Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and join in with the discussions! Click Here

Spike
 Share
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In Australia (I imagine NZ is very similar) taxes pay for medicare, pension, welfare, infrastructure support (roads, bridges) student loans, disability support, residential aged care, university fundi

He did not know that this gesture was anti-semitic because it is NOT anti-semitic. There's nothing to add — except that you people should start thinking by yourself instead of believing words coming f

When a government wants to control its population, the best way to do so is to fear its people by creating an external enemy. This way, people feel endangered by an outside menace, become more patriot

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Washington Post after analysing everything Trump said have worked out he lied over 30 000 times during office

They all do, from that clown Boris to Macron to Bush to Mette of Denmark and all the way to whomever......liers and deceivers the lot of them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Atomiswave said:

They all do, from that clown Boris to Macron to Bush to Mette of Denmark and all the way to whomever......liers and deceivers the lot of them.

Mette Frederiksen is a good leader, nothing like the assholes you placed her with

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vesper said:

Mette Frederiksen is a good leader, nothing like the assholes you placed her with

Good leader my ass, another puppet. her repu is not well received here I can tell you. Yes she might not be a Bush but rotten is still rotten.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Atomiswave said:

Good leader my ass, another puppet. her repu is not well received here I can tell you. Yes she might not be a Bush but rotten is still rotten.

what is she doing you dislike?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Vesper said:

what is she doing you dislike?

Many things mate, for one she passed a law that you cant record police officers any longer, so if you see the police brutalize someone you cant film it, if they do catch you, you go to jail. Thats straight up horseshit amongst other things. Im at work now but will give further info later.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Atomiswave said:

Many things mate, for one she passed a law that you cant record police officers any longer, so if you see the police brutalize someone you cant film it, if they do catch you, you go to jail. Thats straight up horseshit amongst other things. Im at work now but will give further info later.

Cops as we know have a lot to hide, oh buts its ok for them to film us either openly or covertly

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Atomiswave said:

Many things mate, for one she passed a law that you cant record police officers any longer, so if you see the police brutalize someone you cant film it, if they do catch you, you go to jail. Thats straight up horseshit amongst other things. Im at work now but will give further info later.

could you please post links about thsi new law that forbids recording the coppers?

TIA

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Cops as we know have a lot to hide, oh buts its ok for them to film us either openly or covertly

police are just an extension of the filth, their time will come. You took an oath to protect the people, not to suck your masters dick you bare foot cunts.

10 minutes ago, Vesper said:

could you please post links about thsi new law that forbids recording the coppers?

TIA

Saw it on the tele the other day, it will come in effect before Oktober......I will dig for it

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Cameron ‘made more than £7m’ from Greensill Capital before firm collapsed

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19502127.david-cameron-made-7m-greensill-capital-firm-collapsed/

David Cameron is reported to have made 10 million US dollars (£7.2 million) from Greensill Capital before the company collapsed in March.

The former Prime Minister was revealed to have made 4.5 million dollars (£3.25 million) after cashing in shares from the company in 2019, and a salary of roughly one million dollars a year for work as a part-time adviser.

The BBC’s Panorama programme has reportedly obtained a letter between the firm and the former prime minister detailing the value of his shares.

Mr Cameron is believed to have made approximately 10 million dollars before tax from Greensill over a two-and-a-half year period.

His spokesman said the former PM’s finances were a private matter, but added he “deeply regrets” Greensill’s collapse.

Mr Cameron began his role as an adviser to Greensill in August 2018, just over two years after he resigned as prime minister in July 2016.

The firm’s founder, Lex Greensill, advised the Government during Mr Cameron’s time in No 10 but he denied he had been offered a role while in office.

Greensill provided so-called supply chain finance to businesses, which meant the finance firm would pay a company’s invoice immediately after it was sent, cutting out the usual delay which can restrict companies’ cash flows.

The firm was the main financial backer to GFG Alliance – a group of companies controlled by the steel magnate Sanjeev Gupta, which borrowed around $5 billion from Greensill.

But Greensill used its own cash to cover repayments GFG couldn’t afford, according to Panorama.

David Cameron lobbied the UK Government to act as a new investor for the firm, texting ministers including the Chancellor Rishi Sunak, as well as Boris Johnson’s senior adviser Sheridan Westlake, and deputy Bank of England governor Sir Jon Cunliffe.

