Jho

joined 10 months ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (16 children)

I feel like I'm living on a completely different planet right now.

I'm really surprised to see that this tobacco ban has so many supporters on all sides of the political spectrum. I am also surprised to see so many people on Lemmy supporting this...

I'm all for making corpos squirm, especially ones which create products that are designed to be addictive (e.g. big tobacco). But let's not go around pretending that these businesses are the only victims of substance bans. For one, substance bans are always disproportionately applied to vulnerable minority groups.

Furthermore, folks who are motivated enough to acquire these substances despite bans will be more vulnerable to exploitation and adverse health effects than they already are. Big tobacco already does a great job of harming and exploiting folks. But at least we can regulate and monitor them. The customer can know with greater certainty exactly what each cigarette contains, you don't get that privilege when acquiring substances illegally. You can also be fairly confident as to the affordability of legal substances versus getting fleeced for your entire income by a dealer who knows personally just how addicted you are.

If nothing else, this is going to end up as a massive waste of time. It is a fools errand to ban substances, and history has shown this time and time again. I do not see any evidence that we have learned from history, of what we will be doing differently to make this work when it has failed in the past. This ban will not last more than a few years at most.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I doubt that the UK could lead anything on this front. Drugs which are already banned in the UK are still consumed in the UK and beyond. I do not think it's possible to stop humanity from consuming drugs (incl. tobacco and alcohol). It's something we have done for thousands of years for a wide variety of reasons.

Banning alcohol didn't work in the long-term during the Prohibition era in America. People will always find a way to access these things, they will just be less safe whilst doing so and their money will not be taxed.

New Zealand tried a similar tobacco ban in 2022, and it got repealed about a year later in order to fund tax cuts (if I am remembering correctly). I forsee this going the same way if it actually passes.

 

“People are saying that I’ve betrayed them somehow, but the truth is, I’ve always been consistent,” explained Rowling in an interview to promote the TV reboot due in 2026.

“For example, if you read the Harry Potter books closely, you’ll see that Dumbledore actually hated trans people.

“For example, in Goblet of Fire, he says, ‘You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be’. That’s clearly Dumbledore indicating he thinks people should stay the gender they were born with, no matter what.

 

Original article title: Courtier demanded assurance king could not be prosecuted under new Welsh law


A Buckingham Palace official phoned the Welsh government to secure the assurance under an archaic custom that requires UK parliaments to obtain the consent of the monarch to draft bills before they can be implemented.

According to Buckingham Palace, the royal household rang the Welsh government to ensure that “as a matter of legal correctness” the monarch could not be prosecuted under the act.

The monarchy has been given personal immunity from swathes of British law, ranging from animal welfare to workers’ rights.

More than 30 laws stipulate, for example, that police are barred from entering the privately owned Balmoral and Sandringham estates without the king’s permission to investigate possible crimes, including wildlife offences and environmental pollution. No other private landowner in the country is given such legal immunity.

A Welsh government spokesperson said: “The immunity of the monarch from prosecution is a long-established principle.” They declined to comment further.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I get the network effect of having all the other kids with phones.

I don't think the network effect is the only factor to consider here. Kids are at real risk of social ostracization and bullying by their peers if they do not have a smartphone. And that's dangeous in of itself.

I'm not sure if the dangers of being ostricised and bullied are more significant than the dangers presented by owning a smartphone. Either way, I don't think it's a simple decision for a parent to make.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That this prejudice will follow these children into adulthood is perhaps the bleakest part.

This is the thing that horrifies me the most about this story. Adults, schools, and parents are setting an abominable example to these children.

I can only imagine the confusion and shame a child must experience when being told to hide their insulin pumps, their wheelchairs, their hearing aids, etc. And I'm frightened to think of the pupils who feel empowered to "other" their classmates because they are being "othered" by the adults. It's a clear example of how we teach children bigotry.

An experience from my childhood which still sticks with me to this day is from when attending an ultra-orthodox church. I was maybe 5 years old and tried to follow my dad into a restricted area and being stopped by the priest, being told "sorry, only boys are allowed back here".

As a child I was taught that adults are always right, and to listen to them. This may very well be my earliest memory of being taught sexism, which only got reinforced throughout my life due to trusting the adults at this church and through trusting my very religious right-wing father. Even as a kid I recognised that what I was witnessing was unfair, but I did not have the power, the understanding, nor the will to challenge this unfairness because the adults must know what they're doing... right?

 

OP details various first-hand accounts of disabled children across the UK who have been edited in their school photos. This is not a new phenomenon as one of the accounts is from the 1970s.

Some quotes from the article:

Behind the erasure of disabled children lies the frightening belief that they don’t belong in ‘perfect’ pictures – or public spaces.

If that feels somewhat chilling, it is because it should. Few of us – even at a time when someone, somewhere will always find a way to excuse bigotry – cannot understand the connotations of wanting to pretend disabled children don’t exist.

Children have had their disability aids removed by photographers. Other children have been altered with editing software or banned from their class photos entirely.

That is the thing with true ugliness. It does not come in the shape of a wheelchair, a cleft lip, white cane or scars. It sits in prejudice, digging and clawing its way into our culture until one day the nice man who is taking your child’s school photo asks her to hide her hearing aids. That this prejudice will follow these children into adulthood is perhaps the bleakest part. If only society had the desire to edit that out.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think it's better to vote for a party which has no chance of winning than to spoil your vote. At the very least it communicates what kinds of policies you would like to see and what policies would win your vote in the future.

I constantly think about the 2015 general election and how UKIP got almost 4 million votes (the third highest number of votes amongst all the parties). I feel that this caused a shift within the Conservative party towards populist, Eurosceptic, and anti-environmental ideals because they realised by doing so they could win back those 4 million voters.

I would personally never spoil my ballot for this reason. I don't think it's especially valuable to communicate that you're not happy with anything without communicating what would make you happy.

I'm currently in a circular debate with myself as to whether to vote Labour or Green. The classic eternal debate of "splitting the left vote" which we must deal with since we use an archaeic First-Past-The-Post system which should not exist in any modern democracy. I don't even especially like the Greens but a vote for them may communicate that one of my biggest values is preserving the environment and tackling climate change. Perhaps this could encourage Labour to establish policies to address these things in order to win back Green votes.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago (5 children)

My first thought was "wow those comments must be shockingly bad if even Reform UK is suspending/investigating them".

They absolutely are awful and embarrassing comments. But they're also comments I would fully expect a Reform UK candidate/supporter to make. Therefore I'm pretty surprised Reform UK is investigating them in the first place. Perhaps it's because they said the quiet bit out loud?

They're a right-wing populist and Eurosceptic party after all, so of course they're gonna attract racists and transphobes.

 

TL;DR:

Stephen McNamara is transphobic and David McNabb is racist.

Reform UK doubles-down on it's opposition towards Net Zero policies.

Comments include (spoilering for distressing content, just in case):

spoilerMcNamara branded three Scottish equalities organisations as “tax payer funded peadophile (sic) services.”

A response to a 2023 tweet from LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall said: “Time to ‘Stonewall’ the absurdity that being trans is normal. It’s not. You’re all mentall (sic) ill and need psychiatric treatment.”

David McNabb said first minister Humza Yousaf should not be able to hold a rugby trophy because he is “more Pakistani than Scottish.”

McNabb’s account also shared a video from the far right commentator, Katie Hopkins, which accused the UK legal system of treating fellow far right activists unfairly.


Suspended candidates included Stephen McNamara, who was selected as the candidate for Kilmarnock and Louden, and David McNabb, the party’s candidate for Mid Dunbartonshire.

A Reform UK spokesperson said: “The party has launched an immediate investigation into Mr’s McNabb and McNamara who have been suspended pending the result of that investigation.”

Linked article details public comments made by both these suspended candidates, as well as highlighting some other candidates who are not being investigated.

Reform is not investigating candidates with links to climate change denial groups, or who have made comments denying climate change. These candidates include:

  • Kenneth Morton, the candidate for Angus and Perthshire Glens.
  • Martyn Greene. who is Reform UK’s Scotland organiser.

A Reform UK spokesperson said: “Reform Scotland is proud to oppose the calamity that are the Net Zero policies."

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Two spring to mind. I could rant forever about them but I'll try to keep it short.

First was an apprenticeship at a furniture logistics company. I was essentially an extremely overworked and underpaid spreadsheet monkey (I got paid £4 an hour). I received no training and gained no valuable experience or qualifications. In hindsight it's clear to me the company just wanted cheap labour from vulnerable teenagers.

After this I took a job handing out leaflets for a store which buys/sells goods. The job was in fact not to hand out leaflets like I thought but to harass people I saw walking towards CEX (to try and convince them to sell their games/consoles to us instead of CEX). Obviously this was seedy as hell and embarrassing. I'd get told off at the end of the day every day for not bringing in multiple PS4s or whatever.

 

With the government voting overwhelmingly in favour of allowing liquid human shit to pour into our rivers and into the sea, the government’s dream of creating a barrier of excrement between England’s Brexit sunlit uplands and those horrible foreigners who might harbour dreams of reaching them, draws ever closer to becoming a reality.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Of the £21.5m in cash received by Labour in 2023, just £5.9m came from the trade union movement, compared with £14.5m from companies and individuals – a huge increase on the previous year, and indeed more than in the three previous years of Keir Starmer’s leadership combined.

