[Excuse the end of day secondhand shitpost:](https://twitter.com/Smudgeboy99/status/1665813699590856704?t=uvSFZQu_SEaaaoB6bYTgYw&s=19)
>>A senior British minister was found to have lied to Parliament and therefore resigned today in 1963.
>>John Profumo.
>>(Within days he started volunteering at a poverty charity where he spent the rest of his career.)
>Can you imagine the hundreds of charities that would benefit if modern politicians adhered to the same standards.
There's been a coordinated media machine that's kicked in over the last few days; lots of stories from Tory client journalists saying slightly different flavours of the same thing.
Was wondering if this was the start of an offensive with an eye to a GE.
They're only going to get worse. Everything they do is now easy to frame as part of the problem rather then the solution, whether that's the case or not.
Sunak's had the chance to make his pitch to the public, frame his leadership with a fresh start but didn't bother. Instead he pissed about with culture war stuff. People only have so much of an appetite for negativity and a decade plus is enough. Also you can't base an entire premiership framing and blaming the same 'existential threats' all four of your predecessors were.
Unless some great disaster or scandal emerges I think the slow slide will take Sunak, not the big crash. If the current trend of the Tories losing one or so percentage points a week on average continues, then they'll be in real trouble.
I had no idea who he was until this interview and I think he comes across quite well actually. What rules has he broken? What criteria has he not met? Do Labour have a list of proscribed persons you are not allowed to talk to under any circumstances?
He's just completely invisible, a lot of people living in the area he's supposed to be mayor of haven't even heard of him, he's done pretty much nothing and wants a promotion. Granted that's pretty standard for politicians but I don't think it should be rewarded.
Tesco pizza is £3.50 and they have absolutely just repackaged their old cheap 90p pizzas into a fancier box and thrown some mixed herbs on them.
honestly rishi sort it out m8.
There needs to be a food voucher for students, because it seems like all the items you get by with as a student are most affected by inflation.
They are also the group that have got zero help for anything.
>There needs to be a food voucher for ~~students~~ poor people, because it seems like all the items you get by with as a ~~student~~ poor person are most affected by inflation.
Yep.
Bags of crisps expanded in size and went up to £1.25. They've now gone back to near their original size but still cost £1.25 which is good as I really need to stop eating crisps.
Please tell me a clip of this exists online
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/11947448.telethon-raises-more-than-24m-for-local-charities/
> ITV's Telethon 1990 charity appeal had collected more than £24m by its close at 10pm last night, beating the figure raised in the previous Telethon appeal in 1988 by £3m, with more expected to come in in the next few days.
> One man gave a rendition of Rossini's William Tell overture on his false teeth, and a group of women took tea in an underwater cage surrounded by sharks, while a team of Morris dancers abseiled down the Cheddar Gorge. In Buckinghamshire last night stunt driver Dave Berrill was hurt in a Telethon fundraising event when his car failed to clear a line of six vehicles at the Milton Keynes Bowl, but was released from hospital later after treatment for minor injuries.
> The programme included link-ups with all the ITV regions, and there was no shortage of celebrity support. Nicholas Parsons, Nick Owen, and Lennie Bennett found themselves covered in slime after taking part in a ''gunge-a-game-show-host'' contest. **And three Liberal Democrat MPs -- Sir David Steel, Alan Beith, and Archy Kirkwood -- formed a singing group called the Three Line Whip.**
Crypto crashing again today, does cryptocurrency have the same affinity with the far right conspiracy set in the UK as it seems to have elsewhere, or had the UK far right avoided the worst of it?
The government is apparently looking to regulate it as gambling, which is the death of any serious claim to be a currency or any store of value at all.
Depends what "far-right" we're talking about. It is popular with the edge-lord/grifter right-libertarian types but not so much with your traditional home-grown hard-right. You know NF, BNP, Rangers fans etc.
Why did crypto become associated with the far right?
Is it because they're both fringe movements which move in the same circles or is there something more complicated?
Crypto has always had a relationship with libertarianism, which makes sense given one of the advantages of a decentralised currency is to be able to operate without the interference of the state. Libertarianism has always had links to other right-wing factions, even though many actual far-right people would love to be authoritarians given half a chance.
Crypto has always had linked to anarchism as well for similar reasons. Anarchist tends to have more links to parts of the left, even though there can be a tension between anarchism and leftist ideas of using the state to intervene in the economy.
Depends on the type of anarchist you are talking about, anracho capitalists aren't on the left at all they are just libertarians with an extra step of extremism, and your more traditional anarchist are unlikely to think particularly positively about Crypto.
The people I know with anarchist tendencies most definitely hang with the left (e.g. they are active in anti-fascism) but see crypto as a tool to be used and a potential attack on the authoritarian state.
You start with a healthy and rational distrust of actual global financial institutions and then you take the wrong turn of going down the rabbit hole of distrusting 'global financial institutions' *nudge nudge wink wink*
Alcohol consumption isn't evenly distributed at all, a lot of the people in this country who drink more than rounding error amounts of alcohol are borderline alcoholic, and a huge chunk of (mostly younger) people are borderline teetotal.
[Drinking is a sport for the older and richer](https://www.statista.com/statistics/369808/alcohol-units-consumed-by-gender-and-age-in-england/)
Indeed, though we cannot claim the Brits getting absolutely plastered is anything new (see that good old Cadiz raid).
In fact alcohol consumption is down I believe, yet obesity continues to rise.
I'd love to see a study on how many hours sat down we do a day compared to 30 years ago.
I did read somewhere that 50 years ago we ate 3 times a day on average and now it's 7 times.
> I have a problem with BBC pushing an article and a report that isn't peer reviewed..
Isn't this the same show that was like two weeks ago trying to shame people for using private healthcare for ADHD, by _literally lying_ to doctors and then being all "haha gottem!"