The Bank of England turned Greensill down, but in June 2020 Greensill was approved as a lender under a Government scheme designed to get emergency cash to companies affected by the Covid pandemic.

Greensill collapsed in March 2021, leading to a series of inquiries into Mr Cameron’s conduct and what had happened to the firm.

A statement from Mr Cameron’s spokesman said: “David Cameron deeply regrets that Greensill went into administration and is desperately sorry for those who have lost their jobs.

“As he was neither a director of the company, nor involved in any lending decisions, he has no special insight into what ultimately happened.

“He acted in good faith at all times, and there was no wrongdoing in any of the actions he took. He made the representations he did to the UK Government not just because he thought it would benefit the company, but because he sincerely believed there would be a material benefit for UK businesses at a challenging time.

“He had no idea until December 2020 that the company was in danger of failure.”

The statement added: “David Cameron has been clear all along that there are important lessons to be learnt from this whole episode and, as such, he has been pleased to provide evidence to the Government’s Boardman Inquiry, and to two Parliamentary Select Committees.

“Both the Treasury Select Committee and the Boardman Report have since confirmed that he broke no rules. The Boardman Report also makes plain that he played no role in bringing Lex Greensill into government.”

Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner said it was “ludicrous” that Mr Cameron “walked away with $10m for two-and-a-half years’ part-time work for a company that collapsed, risking thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money.”

She added: “The fact that David Cameron was cleared of any wrongdoing, proves that the rules that are supposed to regulate lobbying are completely unfit for purpose. It’s created a wild west where the Conservatives think it’s one rule for them and another for everyone else.

“The system causes more harm than good by giving a veil of legitimacy to the rampant cronyism, sleaze and dodgy lobbying that is polluting our democracy under Boris Johnson and the Conservatives.

“This is money most of us cannot even imagine, but for David Cameron it was just a part-time gig using his Tory contacts for huge personal gain.”

The Treasury Select Committee of MPs said in May that Mr Cameron showed a “significant lack of judgment”, although he was cleared of breaking lobbying laws.

8dFNA6J.jpeg

Edited by Vesper
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Vesper said:

David Cameron ‘made more than £7m’ from Greensill Capital before firm collapsed

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19502127.david-cameron-made-7m-greensill-capital-firm-collapsed/

David Cameron is reported to have made 10 million US dollars (£7.2 million) from Greensill Capital before the company collapsed in March.

The former Prime Minister was revealed to have made 4.5 million dollars (£3.25 million) after cashing in shares from the company in 2019, and a salary of roughly one million dollars a year for work as a part-time adviser.

The BBC’s Panorama programme has reportedly obtained a letter between the firm and the former prime minister detailing the value of his shares.

Mr Cameron is believed to have made approximately 10 million dollars before tax from Greensill over a two-and-a-half year period.

His spokesman said the former PM’s finances were a private matter, but added he “deeply regrets” Greensill’s collapse.

Mr Cameron began his role as an adviser to Greensill in August 2018, just over two years after he resigned as prime minister in July 2016.

The firm’s founder, Lex Greensill, advised the Government during Mr Cameron’s time in No 10 but he denied he had been offered a role while in office.

Greensill provided so-called supply chain finance to businesses, which meant the finance firm would pay a company’s invoice immediately after it was sent, cutting out the usual delay which can restrict companies’ cash flows.

The firm was the main financial backer to GFG Alliance – a group of companies controlled by the steel magnate Sanjeev Gupta, which borrowed around $5 billion from Greensill.

But Greensill used its own cash to cover repayments GFG couldn’t afford, according to Panorama.

David Cameron lobbied the UK Government to act as a new investor for the firm, texting ministers including the Chancellor Rishi Sunak, as well as Boris Johnson’s senior adviser Sheridan Westlake, and deputy Bank of England governor Sir Jon Cunliffe.

The Bank of England turned Greensill down, but in June 2020 Greensill was approved as a lender under a Government scheme designed to get emergency cash to companies affected by the Covid pandemic.

Greensill collapsed in March 2021, leading to a series of inquiries into Mr Cameron’s conduct and what had happened to the firm.

A statement from Mr Cameron’s spokesman said: “David Cameron deeply regrets that Greensill went into administration and is desperately sorry for those who have lost their jobs.

“As he was neither a director of the company, nor involved in any lending decisions, he has no special insight into what ultimately happened.

“He acted in good faith at all times, and there was no wrongdoing in any of the actions he took. He made the representations he did to the UK Government not just because he thought it would benefit the company, but because he sincerely believed there would be a material benefit for UK businesses at a challenging time.