As trade union contributions have dipped slightly, from around £6.9m in 2020 and 2021 to £5.3m in 2022, donations from businesses and individuals have soared: they totalled £2.3m in 2020 and rose to £3m in 2021 and £7.6m in 2022 before nearly doubling last year.

Around £10m of this total comes from just four sources: Gary Lubner (£4.6m), David Sainsbury (£3.1m), Fran Perrin (£1m) and Ecotricity (£1m). This means that just two individuals gave the Labour Party more money last year than all the trade unions combined.

Very concerning... but also not surprising.

 

All parties declared more than £93m in total compared with £52m in the previous year.

The Conservatives received the most donations by far, raking in £44.5m in cash, compared with Labour’s total of £21.6m, £6m for the Liberal Democrats, £610,000 for the Green Party and £255,000 for Reform. The SNP registered only £76,000 cash donations in 2023.

 

My TL;DR:

The government has U-turned on its plans to phase out badger culling after campaigning from farming unions.

It is believed ministers wish to create a point of difference with the Labour party, which has said it would stop the cull, in an attempt to retain seats in rural areas.

Badger culling was first introduced in 2013 and has failed to get support of eminent scientists over more than a decade and has caused some badger populations to go locally extinct.

Furthermore. ministers plan to introduce controversial targeted culling, also known as “epidemiological culling” or “epi-culling”, whereby populations of badgers can be reduced to almost zero. A consultation launched by the government on Thursday included “chilling plans to kill 100% of badgers in bovine TB affected areas, an increase on the limit previously imposed since culling started in 2013”.


Some quotes:

Tom Langton, an ecological consultant and badger expert, argues that epi-culling is “is based on a single ‘model’ trial in Cumbria where over 1,100 badgers were shot dead between 2018 and 2022, but where a published report states no demonstrable benefit was achieved in terms of reduced TB breakdowns in cattle herds.

The government cites peer-reviewed evidence from the first 52 areas where badger culling was conducted, which shows a reduction in rates of bTB breakdowns in cattle by 56% on average after four years of culling. But independent scientists have challenged this analysis, highlighting the presence of so many different variables and the absence of any scientific control.

 

Unveiling the new definition, Mr Gove told the BBC, “The definition is very clear. It includes the promotion or advancement of violence, hatred or intolerance.”

“You might say that making blatantly racist comments and calling for an MP to be shot would be the very definition of hatred and intolerance, but before that can be established, there has to be a rigorous process and due diligence to establish whether the person making those alleged comments is A) a Tory supporter or B) has given us £10M. And I think in this case, the answer is quite clear. Case closed.”

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

My cynical ass cannot stop my eyes rolling into the back of my head when I see "tax breaks for billionaires". But I'll try to put that entire ugly can of worms to the side for now.

Ultimately the devil will be in the details as to how this is implemented, and unfortunately at this stage it seems there's not a whole lot of information as to exactly this will work. From the article: "There’s still uncertainty around how the government will approve eligibility for the projects. [...] adding more guidance is due to be provided in the near future."

I've got so many questions. Like, how much of the land has to be rewilded? Will this land be regularly monitored and checked? How are we going to decide whether or not a plot of land has been sufficiently rewilded? Can the landowner do any sort of rewilding even if it's unsuitable for the surrounding area and it's needs? Is there anything to stop someone from simply creating a monoculture conifer forest, which doesn't provide a great benefit for wildlife?

Are there any measures in place to stop land owners from demolishing these rewilded areas after it no longer becomes profitable to keep them that way? Can someone just create a monoculture conifer forest and then cut it down for timber once the inheretance has gone through on the land? Is there going to be a cap on the tax break itself? If the tax break ends up saving more money than the cost of rewilding an area and then demolishing it afterwards then this is just going to be another way for billionaires to dodge taxes whilst contributing nothing to the UK.

I'm skeptical to say the least.

 

My TL;DR:

Lucy Moore, a UK academic, has completed a project creating a Wikipedia page for a woman in every country in the world and is calling for more women to contribute to the world’s largest encyclopedia.

She has now written biographies of 532 women since 2019, when she first became a Wikipedia editor, including scientists, monarchs, activists, writers and women whose faces are well known but their stories are not.

She tended to focus on women who share her interests, she said, such as poets, activists and coin specialists, known as numismatists, which is her own field.

But it has not been easy. She said one of the issues was that Wikipedia required three reliable sources for each biography and, while there may have been a lot written on social media about some of the women, they may not have appeared in newspapers, especially in countries where women’s achievements are not taken seriously.