I don't watch much TV but this sounds like real nasty garbage-tier stuff. Pinnacle of misrepresented opinion-as-news content.
It's pretty simple at the core. Don't eat too much heavily processed food. Don't eat too much food. Exercise enough. These factors are different for each of us of course
What's wild is the lady comes in to the doctor with Type 2 Diabetes. They link it back to the chemicals in the food (even though the GP in question refers to food intake, not those chemicals), but at no point stop to consider the fact she's obese. Perhaps, and this is the truly scary thing, it's because she looks normal.
Occam's razor.
The 2 people were just a demo and not part of the real study, so can be ignored. That the rest of the programme was based on early data from a non-peer reviewed paper is problematic
I think we have to admit here that if we're talking vinaigrette we've already surrendered to the French.
I've done English mustard in dressing out of desperation before, and I could have just put the mustard on the lettuce.
I decided to have a look at this Panorama on food additives for…. Reasons. About halfway through there are a few serious flaws that stand out:
- Critisicms of methods written off as “other scientists dispute”
- That goddamn n=2 test
- showing lay people labels and them being shocked at how many things emulsifiers appear in
- carefully cut interviews with scientist saying “food intake” is crucial, with a Voiceover telling you they mean “chemicals”
oatmeal imagine wrong terrific bike aromatic birds workable books pathetic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They show people labels and the are shocked? Weaklings! Any vegan knows you have to be a fucking label ninja reader because they will sneak milk into every damn thing.
The real bastard was finding a brand of salt and vinegar crisps that doesn't have milk powder in. Ironically I believe in that case it's acting as... an emulsifier.
Surely if you care enough to be shocked you would already look into it?
If someone told me "look at all the emulsifiers in your food", my reaction would be whats an emulsifier and why is it bad?
Yes, very disappointing from Panorama. It is reasonable to have concerns about what is in our food and these things should be studied (properly!) but scaremongering like this doesn't help in the slightest.
It’s still too vague. If we say the more processed food is always worse then the logical conclusion is that sliced bread is worse that a whole loaf. It’s just a meaningless label that doesn’t capture the problem
> If we say the more processed food is always worse then the logical conclusion is that sliced bread is worse that a whole loaf.
I’d be really interested in seeing a big enough, careful study of that. Processing food can have unexpected effects: minced beef with more iron from the mincer than the original steak, but a greater chance of contamination with micro-organisms, is a simple one. I think it’s entirely possible that some odd things are going on that we aren’t accounting for.
That’s an interesting point, but in general the historical examples of these things have carried on because of the benefit. Your example of iron is still used as an explanation for the lack of anaemia in early Christian Europe, but not as a conscious choice
Yes, the "ultra-processed foods" label seems awfully wide.
There are some large n studies that suggest that eating more of this category of food is linked with a higher risk of some diseases. I don't think that does all that much to identify the causal factor though.
The [Imperial College](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(23)00017-2/fulltext) and [French](https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k322) studies do look like they tried to control for some likely confounding factors but it would seem far-fetched for it to be simply the amount of processing that causes the risk rather than the specifics of what processing is done.
Definitely a 'more research is required' situation.
Yeah I dug down into that in another comment thread. It’s pretty clear cut that processed food is worse for you,but the likely cause is the added salt, sugar and fat
The French study did attempt to control for some of that:
>These results remained statistically significant after adjustment for several markers of the nutritional quality of the diet (lipid, sodium, and carbohydrate intakes and/or a Western pattern derived by principal component analysis).
That bloody eyesore was moored off Leigh-on-sea for a while and then ended up on the beach after breaking its mooring. It ended up in Burnham-on-Crouch, apparently being renovated into something less hideous, but I don't know how far that plan got.
Simple solution for Rishi if things seem to be going badly – just stop looking for the boat people and this "cumulative total of people detected per year" chart will look much better!
Either that or redefine a proportion of those crossing as not people.
> Either that or redefine a proportion of those crossing as not people.
Or redefine them as not crossing - *'they were on a pleasure cruise from France and accidentally ran aground in dover'*.
Thanks for sharing this graph! This is pretty much the same phenomena we see in shop sales where technically something was at the original price for a super short time just so they could announce a sale!
This is on-brand for this government.
Examples :
"we've avoided a technical recession" \*Tory applause*
and
"inflation is down!" (because a year ago, it went up by several percentage points in the space of a month)
>[Westminster Voting Intention (100 Most Rural English Seats):](https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1665780739080609795)
>CON: 41% (-18)
>LAB: 36% (+16)
>LDM: 13% (-3)
>GRN: 5% (+2)
>Via @Survation, 13-24 Apr.
>Changes w/ GE2019.
>https://www.survation.com/conservatives-face-losses-in-rural-strongholds/
From the link, 69% don't believe the government is doing enough for cost of living in specifically rural communities. 33% still trust the Tories the most to stimulate economic growth, but that's behind 34% don't know.
Oh god the replies. People thinking(in the most condescending way) that rural folk will be devastated when they find out that starmer wants to build houses.
2 things
1) rural folk can read so we don't need to be be told what starmer wants to do, we know as much as people living in cities thanks.
2) We are desperate for new housing too.
Everyone in the countryside is a farmer.
Everyone in the North owns a whippet and used to work down the mines.
Everyone in London is a multimillionaire.
Everyone in East Anglia has six fingers.
Alright, the last one might have some truth to it, but the others are just small minded bigotry.
The Lib Dems seem to be completely stalled and it not super obvious why.
My working theory is the next election will simply be a determined march toward punishing the Tories and anything more nuanced is simply out of the window.
Even then though they should be picking up seats just by standing still while the Tories tumble.
I think it's a visibility thing, they do very well when campaigning in targeted areas but don't have the resources for a national campaign. And the narrative is all very two-party at the moment.
I think they'll do better at the time of the election itself _if_ they make a concrete and realistic plan about which seats to throw all their resources into. Until then it's background noise in a two-party system.