“He had no idea until December 2020 that the company was in danger of failure.”

The statement added: “David Cameron has been clear all along that there are important lessons to be learnt from this whole episode and, as such, he has been pleased to provide evidence to the Government’s Boardman Inquiry, and to two Parliamentary Select Committees.

“Both the Treasury Select Committee and the Boardman Report have since confirmed that he broke no rules. The Boardman Report also makes plain that he played no role in bringing Lex Greensill into government.”

Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner said it was “ludicrous” that Mr Cameron “walked away with $10m for two-and-a-half years’ part-time work for a company that collapsed, risking thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money.”

She added: “The fact that David Cameron was cleared of any wrongdoing, proves that the rules that are supposed to regulate lobbying are completely unfit for purpose. It’s created a wild west where the Conservatives think it’s one rule for them and another for everyone else.

“The system causes more harm than good by giving a veil of legitimacy to the rampant cronyism, sleaze and dodgy lobbying that is polluting our democracy under Boris Johnson and the Conservatives.

“This is money most of us cannot even imagine, but for David Cameron it was just a part-time gig using his Tory contacts for huge personal gain.”

The Treasury Select Committee of MPs said in May that Mr Cameron showed a “significant lack of judgment”, although he was cleared of breaking lobbying laws.

8dFNA6J.jpeg

Snout in the trough - and he likes pigs heads as well apparently

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Far-Right View on Climate Politics

As the world reckons with the grim reality of the climate crisis, right-wing populists are adapting their message.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/08/far-right-view-climate-ipcc/619709/

 

A burned tree and a fist

Perhaps the 234 scientists behind this week’s landmark climate assessment had hoped that their report—published during a summer of deadly flooding, wildfires, and heat waves—would act as a wake-up call, one that would unite the world’s governments and parties.

But political consensus on the issue of climate change, much like the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, is unlikely to be achieved: Although most mainstream political parties have at the very least acknowledged the reality of human-induced climate change and the need to implement sweeping new policies to address it, several populist parties continue to reject the scientific consensus. Even those that accept it tend to oppose mainstream solutions, including multilateral efforts to address the problem.

Europe, which has experienced some of the summer’s worst climate disasters, offers a preview of the populist right’s next political battleground. What has emerged so far is not a change of heart but, rather, a shift in tone. Populist parties have traded outright denialism for the position that climate policy, like that of immigration and the coronavirus pandemic, represents yet another top-down elite agenda that stands to hit ordinary people, particularly those in the working class, the hardest.

If this line of argument sounds familiar, that’s because it is. In recent years, right-wing populists have positioned themselves as Europe’s staunchest defenders—against immigration and threats to national sovereignty; against pandemic restrictions and the influence of global institutions; and against what they regard as national governments’ hysteria over climate change, which populists have described as “degenerate fearmongering” at best and “totalitarian” at worst.

This isn’t to say that Europe’s populist right is united in its opposition to climate change. According to a 2019 study by Adelphi, an environmental-policy think tank based in Berlin, only two of Europe’s nearly two dozen right-wing populist parties—Hungary’s far-right Fidesz and Latvia’s National Alliance—explicitly support the scientific consensus on the climate crisis. But among the others, differences exist. Some, including the far-right Alternative for Germany and the Dutch Party for Freedom, reject the idea of anthropogenic global warming, whereas others, such as France’s National Rally and Spain’s Vox, have begun to advocate their own brand of nationalist environmentalism—one that supports local policies to tackle climate change but simultaneously rejects international agreements aimed at doing the same.

In practice, this means promoting conservation at the local level (through policies such as favoring local consumption and preserving limited resources) while repudiating international-led initiatives such as the Paris Agreement. In the case of Vox, it has meant advocating to preserve Spain’s “natural heritage” on the one hand and opposing efforts to rein in the country’s carbon emissions on the other.

Read: It’s grim

The populist right’s about-face on climate is partly driven by politics. As voters become more attuned to the threats posed by the climate crisis, the repercussions of which are already being felt in countries such as Germany, Italy, Greece, and Spain, some of Europe’s populist parties have been forced to change tack. Vox, which once dismissed climate change as a hoax, has since promoted its own version of environmentalism as an alternative to what it describes as the “green religion” of the left. France’s National Rally has experienced a similar transition in recent years, from the climate skepticism of its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, to the identity-based environmentalism of his daughter, and the party’s current leader, Marine Le Pen.

