letter is false. And we also know their is no way the civil service will contact the media themselves to express a political opinion. So trustworthy media really was the only thing that limited this harm.

So please anyone reading this remember that last sentence. Trustworthy media is the only thing that stopped Risky Sunk winning the fight over this very risky lie. Our history with the UK media makes it clear. This is not a situation that we can risk becoming common during any election period.

HumanPenguin, 10 days ago

The issue I see is how the parlimentry partitions website is set up.

I think intentionally. But will take of the tinfoil.

The partition only allows for a very very short statement.

Even with this post. Many reply think I am trying to address statistics and claims rather then the clear and obvious lie that the treasury supported Sunaks data.

The bus court case may have given sunak president to openly lie in a campaign.

But even if this law existed. The bus was not provable. Anyone logical knew he would win.

The bus simply said we pay the EU 350m lets do this,

So it lacked information rather then stated provable false facts.

Sunak stated provable false facts. IE civil servente back up this data.

Given labour had received evidence that was false. Before the debate. And the civil service has a mandate to be non political. Is is provable that the service would also have sent the tories the same letter.

So again very provable that the campaign knowingly let sunak lie. Id say tomintentionally limit the power of fact checkers with what they rightly see as a less questionable source.

This partition needs to be worded in a concise way. That means no one can question exactly what we want.

One very short paragraph is all we get.

Plus a social media complain is we can get another folks interested and informed on the goals.

HumanPenguin, 10 days ago

Hence the discussion,

The type of lie Sunak told is very different from the lies told at every election. It is not just more lies. It is a dangerous falsehood based on definable evidenced facts.

IE not that Labours policys will cost 2k. While that is a very questionable claim. Fact checking a Ready handles such things.

But the fact that the treasury supported his data. That was an outright lie. To the point starmer was publicly willing to call it one. Something political figures are historically more careful of them actual lies.

It is dangerous because voters know the civil service is not allowed to be politically motivated. They Camrose their jobs for it at any time. But during an election. It is more the a rule. It is the whole mandate of the civil service.

So when Sunak claimed this falsely, he was trying to override the existence of fact checkers by telling his voters he had more reliable independent evidence.

This is why I think, we need the partition to be very concise and well worded,

But also a social media compain based on that very clear limitation in what is being asked for.

iE we have 4 weeks and the whole of the Internet. To address these questions before starmer can dismiss them.

HumanPenguin, 10 days ago

Yeah but again its a matter of wording. The EU bill was 350m.

The bus lacked the extra information of.

Discounts, the value we get from it. Amd a whole list of other data making it false.

But as far as law is concerned saying 350m is a lie is ecvide ceded by the invoice. The fact other data was missing. Well yours and my mum would def call it a lie. And likely take a be,t to me in my time. Not sure your age. But the law less so they tend to have much more evidenced requirements for a falsehood the not admitting data.

Still utter scum. But not likely what we can demand a law to cover.

Rishi Sunk said something very very different.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago

Honestly. This seems more like a publity stunt then news.

Lets face it. He is running for an independent party. As an ex Labour MP he knows full well the rules mean leaving labour as a member.

So the fact that he did not do so. Is at best forgetting. But way more likely an attempt to gain this very news article. Because lets face it. Small party constituency candidates. Do not get the news he would be used to under labour.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago

DWP can"r really don’t want to find report on universal credit safty that PMs unit told it to write. But the PM told them to hide when he realised he had to call an election.

I mean this is basically little more then a conspiracy theory. But can anyone clai they don’t think thisnis what happened.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago

OP is rational enough to be considering the alterative.

Your statement has no logic. As you are basically saying you prefer the tories in opposition to the lib dems. Because the lib dems helped the tories once.

You live in a fptp system. So when you reject people voting lib dem tactically. You are openly choosing the party with most support in those constituencies. Not some wonderful utopia where you get to choose a party you agree with on everything.

That option simply dose not exist as an option to lead the UK. Not without first changing the UK to some form of proportional system.

Under FPTP your choice is to vote for the lesser of 2 evils or be by default voting for the greater.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago

Come on even if the tories won. As depressing as that may need.

Sunak losing his seat to binnacle is a laugh no one could resist. As the winning party has to consider the fact their leader is not an MP.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago

Get a few right wing nutters to claim gravity is left wing invention. I fairly sure Sunak will have abolishing it in his manifesto.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago

Island has a population of 2k. So if no one else has been reported missing.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago

Sorry mate did not plan to scare you.

We all see our first tory at some time. But they really xhould co e with health warnings.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago

Well we could return to childish Saturday morning TV.

Place political interviewers in a glass chamber.

Every time the refuse to answer a question. Or tell a previously proven lie. Divert the contents of a local river over them.

I think that shit show would show the tories in a pretty accurate light.

HumanPenguin, 6 days ago

OK. Thanks had no idea.