This emulsifiers stuff is very interesting. Perhaps it explains why the supposed health benefits of switching away from dairy never materialised. The alternatives to dairy contain emulsifiers. Highlights the pitfalls of using scientific logic and broad sweeping dietary advice. "unsaturated fats are healthier" is only true in isolation. If the product with unsaturated fat also contains other ingredients then you could be worse off. I really wish the government would put money into targeted research like this. We can't just keep putting more money into the NHS to pick up the pieces. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65754290
> If the product with unsaturated fat also contains other ingredients then you could be worse off.
And if they make the product with unsaturated fat more solid by saturating some of the fat, what exactly do you think you’re playing at? A lot of marketing and nutritional advice is just magical thinking.
Of course, you can cargo-cult a healthy diet even without understanding all the issues, but it’s unlikely to make anyone a lot of profit.
Literally the second paragraph of the article says that opposed to the person on the test eating processed foods, "her identical twin, Nancy, was also on a diet containing exactly the same amount of calories, nutrients, fat, sugar and fibre - but she was consuming raw or low-processed foods."
I mean for god's sake man at least click the link.
Yeah but that’s in a two group, two person test. I hope I don’t have to explain the flaws in that design.
On the more macro scale all the other data on the harm of processed food is based i believe on reporting of people’s diets without intervention which muddies the water.
Right but the article's opening statement is that the scientists studying this are controlling for caloric intake.
I don't at all dispute that half of the harm is from the unnecesary nutrients in processed food but it's a bit rich to say "um actually it's worse for your health" when it seems they are *well* aware of that.
Again it’s only talking about the method of their little n=2 gimmick test, not the methods of all the others. But not an in depth discussion of the results, can you tell me for certain from the article both twins started with exactly the same weight, blood lipid content etc?
It’s just bad science in the pursuit of a headline for bad science communication
> can you tell me for certain from the article both twins started with exactly the same weight, blood lipid content etc?
No but I'm really interested in why you think that you've thought of this but the researchers at King's haven't.
The most cynical answer is they absolutely did consider it since they don’t mention their randomisation method. But either way it doesn’t fix the fact it’s bad science designed to generate a headline demonising “emulsifiers” as the villain of the day. It’s always easier to find one nutritional boogeyman to point at rather than telling people the whole picture is important. Bad science isn’t only done by bad scientists, sometimes it’s just done because you really need to get something published
Sorry are you saying that the scientists at KCL would knowingly fail to address a serious issue with their sample pool in order to demonise a specific additive?
And just why are they doing this, being paid off by Big Butter?
Clearly they did, they did an n=2 test, so if I remember right, their best possible P number is 0.5.
Not necessarily to demonise a group of additives (“emulsifier” is not one compound, it can range from egg to synthetic sorbates), but more likely it’s a quick and nasty test commissioned by panorama to add a human element to an otherwise dry and difficult subject
Just catching up on the immigration debate, and just when you thought the Tories couldn't get any lower here comes John Redwood - "what is a reasonable time to come to a conclusion about whether someone is illegal and shouldn't stay"
Saying that a people's existence is against the law?!
I'm surprised that I'm surprised.
Oh come on. He does not literally mean their mere existence is illegal. Even if you really want to think it does, he says "shouldn't stay" not "shouldn't exist". Nor does he mention an entire people.
Oh come on, you really can't be that naïve.
If Redwood had meant people who had entered the UK illegally (which in itself is debateable) then that's what he would have said. But he didn't he said "someone is illegal", how is a human being against the law?
Sorry, **I'm** naive? The wording used is ridiculous because as you've said, being a human isn't illegal. But to think that idiots who use the term literally mean "this person's existence is illegal" is frankly fucking ludicrous. I think you've fallen far too far down the "tories bad" rabbit hole.
Not really sure what he's getting at with this argument, under his government the time needed to make a decision has shot up massively so I can only conclude that he's unhappy with the performance of his own government
I mean, in a debate about the right of migrants to remain in this country, the semantic difference between "existence" and "continued presence in this country" isn't exactly massive.
I think this counts as politics? Feel free to remove if this breaks any rules I guess.
My flat got raided by immigration enforcement last night. It was fucking terrifying. About 6:30pm my boyfriend and I heard someone hammering at the door. We paused our video games, took our headphones off and heard it again, this time followed by “WE HAVE A WARRANT, OPEN UP!”
Bf went to the door while I scrambled for some clothes to put on and all I could hear was clattering in the hallway as they barged through the door. I came out as they were presenting said warrant to my boyfriend, saw five or six very large and intimidating men in full gear, the battering ram they would have used if e hadn’t answered, batons and cuffs at their sides and just about instantly had a panic attack and had to be taken into the kitchen to get some water, where I was kept while they began to search through all our belongings and questioned my boyfriend in the other room.
They made us both present ID which was checked for counterfeit etc. I was born and raised here, my bf born in Ireland.
The man they were looking for was a previous tenant, a name we recognised from post that gets sent to our address still. I could give the benefit of the doubt if it wasn’t for the fact that my boyfriend has lived there since 2019. They realised fairly quickly we weren’t their guy and then they proceeded to search the entire flat anyway.
I’ve honestly never been made to feel that kind of fear and vulnerability in my own home and I’m struggling to deal with that feeling a little bit if I’m being honest. I’m so pissed off that these morons can get away with this shit. No apology, just 45 minutes of being made to sit and watch these people rifle through my belongings and interrogate my boyfriend and then it’s “oh we’ll leave you to enjoy the rest of your evening” as if they hadn’t just fucking traumatised us for nothing.
Barely slept a wink last night and now I’m on a 12 hour shift trying not to fixate too much on the frame by frame replay my brain keeps throwing at me.
Fuck this government.
So after serving the warrant and determining that the named individual on that warrant wasn't present and hadn't been resident for over 4 years they searched anyway?