Populist parties realize that “there are diminishing returns in playing the denialist card,” Catherine Fieschi, a political analyst who tracks dissent against climate policy in Europe, told me. Unlike issues such as immigration or the European Union, climate change simply isn’t as divisive in Europe (something that can’t be said for other parts of the world, including the United States). Until recently, it wasn’t considered a top priority for voters.

Even parties that haven’t explicitly changed course on climate change have found ways to incorporate the issue into their worldview. Climate change, after all, fits neatly within the populist narrative of the “pure people” versus the “corrupt elite.” In the populist right’s telling, green policies such as fuel taxes and decarbonization incentives represent an elitist attack on the lives of ordinary people. “Populists have been very good at saying, ‘We’re not just going to protect you from climate change,’” Fieschi said. “‘We’re going to protect you from an elite that doesn’t give a damn about the cost that climate policy is going to take on you.’”

Beyond the economic argument is another classic from the populist arsenal—the anti-expertise argument. According to Ralph Schroeder, a co-author of a recent study from the Oxford Internet Institute on the link between climate skepticism and support for right-wing populists, populist rejection of climate science “is not so much correlated with economic hardship that it may impose,” but rather with the belief that “experts shouldn’t tell us what to do.”

Helen Lewis: I’ve hit my climate tipping point

But perhaps the most cogent argument populists are beginning to make about climate change is one that they’ve been pushing for much of the last year: that this is another example of the establishment trying to restrict people’s basic freedoms. “It’s all the more easy to do in the wake of the pandemic,” Fieschi told me, noting the restrictive measures imposed by European governments to curb the spread of the coronavirus, many of which have been met with protests. “What [populists] are saying is ‘This is the thin end of the wedge, this pandemic thing. Now they’re going to really curtail your freedoms.’”

The biggest challenge facing this populist argument, however, is time—something that, as the United Nations climate report made clear, the world is in short supply of. Extreme weather events are becoming more common; urgency to tackle global warming will grow. While populist arguments against “climate hysteria” may provide temporary reassurance, they are no substitute for real policy solutions. For people displaced by worsening fires and floods, blaming elites will offer little comfort.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Millennial Leftists Have Made a BBC Filmmaker a Cult Hero

Flowing dreamlike between pop culture, politics, and psychology, Adam Curtis’s documentaries both complicate and articulate a senseless world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/08/adam-curtis-millennial-leftist-progressive-fans/619479/

19aff4056851b9a2abf1bbf0a4106f61.jpg

An Adam Curtis documentary might start with images like these: a group of men waltzing with invisible partners, the wealth of the British empire running through their tailcoats; shaky mobile-phone footage of a bomb in Afghanistan; a young Donald Trump in a helicopter, Manhattan spread out below; an aerobics instructor clad in ’80s pink and sticky lip gloss; a man shot in the head, bleeding in the dirt; a panda sneezing.

The footage might be tied together by a haunting Burial or Aphex Twin song. A title card in Arial font could declare something like the old system was dying. Then perhaps Curtis’s disembodied voice, all elongated vowels and faint adenoidal superiority, would augur that “this was a fantasy.” For the many fans of the longtime BBC journalist, this combination—surreal, funny, disturbing—is part of what makes him revered. At the heart of Curtis’s appeal is his consistent assertion, both in style and in substance, that society does not make sense anymore.

Curtis began his career at the U.K.’s national broadcaster in the early 1980s, but his style emerged clearly with 1992’s Pandora’s Box. An exploration of the rise of technocratic politics amid the fall of the U.S.S.R., the series won Curtis his first two BAFTAs (his documentaries would go on to win two more). With this success—and his infinite access to the BBC’s substantial archives—Curtis’s oeuvre took shape, culminating in 2011’s All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, which looks at the rise of modern technology, and 2016’s HyperNormalisation, about the West’s retreat from political complexity. His most recent series is this year’s Can’t Get You Out of My Head, a history of individualism.

In a particular kind of person—Millennial, leftist, overly online—Curtis inspires a specific fandom. His recent appearances on Red Scare and Chapo Trap House, podcasts of the Millennial “dirtbag left,” seem to have cemented his status among malcontent 20-somethings. An editor for Dazed wrote that witnessing Curtis’s popularity “among our generation” was “fascinating”; The Economist named Curtis “a cult-hero to young thinkers.” When an interviewer for the socialist magazine Jacobin remarked to Curtis that he was watched by “lots of disaffected young people,” the filmmaker said he didn’t know why he had this audience, but had heard that kids were holding “all-night” viewing parties for one of his documentaries in outer-London squats.

