In the news

Yup, cops

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/mar/13/reclaim-these-streets-vigils-womens-safety-uk-latest-updates?page=with:block-604d1fff8f0860686c6f90aa#block-604d1fff8f0860686c6f90aa

Met police really not reading the room. How easy would it have been to soft touch tonight. Twats.

Not only are the Met institutionally racist, they are also institutionally sexist. They will always close rank. Every. Single. Time.

The Telegraph want to link writers pay to how many people read an article, seems a terrible way to reward people covering important but unpopular topics and drive more production of click bait trash
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/15/daily-telegraph-plans-link-journalists-pay-article-popularity

Because nobody will ever game that.

You’ll never believe what happens next

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/16/julie-burchill-agrees-to-pay-ash-sarkar-substantial-damages-in-libel-case

Burchill also posted a series of further comments about Sarkar,
claiming that she was an Islamist, a terrorist sympathiser, and
speculating about her sex life.

As well as directing her Facebook followers to “wade in on Twitter”
against “the Islamists” and “nonces”, she wrote a crude poem about
Sarkar that featured a description of “a gender fluid threesome with
Marine Le Pen”. She also “liked” posts saying that Sarkar should kill
herself and suggesting that she was a victim of female genital
mutilation.

The admission of defamation will be viewed as an uncomfortable
concession for Burchill, whose interventions had been portrayed in
some coverage as a free speech issue, with Sarkar’s objections
reported as an example of the power of the “outrage mob”.

This is it, the perfect example of what the "free speach" lot actually mean. I can call you racist names cos free speach but if you push back then it's a hate mob.

“Although it was not my intention, I accept that my statements were defamatory"

Fuck the fuck off.

"I'm sorry you felt that way" is the worst form of apology and anyone that trots it out can get in the fucking sea.

She's just a professional contrarian (and narcissist, but that is essentially part of the definition of contrarian, I think). When she was younger that mean she used anarchist or left-wing ideas to provoke; too many other people were doing that so she pivoted on supporting Thatcher. It's a constant negative spiral and she's pretty much gone full fascist for some time now.

Nothing matters more to her than outrage and attention. So it goes.

Nothing matters more to her than outrage and attention. So it goes.

Nicely ties in with the post above about the Telegraph using article views as a metric to determine writers' pay.

It's been a week of outrage and disgust, and I'm so tired. it's difficult to keep being angry and sad

but this is so fucking pointless and depressing: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/15/cap-on-trident-nuclear-warhead-stockpile-to-rise-by-more-than-40

In what situation is it better to have 260 nukes than 180?

180 x 100 kiloton warheads can surely reduce half the world to a wasteland already

In what situation is it better to have 260 nukes than 180?

When your donors make money designing, building, storing and maintaining those nukes.

In what situation is it better to have 260 nukes than 180?

Nuclear dick swinging contest? Probably just a way of giving money to who they want to give it to.

Silly me. Of course

won't somebody think of the nurses / starving kids / a 2 trillion quid hole in the finances

ridiculous, but then the arms industry does pay the best and biggest backhanders / bribes

given that the big players in the destroying the entire world game have an estimate 3,800 warheads (the US) and 4,310 warheads (Russia) the notion that an extra 80 nukes in our arsenal does anything for our international standing is laughable.

It's red meat for the Tory voters who love to think of us as a military superpower, whilst siphoning cash out of the public purse and into private hands.

In theory, so that we can spread them around a bit, and actually get to use them once the bombs start flying, rather than the whole stockpile being destroyed in a first strike.

Assuming we're not already glowing silhouettes by then anyway.

1% for nurses, 40% for trident

Isn’t the submarine fleet the main platform for the nuclear deterrent? There’s 4 of them, and I doubt they’ve remodelled the interiors to hold an extra 20 nukes a piece.

I think the answer you are looking for is that there is no realistic situation where it is better to have 260 nukes than 180

From the article:

An aspiration for the UK to be a “soft power superpower” with praise for the BBC as “the most trusted broadcaster worldwide” despite Downing Street boycotting the broadcaster last year. The British monarchy is also cited as contributing.

They’re doing a fine job of destroying the BBC’s and the UK Govt’s credibility abroad. I wonder if they’re delusional or just failing to read the signs.

Piers Morgan in a frock. They'll probably both end up at GB News.