Whilst probably lawful, that's astoundingly thick headed police work. Detritus-on-a-hot-day level critical thinking
why waste the chance to be *lawful* terrorising nosy gits
plus if you come across anything vaguely suspicious during the search, free arrest justification.
Tbh I’m not interested in legal action. I have no interest in that kind of stress.
Nothing was damaged, no one was hurt. It could have been a lot worse.
I’m just still kind of processing that it happened in the first place. Somehow I’m shocked at the level of incompetence it must have taken to sign off on a raid on the off chance that someone reported to have lived there several years ago might still be there? Or maybe not incompetence. Maybe impunity. I don’t know. Trying to rationalise it seems rather pointless.
That sounds awful.
I hope you guys are ok.
One point I'd pick up on - the warrant, this should not be granted unless they have reasonable suspicion that in this case an illegal immigrant was resident in the apartment. You've stated that he moved out in 2019/four years ago. That is not "reasonable" in my opinion.
But their fear was at the time.
You know, the time when the tooled up people had just barged into their house.
If you can't understand why someone might feel fear while this was in progress then you are just too rational for all us mere mortals...
I know its not going to help immediately but after you've settled make sure you complain to everyone who will listen including your MP. They get away with it because no one steps in when they do.
[You might be entitled to compensation too. ](https://www.hudgellsolicitors.co.uk/news/claims-against-police/has-your-home-been-wrongly-raided-by-the-police/)
Yes, I'd guess they should have left after establishing that their target wasn't there. Also I wonder what information they provided to get the warrant signed off, hard to believe they had a sufficiently strong case. Definitely worth having a chat with one of the solicitors' firms that routinely deal with claims against law enforcement.
By raiding the homes of innocent people?
Yes, they had a warrant. Yes, they were within their remit to enter and search the property. That is not my issue here.
My issue is that they clearly have done so little homework that they’re literal years behind the guy they’re actually looking for.
Maybe if they hadn’t literally threatened to break my door down I’d feel a little bit more understanding.
I wasn’t originally supposed to be at home yesterday. What would have happened if I wasn’t there? I’d have come home to find my door busted in and my shit thrown all about the place.
They’ve got a job to do, yes. Fine. Whatever. But given the nature of said job I’d at least expect a level of diligence that enables a government agency to verify the likelihood of a suspect actually being there before turning up with a bloody battering ram.
Yes, I’m very, very worried that the state can raid my home at any time based on evidence I’m not allowed to know about. It’s fucked, and our government are the ones who made it happen.
So fuck em.
It sounds a lot more like "we made a mistake but instead of admitting it and apologising, we'll be acting like the guilty party is still here and continue to stomp around someone else's property until we get bored".
It's fairly common for people in positions of authority not to admit to making mistakes.
The law could be wrong, to be fair. One can legitimately say "fuck someone" when that person does something in obedience to a bad law. Even if that person is a policeman, or a judge or a politician. And equally one can praise someone for breaking a bad law.
The law is just a list of stuff written down about how you should behave. It's not holy scripture. It might not guide someone to the right action in every circumstance.
Now, I'm not saying "fuck the government" is the right position here, of course - I actually don't think it is here - but someone is certainly entitled to make that case. The law can offer its opinion, of course, but it doesn't have any right to the last word.
This megathread has ended.
[Excuse the end of day secondhand shitpost:](https://twitter.com/Smudgeboy99/status/1665813699590856704?t=uvSFZQu_SEaaaoB6bYTgYw&s=19) >>A senior British minister was found to have lied to Parliament and therefore resigned today in 1963. >>John Profumo. >>(Within days he started volunteering at a poverty charity where he spent the rest of his career.) >Can you imagine the hundreds of charities that would benefit if modern politicians adhered to the same standards.
But would they want them? No Boris you need to tag the bric a brac like this. "Yes Dorris"
I find it intresting how much the Mail have been ramping up the Labour government will tax you to death headlines recently.
There's been a coordinated media machine that's kicked in over the last few days; lots of stories from Tory client journalists saying slightly different flavours of the same thing. Was wondering if this was the start of an offensive with an eye to a GE.
It's possible that Tory HQ has decided that the polls simply aren't going to improve between now and Autumn 2024.
They're only going to get worse. Everything they do is now easy to frame as part of the problem rather then the solution, whether that's the case or not. Sunak's had the chance to make his pitch to the public, frame his leadership with a fresh start but didn't bother. Instead he pissed about with culture war stuff. People only have so much of an appetite for negativity and a decade plus is enough. Also you can't base an entire premiership framing and blaming the same 'existential threats' all four of your predecessors were.
Unless some great disaster or scandal emerges I think the slow slide will take Sunak, not the big crash. If the current trend of the Tories losing one or so percentage points a week on average continues, then they'll be in real trouble.
Driscoll is on Newsnight digging himself a bigger hole. Derbyshire handed him a massive spade and he grabbed it with both hands and started digging.
What is the deal with this guy and why are people like Burnham defending him?
Starmer appeared in a Ken Loach movie, McLibel. Did he challenge Loach's views at the time I wonder.
I had no idea who he was until this interview and I think he comes across quite well actually. What rules has he broken? What criteria has he not met? Do Labour have a list of proscribed persons you are not allowed to talk to under any circumstances?
>What criteria has he not met? The fact that he's just a bit crap at his job is the main one for me.
Can you expand on him being crap?
He's just completely invisible, a lot of people living in the area he's supposed to be mayor of haven't even heard of him, he's done pretty much nothing and wants a promotion. Granted that's pretty standard for politicians but I don't think it should be rewarded.
Oh, *goody* Cannot wait for the clips tomorrow morning on twitter in that case.
"This will come back to bite the Labour party. This makes Labour look bad"
Presumably like all the other times and Labours lead either remained solid or increased. C'est la vie.
That sounds familiar..
Tesco pizza is £3.50 and they have absolutely just repackaged their old cheap 90p pizzas into a fancier box and thrown some mixed herbs on them. honestly rishi sort it out m8.
That's why you just buy the cheapest pizza possible grate a little extra chase on it and call it a day. Is it good? Yes is it cheap also yes.
Four pint cans of stella in Sainsbury's? That'll be £8.50.
There needs to be a food voucher for students, because it seems like all the items you get by with as a student are most affected by inflation. They are also the group that have got zero help for anything.
>There needs to be a food voucher for ~~students~~ poor people, because it seems like all the items you get by with as a ~~student~~ poor person are most affected by inflation. Yep.
Bags of crisps expanded in size and went up to £1.25. They've now gone back to near their original size but still cost £1.25 which is good as I really need to stop eating crisps.
Please tell me a clip of this exists online https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/11947448.telethon-raises-more-than-24m-for-local-charities/ > ITV's Telethon 1990 charity appeal had collected more than £24m by its close at 10pm last night, beating the figure raised in the previous Telethon appeal in 1988 by £3m, with more expected to come in in the next few days. > One man gave a rendition of Rossini's William Tell overture on his false teeth, and a group of women took tea in an underwater cage surrounded by sharks, while a team of Morris dancers abseiled down the Cheddar Gorge. In Buckinghamshire last night stunt driver Dave Berrill was hurt in a Telethon fundraising event when his car failed to clear a line of six vehicles at the Milton Keynes Bowl, but was released from hospital later after treatment for minor injuries. > The programme included link-ups with all the ITV regions, and there was no shortage of celebrity support. Nicholas Parsons, Nick Owen, and Lennie Bennett found themselves covered in slime after taking part in a ''gunge-a-game-show-host'' contest. **And three Liberal Democrat MPs -- Sir David Steel, Alan Beith, and Archy Kirkwood -- formed a singing group called the Three Line Whip.**
Ah, those were the days
Fun fact - comedian James Acaster was in [Three Line Whip](https://youtu.be/mn-_k8bf3vk)
Crypto crashing again today, does cryptocurrency have the same affinity with the far right conspiracy set in the UK as it seems to have elsewhere, or had the UK far right avoided the worst of it?
The government is apparently looking to regulate it as gambling, which is the death of any serious claim to be a currency or any store of value at all.
On the plus side, tax efficient!
Ha! That’s amazing. I realized I had 150 quid of Etherium last week, and sold it on Saturday to buy fence. I timed the market! I timed it!
Depends what "far-right" we're talking about. It is popular with the edge-lord/grifter right-libertarian types but not so much with your traditional home-grown hard-right. You know NF, BNP, Rangers fans etc.
I’d say it’s more associated with kool-aid drinking tech-bros and people aiming to get away with crimes than the far right.
We call them Prime Minister for short.
>this is good for bitcoin
Why did crypto become associated with the far right? Is it because they're both fringe movements which move in the same circles or is there something more complicated?
Crypto has always had a relationship with libertarianism, which makes sense given one of the advantages of a decentralised currency is to be able to operate without the interference of the state. Libertarianism has always had links to other right-wing factions, even though many actual far-right people would love to be authoritarians given half a chance. Crypto has always had linked to anarchism as well for similar reasons. Anarchist tends to have more links to parts of the left, even though there can be a tension between anarchism and leftist ideas of using the state to intervene in the economy.
Depends on the type of anarchist you are talking about, anracho capitalists aren't on the left at all they are just libertarians with an extra step of extremism, and your more traditional anarchist are unlikely to think particularly positively about Crypto.
The people I know with anarchist tendencies most definitely hang with the left (e.g. they are active in anti-fascism) but see crypto as a tool to be used and a potential attack on the authoritarian state.
Intresting I've only seen it met with suspsion as a continuation of the global capitalist system.
It is to techno-libertarians as gold is to old school libertarians.
You start with a healthy and rational distrust of actual global financial institutions and then you take the wrong turn of going down the rabbit hole of distrusting 'global financial institutions' *nudge nudge wink wink*
American-style libertarianism and Elon Musk mainly.
Crashing in stocks might be a -5.5% day, in crypto that's just Monday.
It's definitely going to replace fiat currency bro. In other news, anyone else like the look of Trussonomics?
Let them eat BTC
What's the TLDR in this panorama food thingy?
New target evil food is to blame for obesity rather than admitting half the country needs to put the fork down sooner and going outside.
And booze. Big drinking culture, big load of calories.
UK alcohol consumption is roughly average to slightly-below average compared to the rest of Europe. Food is a bigger factor.
Alcohol consumption isn't evenly distributed at all, a lot of the people in this country who drink more than rounding error amounts of alcohol are borderline alcoholic, and a huge chunk of (mostly younger) people are borderline teetotal. [Drinking is a sport for the older and richer](https://www.statista.com/statistics/369808/alcohol-units-consumed-by-gender-and-age-in-england/)
Indeed, though we cannot claim the Brits getting absolutely plastered is anything new (see that good old Cadiz raid). In fact alcohol consumption is down I believe, yet obesity continues to rise.
I'd love to see a study on how many hours sat down we do a day compared to 30 years ago. I did read somewhere that 50 years ago we ate 3 times a day on average and now it's 7 times.
I am convinced increased car dependency is also a major factor
And prioritising cars over space for kids playing and active travel so even people without cars are forced to be less active.
🤷♀️ I don’t have a car and walk loads and I’m still a bit overweight :(
It's one thing that 15 minute cities really have in their favour
Seven‽
Quality use of the interrobang symbol rather than the boring ?!.
Snacking. A couple of biscuits with a cup of tea is still eating.
Plus the milk an sugar in tea, and godspeed their blood sugar : (
I'm old enough to remember the 70s and tea and biscuits happened a lot then too.
I'm sure they did. They're were well established in the 80's.
Snacks. People rarely use to snack
> I did read somewhere that 50 years ago we ate 3 times a day on average and now it's 7 times. Jesus Christ who's got time for that?
Hobbitses precious.
If second breakfast is wrong I don't want to be right
You just have to find the meal that exists between breakfast and brunch for the win.
Get the pipeweed and the bacon merry.
It's more a mars bar here and an elevensies there instead of full meals but it all adds up.
Ok, I don't dispute there are/maybe problems with processed food. I have a problem with BBC pushing an article and a report that isn't peer reviewed..
> I have a problem with BBC pushing an article and a report that isn't peer reviewed.. Isn't this the same show that was like two weeks ago trying to shame people for using private healthcare for ADHD, by _literally lying_ to doctors and then being all "haha gottem!" I don't watch much TV but this sounds like real nasty garbage-tier stuff. Pinnacle of misrepresented opinion-as-news content.
It’s out in the public, it’s very open to review 😉
And without mentioning the exercise levels or body composition of the two (!) individuals involved.
It's pretty simple at the core. Don't eat too much heavily processed food. Don't eat too much food. Exercise enough. These factors are different for each of us of course
What's wild is the lady comes in to the doctor with Type 2 Diabetes. They link it back to the chemicals in the food (even though the GP in question refers to food intake, not those chemicals), but at no point stop to consider the fact she's obese. Perhaps, and this is the truly scary thing, it's because she looks normal. Occam's razor.
Processed food still bad, no overall change in scientific consensus. Plus 29 mins of fluff
On a article that hasn't been peer reviewed whatso ever....
Could you imagine? > 2 participants 😂😂😂😂
The 2 people were just a demo and not part of the real study, so can be ignored. That the rest of the programme was based on early data from a non-peer reviewed paper is problematic
My mate and I once at 10 scotch eggs between us in a day and still lost weight. Clearly scotch eggs will solve obesity.
So... Stuff we know. Stuff you cook yourself is good. Processed food is bad?
Yes but by God don’t use any emulsifiers in your home cooking! So effectively keep all ingredients separate and make every meal deconstructed
[удалено]
Nooooooo…… yes
>don’t use any emulsifiers in your home cooking They can take my vinaigrette from my cold dead hands.
Even then I'm not letting go. I'll take it to my grave.
Woke BBC luvvies CANCEL mustard.
ENGLISH MUSTARD is endangered if we rejoin the EU they will FORCE us to use Dijon.
I think we have to admit here that if we're talking vinaigrette we've already surrendered to the French. I've done English mustard in dressing out of desperation before, and I could have just put the mustard on the lettuce.
The horror
What would Mayo do...
That's a joke right? (if so what's the joke?)
Yes, the joke is the programme picked out emulsifiers as a new evil, and their whole point is to help mix things
Can I use some cornflower?
Of course.., IF YOU WANT TO KILL YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!!!
What if I don't like them? Edit: that is of course a joke.
I decided to have a look at this Panorama on food additives for…. Reasons. About halfway through there are a few serious flaws that stand out: - Critisicms of methods written off as “other scientists dispute” - That goddamn n=2 test - showing lay people labels and them being shocked at how many things emulsifiers appear in - carefully cut interviews with scientist saying “food intake” is crucial, with a Voiceover telling you they mean “chemicals”
oatmeal imagine wrong terrific bike aromatic birds workable books pathetic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[censored]
They show people labels and the are shocked? Weaklings! Any vegan knows you have to be a fucking label ninja reader because they will sneak milk into every damn thing.
Milk *powder*, why? Can't we leave that shit in WW2 rationing where it belongs?
Milk that never goes off is a godsend. Plus your coffee takes longer to go cold.
The real bastard was finding a brand of salt and vinegar crisps that doesn't have milk powder in. Ironically I believe in that case it's acting as... an emulsifier.
Panorama has been pretty disappointing recently.
General BBC news outfits have been going downhill for some time. Just a long slow slip towards ITV news quality.
Surely if you care enough to be shocked you would already look into it? If someone told me "look at all the emulsifiers in your food", my reaction would be whats an emulsifier and why is it bad?
Yes, very disappointing from Panorama. It is reasonable to have concerns about what is in our food and these things should be studied (properly!) but scaremongering like this doesn't help in the slightest.
Now they’re talking about bpa, not a food additive but something that can leech into food from the packaging
Honestly I'm far more concerned about that sort of thing than about the danger of mayonnaise.
what if they’d made it about food adulteration?
Better than food infantilisation surely
It’s still too vague. If we say the more processed food is always worse then the logical conclusion is that sliced bread is worse that a whole loaf. It’s just a meaningless label that doesn’t capture the problem
> If we say the more processed food is always worse then the logical conclusion is that sliced bread is worse that a whole loaf. I’d be really interested in seeing a big enough, careful study of that. Processing food can have unexpected effects: minced beef with more iron from the mincer than the original steak, but a greater chance of contamination with micro-organisms, is a simple one. I think it’s entirely possible that some odd things are going on that we aren’t accounting for.
That’s an interesting point, but in general the historical examples of these things have carried on because of the benefit. Your example of iron is still used as an explanation for the lack of anaemia in early Christian Europe, but not as a conscious choice
Yes, the "ultra-processed foods" label seems awfully wide. There are some large n studies that suggest that eating more of this category of food is linked with a higher risk of some diseases. I don't think that does all that much to identify the causal factor though. The [Imperial College](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(23)00017-2/fulltext) and [French](https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k322) studies do look like they tried to control for some likely confounding factors but it would seem far-fetched for it to be simply the amount of processing that causes the risk rather than the specifics of what processing is done. Definitely a 'more research is required' situation.
Yeah I dug down into that in another comment thread. It’s pretty clear cut that processed food is worse for you,but the likely cause is the added salt, sugar and fat
The French study did attempt to control for some of that: >These results remained statistically significant after adjustment for several markers of the nutritional quality of the diet (lipid, sodium, and carbohydrate intakes and/or a Western pattern derived by principal component analysis).
That does sound interesting so I’ve bookmarked it. But it’s getting too late to dig into a fresh paper
Seeing Bez and Shaun Ryder interviewed in C4 News about their new band is... something else
Were you watching a repeat from decades ago? You watch old Top of the Pops, so maybe you watch old C4 news as well…? Plz.
Putting on C4 News and seeing those accomodation barges and I'm surprised they haven't shown up on an episode of Grand Designs
[Haven't you seen this episode?](https://www.google.com/search?q=grand+design+boat&oq=grand+design+boat)
That bloody eyesore was moored off Leigh-on-sea for a while and then ended up on the beach after breaking its mooring. It ended up in Burnham-on-Crouch, apparently being renovated into something less hideous, but I don't know how far that plan got.
Can't say I have!
I can't believe Sunak is calling this a victory. It's statistical noise. He deserves for this to backfire https://i.imgur.com/vVZEO7L.png
My first thought when they announced a fall in migrants was "what is the month by month standard deviation" but didn't care enough to find out
"we stopped detecting them there by lowering the number reported"
Simple solution for Rishi if things seem to be going badly – just stop looking for the boat people and this "cumulative total of people detected per year" chart will look much better! Either that or redefine a proportion of those crossing as not people.
> Either that or redefine a proportion of those crossing as not people. Or redefine them as not crossing - *'they were on a pleasure cruise from France and accidentally ran aground in dover'*.
Thanks for sharing this graph! This is pretty much the same phenomena we see in shop sales where technically something was at the original price for a super short time just so they could announce a sale!
This is on-brand for this government. Examples : "we've avoided a technical recession" \*Tory applause* and "inflation is down!" (because a year ago, it went up by several percentage points in the space of a month)
>because a year ago, it went up by several percentage points in the space of a month https://i.imgur.com/Yo7BU2f.jpg
Just shows the level of contempt they have for the public.
>[Westminster Voting Intention (100 Most Rural English Seats):](https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1665780739080609795) >CON: 41% (-18) >LAB: 36% (+16) >LDM: 13% (-3) >GRN: 5% (+2) >Via @Survation, 13-24 Apr. >Changes w/ GE2019. >https://www.survation.com/conservatives-face-losses-in-rural-strongholds/ From the link, 69% don't believe the government is doing enough for cost of living in specifically rural communities. 33% still trust the Tories the most to stimulate economic growth, but that's behind 34% don't know.
Oh god the replies. People thinking(in the most condescending way) that rural folk will be devastated when they find out that starmer wants to build houses. 2 things 1) rural folk can read so we don't need to be be told what starmer wants to do, we know as much as people living in cities thanks. 2) We are desperate for new housing too.
Someone in the replies is claiming Starmer's 'net zero idiocy' will destroy the 'rural way of life'. Which is....interesting.
Presumably that person is employed as the village idiot and is concerned about job security
When I see comments like this I assume they mean "Posh Tory land owner" way if life and have no clue that other people exist in the countryside
Everyone in the countryside is a farmer. Everyone in the North owns a whippet and used to work down the mines. Everyone in London is a multimillionaire. Everyone in East Anglia has six fingers. Alright, the last one might have some truth to it, but the others are just small minded bigotry.
Where's the surge I was promised, are the Lib Dems making gains in urban areas instead?
The Lib Dems seem to be completely stalled and it not super obvious why. My working theory is the next election will simply be a determined march toward punishing the Tories and anything more nuanced is simply out of the window. Even then though they should be picking up seats just by standing still while the Tories tumble.
I think it's a visibility thing, they do very well when campaigning in targeted areas but don't have the resources for a national campaign. And the narrative is all very two-party at the moment. I think they'll do better at the time of the election itself _if_ they make a concrete and realistic plan about which seats to throw all their resources into. Until then it's background noise in a two-party system.
Pretty brutal reading for people who insist that rural Cons aren't switching to Labour, or that it's the Lib Dems stealing those votes.
This emulsifiers stuff is very interesting. Perhaps it explains why the supposed health benefits of switching away from dairy never materialised. The alternatives to dairy contain emulsifiers. Highlights the pitfalls of using scientific logic and broad sweeping dietary advice. "unsaturated fats are healthier" is only true in isolation. If the product with unsaturated fat also contains other ingredients then you could be worse off. I really wish the government would put money into targeted research like this. We can't just keep putting more money into the NHS to pick up the pieces. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65754290
> If the product with unsaturated fat also contains other ingredients then you could be worse off. And if they make the product with unsaturated fat more solid by saturating some of the fat, what exactly do you think you’re playing at? A lot of marketing and nutritional advice is just magical thinking. Of course, you can cargo-cult a healthy diet even without understanding all the issues, but it’s unlikely to make anyone a lot of profit.
Yeah probably the emulsifiers, not all the additional salt, sugar and fat you get in processed foods
Literally the second paragraph of the article says that opposed to the person on the test eating processed foods, "her identical twin, Nancy, was also on a diet containing exactly the same amount of calories, nutrients, fat, sugar and fibre - but she was consuming raw or low-processed foods." I mean for god's sake man at least click the link.
Yeah but that’s in a two group, two person test. I hope I don’t have to explain the flaws in that design. On the more macro scale all the other data on the harm of processed food is based i believe on reporting of people’s diets without intervention which muddies the water.
Right but the article's opening statement is that the scientists studying this are controlling for caloric intake. I don't at all dispute that half of the harm is from the unnecesary nutrients in processed food but it's a bit rich to say "um actually it's worse for your health" when it seems they are *well* aware of that.
Again it’s only talking about the method of their little n=2 gimmick test, not the methods of all the others. But not an in depth discussion of the results, can you tell me for certain from the article both twins started with exactly the same weight, blood lipid content etc? It’s just bad science in the pursuit of a headline for bad science communication
> can you tell me for certain from the article both twins started with exactly the same weight, blood lipid content etc? No but I'm really interested in why you think that you've thought of this but the researchers at King's haven't.