The key to Curtis’s style is an interplay of decontextualized music and archival footage that examines heady, seemingly disparate subjects such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of psychology, and pop culture. By threading a patchwork of references together, Curtis unveils the interconnectedness of society’s systems. His declarations can feel like revelations: emotional truths that one has long suspected but never uncovered. Yet his documentaries also veer rapidly between tragic and comedic, sometimes appearing intent on provoking a reaction from the viewer. Curtis’s filmmaking has an early-YouTube, Internet Archive aesthetic that almost replicates the strangeness of the web in the early to mid aughts: scraps of news clips, home videos, proto-memes, lurid celebrity gossip. He seems fluent in my generation’s dead tongue.

Curtis’s style is so distinctive that parodies of his work are common, particularly on Twitter. These include a bingo card (with boxes that read “Grainy film of oil sheikhs,” and “Ronald Reagan”), jokes about the “Adam Curtis voice,” and references to his penchant for declaring that “something incredible happened.” Earlier this year, when a fitness influencer in Myanmar went viral for filming herself obliviously performing aerobics as, behind her, military vehicles rolled into Parliament to wrest power from the government, I saw the same joke again and again on my social-media feeds: This is part of an Adam Curtis documentary.

This devotion might seem curious. Curtis is, after all, a BBC journalist in the most traditional sense: Oxbridge educated, older, male, white. He typically refuses to take a political stance in interviews, saying that he distrusts labels and ideologies. When I asked Alan Finlayson, a professor of political and social theory at the U.K.’s University of East Anglia, about Curtis, he told me via email that he has always thought of the documentarian as “rather conservative.” “The general argument [of Curtis’s work] seems to be that history is made by individuals and not larger historical or social forces, that ideas are always to be suspected (especially those of philosophers and scientists), and we shouldn’t trust people with plans for improving things,” Finlayson said. Curtis’s lack of any real analysis of the failures of popular left-wing figures such as Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders has also attracted criticism, while his refusal to adhere to a single political philosophy has tended to infuriate leftist commentators. (Curtis recently asserted that he is a “progressive” who is “emotionally sympathetic to radicalism,” whatever that means.)

Curiously, when I asked Charlie Beckett, a professor and the director of the London School of Economics’ media think tank, Polis, what he made of Curtis’s popularity, his view was the opposite of Finlayson’s. Curtis “offers an explanation of the world that must be attractive to Leftists frustrated by their continuing lack of electoral appeal or political success in countries like the U.K.,” he told me in an email. “It’s much easier to blame shadowy corporate forces than political realities.”

Derek Thompson: The Millennials-versus-Boomers fight divides the Democratic Party

But these contrasting interpretations are precisely what might explain Curtis’s popularity among young adults. His enthusiasm for tricky, often contradictory, ideas feels refreshing to those who came of age in a world of social-media moralizing, simplistic documentaries, and smug opinion pieces. With one foot in the early-internet, pre-9/11, pre–Great Recession world and the other in the contemporary mire of social media, unstable work, and a housing crisis, Millennials are acutely aware of senselessness. This generation has a nagging feeling that somewhere along the way, something has gone deeply, catastrophically wrong.

In this light, Curtis’s commitment to the weird—the juxtaposition of partnerless dancers, aerobics instructors, and grisly news footage—expresses the bizarreness of society. The way to effectively communicate a system that does not make sense is to do away with the pretense of sense itself. For Millennial leftists focused on uncovering and dismantling power structures that they feel have disadvantaged their generation, Curtis’s analysis of how society functions—or fails to function—is attractive. To some progressives, the establishment media frequently focuses on trivialities and elevated gossip instead of analyzing how overarching structures might be flawed. When I spoke with writer and critic Jon Doyle, about Curtis, he focused on the filmmaker’s use of typically unseen news footage—the cutting-room-floor clips in which anchors bluster and bumble, and eerie silences appear between interviewers and guests. “Everything is more chaotic, more banal, more confusing than we want to admit,” Doyle said.

