My sympathy to the woman and her family. Not to be glib but does anyone know why this is being described as a “horror smash”? Is it just for clicks?

The caveat at the bottom is telling. It strikes me that this incarcerated men knew they had to caveat the donation or it would get spent on SUV maintenance or something.

Don’t worry, we are going to have an enquiry led by our top man in Westminster, Evgeny Lebedev (whose full title is Baron Lebedev, of Hampton in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and of Siberia in the Russian Federation)

Maybe the bill will get an amendment. Maybe a 2nd amendment is required.

Weird how the BBC is going soft on the Royal angle - it should be in the headline - they normally love to ram the Royal cock (and bull stories) right up our collective newspipe. “[Nicholas Brandram, 44] is a relative of European royalty - a direct descendant of Queen Victoria, his great grandfather was King Constantine I of Greece, his grandmother was Princess Katherine of Greece, and the late Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, was his father’s godfather”

Work is an interesting point. Maybe working with a computer (a till, a barcode scanner, a stock checker, a multimeter) will be the thing that gets people scooped up and compliant first - even if you are using a work device, on a work network, on the business premises. If you want the $10 an hour: “gotta scan your ID, or you can’t activate the wafflegrill”

20 years after Jamies School dinners tried it (and caused “worried” parents to deliver sausage and chips through the school gates to their kids) its good to see a tiny improvement finally land. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/5349392.stm

The UK charity commission is right to advise a UK charity about their wrongdoing (associated with their response to promotion and sale of Palestinian land in a London synagogue).

Pfft. That’s not saying much. Seems like they suddenly leapt straight in to action after barely a couple of years of justifications and excuses. I would piss my knickers if they got a certain human rights expert with relevant government experience to be involved in the lengthy “legal process” to determine if anything bad happened during the genocide

True. Although I like how the headlines referring to the product as “pervert glasses” combined with headlines like this one leave little room for nuance. I hope the next logical step is for users to be forced to say “not all pervert glass wearers are sex offenders”. Embarrassment, shame, and ridicule is a better enforcement tool than any government action or restriction.

We need to be asking how people who are residents in, or responsible for the creation of, illegal Israeli settlements are getting money for providing road maintenance, transport services, driving licensing etc in the UK. If our own public services won’t “buy British”, what hope do we have?

Sorry - I meant “permission”, not cookie. If this is on (for Bluetooth headphones, sharing content, smart home etc) you could be leaking your location. If your partner shares their location, and you don’t - but you do allow your phone permission for nearby devices - your partners phone is revealing their own location, and their proximity to to you (your location). Third party cookies can be relevant for this because they allow browsers to identify/differentiate other users on the same network. If one user shares their location (or their location is known by the site they visited), then the other users on the networks location is also obtained.

One of the most pernicious cookies is the one that allows them to identify nearby devices. Even if you do not allow location specifically, consider exactly how much location data can be pieced together from that alone. It’s impossible to overestimate the amount of data they have on you.

It’s not about that specific £160k donation - its about keeping someone who has the means to donate £160k to a potential PM happy - £160k is peanuts - they might want to give £10million to an actual PM (or the next PM, or the PM after that). My only point is that Burnham pretended like he would stop massive individual donations to prevent cash for influence “if I get in to power” while he was taking massive individual donations. Now he is in power, he is blaming the unions for changing his mind and allowing massive individual donations to continue. He is just scapegoating unions (whose members collectively donated £20k between them in the last year) as the sole cause of him having to take the difficult decision NOT to support measures that would adversely affect him, and the tiny handful of people who actually gave him vast sums of money. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to see where this motivation might come from. It’s not the unions.

Burnham has presented this u turn on the £300k cap as pressure from unions, but the finances show that he received a pittance from all union members combined in the last year (£20k). He received nearly £325k from 6 individuals in the same period (including the £160k from Lord Sainsbury). The union angle is bollocks - it’s more likely that some of the 6 people that gave him £320k don’t want any caps at all, thank you very much. Suddenly he is no longer backing any caps at all, and blaming unions. Maybe my logic is flawed.

To be fair, we can have our own data centres without allowing them to have priority over our clean safe drinking water. It’s not just a crazy tree hugging green view that people should come before AI and data hosting (especially when the data centres are largely being used for surveillance, and not for the divestment from US data centres). This is obvious because we continue selling NHS, criminal justice and welfare data to US businesses and opting for the trans-atlantic subscription model instead of using UK companies (unless Tony Blair’s son has shares in them ofc).

Madlads. First they outlawed antifascist sentiment (Antifa), now they come for the anti-genocide (Palestine Action). What next I wonder

Andy Burnham has registered accepting £345,000 of donations over the past year including £164,347 from businessman Lord Sainsbury.

Less of a u turn, more of a lie with no genuine intent.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator