Get your head out your arse and realise the UK literally invented cucking for Israel.

I get that, but I don’t see that as what’s happening here. It sounds more like you have a bunch of noisy locals moaning about things, but the BBC is just reporting that, not really amplifying it. If anything, the subtext of the article is that the complaints are generally baseless.

Swinney continued: "The wind has changed direction overnight, which means the track of the fire has altered once again and the threat to Nethy Bridge has reduced, for the moment at least.

So the wind changed towards Nethy Bridge, creating a high threat warranting an evacuation. Then the wind changed again and the risk went down. Sounds more like an ever-evolving situation than anything negligent by those in charge of dealing with it. Even when they start quoting the local Tory MP and their moans, it’s immediately contrasted with detailed explanations from the people actually fighting the fires. Hardly “omit[ting] information that would establish one side’s claims as baseless.”

Good journalism shouldn’t explicitly tell you that one side of the argument is bullshit, as that would be expressing an opinion, not publishing the news. This article presents enough information that the reader should be able to come to that conclusion themselves.

That article reads like a bunch of quotes from locals. The BBC hardly injected any opinion into any of it.

Sounds like Salomon are playing a trick where they imply 100% of all their shoes are made in France, but really it’s only 100% of the shoe you’re looking at that is.

He gives me eerie Nick Clegg vibes.

My edit points out that the point of the speech was to assure international relations with southeast Asian countries, you’re reading far too much into it if you’re focusing on Iran, Israel, Palestine, Ukraine or Russia.

I think the main thing to take home from this is that it’s just a generic speech given to a southeast Asian trade group, it’s not really something that highlights policy or action in Europe or the Middle East. The post is reading too much into it, when the point of the speech was international relations with countries in a completely different region of the world.

“It is further alleged that, in the same speech to the jury, the respondent made statements which were capable of suggesting to the jury that the court was not impartial, in that he referred to the defendants being prevented from giving evidence about Elbit Systems, and later referred to Elbit Systems being ‘protected’ and ‘wined and dined in the corridors of power’.

“Those statements were capable of creating the impression that the defendants had been treated unfairly and that Elbit Systems had been improperly protected in the proceedings.”

You’re the user, but yes Declassified UK is the one who misrepresented the whole thing. Per my edit above.

At least their post included a link to the speech, so readers could decide for themselves.

Provided an edit, wasn’t quick enough lol

In this post, a user cherrypicks parts of a speech to push a specific agenda.

Edit: The full speech: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-remarks-at-asean-foreign-ministers-meeting-in-manila which was given to the ASEAN international forum (an international relations group for 11 Asian countries eg Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam).

The bits on Iran:

And I know in particular how much the Iran conflict is affecting ASEAN partners. You are feeling as much as anyone across the world the daily impact on your economies and the living standards of your citizens, as well indeed as the impact on seafarers from many ASEAN nations.

We too in the UK in our own way are feeling the effects of the conflict, on families and businesses in the impacts on the cost of living.

We very much welcome the MoU reached in June between the US and Iran and the US condemns in the strongest terms the unjustified attacks by Iran since then on shipping and indeed on our Gulf partners.

As a government I assure you we will work intensely with others to seek to deescalate this conflict and find a diplomatic way forward which is in all of our interests. That must include reopening the Strait of Hormuz and upholding the fundamental principle of freedom of navigation, a principle that the maritime nations around the table know better than anyone, is so important.

And the bit “on Russian aggression”, which is really about support for Ukraine:

As a government we will also continue to stand with Ukraine. In such a world, collaboration matters as they defend themselves against Russia’s unprovoked and premeditated aggression. Aggression that is not just a test of Ukrainian resilience, but of our collective resolve.

It is something, but I bet all the small venues were bought up by larger umbrella corporations are still eligible.

So to my original assertion, Burnham was not elected to the office of PM.

And the party didn’t even have a vote on him. He stood uncontested.

Literally the only group that had a say were the party MP’s who were responsible for nominations. However the party rules are designed to give the wider party membership a say; no opportunity for this was given. There wasn’t even a Count Binface option.

It’s permissible by the letter of the rules, but it absolutely is not what people expect to be happening with their democratic say.

Most people vote for whichever MP is in the party they want to vote for, run by the leader they want to run the country. Most people expect some stability, at least until the next opportunity to have their say.

And Labour party members are supposed to vote on the party leader, it isn’t supposed to just be a decision by MP’s. Because Burnham stood uncontested, there was no vote, and effectively the only people who got to decide were the MP’s at the nomination stage.

And Starmer had no good (publicly known) reason to leave. His controversies were never that damning, and they were contrasted with quiet competent successes.

You dismiss this as “all right and proper” according to British election rules, while ignoring that it is all dripping in slime.

That’s the farce of it all. On paper people vote for an MP, but in their minds people vote for a party, and that party is led by the PM they hope will be running the country.

Literally no one voted for Burnham to lead the party, even though party rules dictate how the party leader is democratically selected. With Labour, I understand the registered party members decide, although they may have restricted that to MP’s voting only in the wake of party members choosing Corbyn years ago.

Starmer threw in the towel, over nothing in particular, and Burnham stood uncontested. There is nothing democratic about that.

Sounds good and all, but I can’t help but resent the fact that all the good, independent venues are gone, and all they’re doing now is giving a kickback to the big commercial businesses that remain.

Call me when they create incentives for new small businesses.

“There are no burnt houses”

*Shows picture of burnt houses*

“It’s not that bad!”

padme.jpg

Most homeless women find a place for the night. Staying on the streets is too dangerous for them.

Many homeless people don’t want to sleep inside or under other peoples’ rules. I worry the subtext of this story is that Burnham is going to criminalise sleeping outside.

Sack all the politicians, they seem to inherently fail at their job: representing the people that voted for them. Instead, we should vote directly ourselves on anything an MP/MEP would vote on.