Curtis’s work ultimately feels rare because he not only acknowledges the surrealism of the world but constructs a narrative about this strangeness. For people attempting to understand why society has ceased to function well, Curtis’s documentaries question the idea that we can expect nothing better, that everything is as it should be. And that’s why Curtis’s Millennial fans don’t mind if he focuses too much on the individual or the institutions, or whether his themes might skew leftist, or conservative, or smarter-than-thou. Even if Curtis offers no solutions, simply vocalizing the seemingly unspoken is enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
EXCLUSIVE: 

Nearly £100,000 spent on Downing St paintings as Boris Johnson planned to slash benefits

EXCLUSIVE: Official documents disclose that huge sums were paid for two paintings in No 10 via the Government Art Collection fund - a pot of money bolstered by taxpayers’ cash

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/number-10-spent-100000-lavish-24715911

0_BRITAIN-HEALTH-VIRUS-POLITICS-BABY.jpg

Nearly £100,000 was spent on two paintings to adorn the walls of 10 Downing Street as Boris Johnson drew up plans to cut public sector pay and slash benefits.

Official documents show the works were bought through the Government Art Collection fund, which is bolstered by taxpayers.

The extravagance was revealed as millions of low-income families brace themselves for Rishi Sunak’s £20-a-week cut to Universal Credit and after the Government imposed a real-terms pay cut for teachers and police officers last month.

Accounts show £70,200 was spent on a painting by Belfast-born artist Cathy Wilkes, 54. The untitled 24in by 28in work is egg tempera on linen.

A second piece, costing £18,775 from photographer, video and installation artist Willie Doherty, has also gone on display.

It is a set of four black-and-white photographs called Ashen, Restless, which show vegetation and their shadows on a grey concrete background.

1_artwork.jpg

£70,200 was spent on this untitled painting by 54-year-old Belfast-born artist Cathy Wilkes

 

Downing Street was unable to say how much public cash was spent on the art but insisted the “majority” came from donors.

Labour MP Neil Coyle said of the Prime Minister: “His selfishness and desire for luxuries for himself whilst cutting support and income for others is a sign of the sickness at the heart of his Government.”

Anti-poverty campaigners have pleaded with Chancellor Sunak not to snatch back the £20 uplift to Universal Credit, but the Government has so far refused to listen.

Ministers also met with fierce criticism over the Government’s long-delayed pay rise for NHS staff.

After rejecting calls for a 12% rise they eventually settled on 3%, after originally proposing an “insulting” 1% which would have been wiped out by inflation.

Police, teachers and other public sector staff have had their pay frozen.

Labour backbencher Emma Lewell-Buck said: “The selfishness of this Prime Minister is galling. When shelves are bare in my local food banks, businesses have gone to the wall, public sector and key workers have suffered pay freezes and cuts, his priority is once again himself.”

It comes after a row over the luxurious redecoration of Mr Johnson’s private flat in Downing Street, which he shares with his wife Carrie, baby Wilfred and dog Dilyn.

Edited by Vesper
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always remember that first Michael Moore film where Bush is seen entertaining Taliban Leaders at his Texas Ranch, because the US wanted that oil pipe running to the Caspian Sea. That was pre 9/11, before the invasion of Afghanistan.

Guaranteed now the Hawks, the multi millionaire arms and weapons shareholders will be pushing for military action. They are the hidden, real movers and shakers of US foreign policy. So the blood soaked Merry go round continues....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Police in southern California have released body camera footage showing an officer shooting an unarmed Black man in May 2021

the city settled with the man’s family for $1 million

After a decade of sustained Black Lives Matter activism, police continue to kill Black people at high rates. In 2021, officers have killed at 635 people, a disproportionate number of them Black, according to an analysis from Mapping Police Violence. (Reuters)

  • Angry 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Churchill's imperialism was driven by altruism is properly ridiculous. I would say laughable actually if it wasn't so dangerously stupid.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor people in Afghanistan. Some people say that it was Biden fault but I don't see it like that. I feel that whoever would be made that decision it was inevitable that this would happen. US has spent years in training Afghanistan and money but it was never going to be enough. Even if they stay 100 years, the middle east is something complex. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Poor people in Afghanistan. Some people say that it was Biden fault but I don't see it like that. I feel that whoever would be made that decision it was inevitable that this would happen. US has spent years in training Afghanistan and money but it was never going to be enough. Even if they stay 100 years, the middle east is something complex. 

 

corrupt gutless puppet central Afghan government

what a shitshow

20 million women now go under the cosh of utter submission, darkness, rape, torture, ignorance, and death

😪

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...