Run as a non-profit, open-source encyclopedia that is free to use, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone but only a fifth of its 124,000 regularly active editors are women.


Some of the women recognised by Moore:

  • Julia Chinn (c. 1790 – July 1833) was an American plantation manager and enslaved woman of mixed race, who was the common-law wife of the ninth vice-president of the United States, Richard Mentor Johnson.
  • Sharbat Gula (born c. 1972) is an Afghan woman who became internationally recognised as the 12-year-old subject in Afghan Girl, a 1984 portrait taken by American photojournalist Steve McCurry that was later published on the cover of National Geographic.
  • Jeanne Gapiya-Niyonzima (born 12 July 1963, in Bujumbura) is a human rights activist from Burundi. She is the chair and founder of the National Association for Support for HIV-Positive People with Aids (ANSS) and was the first person from the country to publicly admit they had HIV.
  • Ólafía Einarsdóttir (28 July 1924 – 19 December 2017) was an Icelandic archaeologist and historian, becoming the first Icelander to complete a degree in archaeology. She taught at the University of Copenhagen and published many works about Icelandic sagas and Viking history.
  • Gloria Meneses (1910 – 1996) was a Uruguayan performer and activist who lived openly from 1950 until her death as travesti – a term used in Latin America to designate people who were assigned male at birth and develop a feminine gender identity.
 

My TL;DR:

The proposed oil-drilling operation is in Biscathorpe in the Lincolnshire Wolds, an important habitat for nature and wildlife that has been officially designated an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB).

The plans were rejected by the local council in 2021 but the oil company Egdon appealed against the decision and in November it was overturned by the government’s Planning Inspectorate, infuriating locals and environmentalists.

Now campaigners have been granted permission to seek a judicial review of the ruling in the high court.

The government has been widely criticised for pushing ahead with new oil and gas extraction in the midst of a climate emergency, with their own climate advisers, the International Energy Agency and hundreds of scientists and experts saying that no new oil and gas exploration can take place if the world is to limit global heating to 1.5C above preindustrial temperatures.

Despite this, Rishi Sunak has vowed to “max out” the UK’s oil reserves, ploughing ahead with huge new oilfields in the North Sea as well as three new onshore drilling operations in England.


Some quotes:

The area’s Tory MP, Victoria Atkins, came out against the plans in 2021, writing the proposals “represent the industrialisation of the Lincolnshire Wolds” adding that “as the UK strives to achieve net zero by 2050 … we must be cautious to ensure that we do not allow an application to go ahead that will do long-term damage to the Lincolnshire Wolds, its natural environment and our local communities”.

However, Atkins – who is now health secretary – did not respond when asked whether she was still opposed to the proposals.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero declined to comment on the case, instead issuing a general statement defending the UK’s decision to “max out” oil and gas in the midst of a climate crisis.

Mark Abbott, the CEO of Egdon, responded by saying it would rather not drill in an AONB “but could not control where oil is located”. He added there were extremely rigorous protection measures in place to protect the local environment.

“We’re happy to arrange for the local community to visit the site whilst we implement these important protection measures, so that they can see for themselves how seriously Egdon takes its environmental responsibilities.”

 

My TL;DR:

Spending on low-carbon measures for the three years from April 2020 to the end of April 2023 was about $33.3bn (£26.2bn) in total for the UK, the lowest out of the top five European economies, according to an analysis by Greenpeace of data from the International Energy Agency.

Italy topped the table for western European economies, having spent $111bn in the period. Germany spent $92.7bn, France $64.5bn and Spain about $51.3bn.

The data includes spending on electricity networks, energy efficiency, innovation on fuels and technology, low-carbon and efficient transport and low-carbon electricity.

On Wednesday, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor of the exchequer, will deliver the last budget of this parliament, which is likely to centre on tax cuts that economists have said will mainly benefit better-off people. Hunt is expected to devote little resource to energy or green issues.


Quotes from Greenpeace UK and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero:

Georgia Whitaker, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said the UK was losing out to international rivals in the race for the economy of the future.

“It’s clear that despite the government’s bluster, we are utterly failing on the world stage when it comes to green investment. Not only are the US and China leaving us in the dust in the race on green technology, we’re also doing terribly compared to our European neighbours,” she said.

She called instead for a green industrial strategy and infrastructure investment. “Jeremy Hunt should use the spring budget to address this embarrassing failure, but instead he’s flirting with tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest. Meanwhile, the rest of us struggle on with the cost of living,” she said.

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “This report fails to recognise our progress compared to European allies. We are the first major economy in the world to halve our emissions, and we have the second largest renewables capacity in Europe.

“We have a clear strategy to boost UK industry and reach net zero by 2050 – backed by £300bn in low carbon investment since 2010.”

view more: next ›