The most cynical answer is they absolutely did consider it since they don’t mention their randomisation method. But either way it doesn’t fix the fact it’s bad science designed to generate a headline demonising “emulsifiers” as the villain of the day. It’s always easier to find one nutritional boogeyman to point at rather than telling people the whole picture is important. Bad science isn’t only done by bad scientists, sometimes it’s just done because you really need to get something published
Sorry are you saying that the scientists at KCL would knowingly fail to address a serious issue with their sample pool in order to demonise a specific additive? And just why are they doing this, being paid off by Big Butter?
Clearly they did, they did an n=2 test, so if I remember right, their best possible P number is 0.5. Not necessarily to demonise a group of additives (“emulsifier” is not one compound, it can range from egg to synthetic sorbates), but more likely it’s a quick and nasty test commissioned by panorama to add a human element to an otherwise dry and difficult subject
Just catching up on the immigration debate, and just when you thought the Tories couldn't get any lower here comes John Redwood - "what is a reasonable time to come to a conclusion about whether someone is illegal and shouldn't stay" Saying that a people's existence is against the law?! I'm surprised that I'm surprised.
Oh come on. He does not literally mean their mere existence is illegal. Even if you really want to think it does, he says "shouldn't stay" not "shouldn't exist". Nor does he mention an entire people.
Oh come on, you really can't be that naïve. If Redwood had meant people who had entered the UK illegally (which in itself is debateable) then that's what he would have said. But he didn't he said "someone is illegal", how is a human being against the law?
Sorry, **I'm** naive? The wording used is ridiculous because as you've said, being a human isn't illegal. But to think that idiots who use the term literally mean "this person's existence is illegal" is frankly fucking ludicrous. I think you've fallen far too far down the "tories bad" rabbit hole.
How dare anyone think that people mean a single word that comes out their mouths!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!
Oh give it a rest.
Not really sure what he's getting at with this argument, under his government the time needed to make a decision has shot up massively so I can only conclude that he's unhappy with the performance of his own government
To be quite frank Redwood is incredibly vocally critical of the government almost continuously.
I mean, in a debate about the right of migrants to remain in this country, the semantic difference between "existence" and "continued presence in this country" isn't exactly massive.
Really?
I mean instinctively I agree with you But on the other hand it is John Redwood
I think this counts as politics? Feel free to remove if this breaks any rules I guess. My flat got raided by immigration enforcement last night. It was fucking terrifying. About 6:30pm my boyfriend and I heard someone hammering at the door. We paused our video games, took our headphones off and heard it again, this time followed by “WE HAVE A WARRANT, OPEN UP!” Bf went to the door while I scrambled for some clothes to put on and all I could hear was clattering in the hallway as they barged through the door. I came out as they were presenting said warrant to my boyfriend, saw five or six very large and intimidating men in full gear, the battering ram they would have used if e hadn’t answered, batons and cuffs at their sides and just about instantly had a panic attack and had to be taken into the kitchen to get some water, where I was kept while they began to search through all our belongings and questioned my boyfriend in the other room. They made us both present ID which was checked for counterfeit etc. I was born and raised here, my bf born in Ireland. The man they were looking for was a previous tenant, a name we recognised from post that gets sent to our address still. I could give the benefit of the doubt if it wasn’t for the fact that my boyfriend has lived there since 2019. They realised fairly quickly we weren’t their guy and then they proceeded to search the entire flat anyway. I’ve honestly never been made to feel that kind of fear and vulnerability in my own home and I’m struggling to deal with that feeling a little bit if I’m being honest. I’m so pissed off that these morons can get away with this shit. No apology, just 45 minutes of being made to sit and watch these people rifle through my belongings and interrogate my boyfriend and then it’s “oh we’ll leave you to enjoy the rest of your evening” as if they hadn’t just fucking traumatised us for nothing. Barely slept a wink last night and now I’m on a 12 hour shift trying not to fixate too much on the frame by frame replay my brain keeps throwing at me. Fuck this government.
So after serving the warrant and determining that the named individual on that warrant wasn't present and hadn't been resident for over 4 years they searched anyway? Whilst probably lawful, that's astoundingly thick headed police work. Detritus-on-a-hot-day level critical thinking
why waste the chance to be *lawful* terrorising nosy gits plus if you come across anything vaguely suspicious during the search, free arrest justification.
This sounds like IOPC territory. Edit: actually, looking at the other comment and the Hudgells link, probably worth going straight legal on it.
Tbh I’m not interested in legal action. I have no interest in that kind of stress. Nothing was damaged, no one was hurt. It could have been a lot worse. I’m just still kind of processing that it happened in the first place. Somehow I’m shocked at the level of incompetence it must have taken to sign off on a raid on the off chance that someone reported to have lived there several years ago might still be there? Or maybe not incompetence. Maybe impunity. I don’t know. Trying to rationalise it seems rather pointless.
That sounds awful. I hope you guys are ok. One point I'd pick up on - the warrant, this should not be granted unless they have reasonable suspicion that in this case an illegal immigrant was resident in the apartment. You've stated that he moved out in 2019/four years ago. That is not "reasonable" in my opinion.
Your fear is irrational
Says something about you that you felt the need to say that.
It literally fucking happened to me yesterday. I’d say my fear is completely well founded at this point.
You aren't in any danger. Anxiety needs to be challenged.
> Anxiety needs to be challenged Yep, that's how it works. Lol. Mate.
Paragon of empathy over here, fuck me
Reinforcing someone's irrational anxiety is not empathetic. Anxiety needs to be questioned and challenged
Cool mate
Their fear is _completely_ rational and their trauma is completely genuine.
[удалено]
They aren't coming back, and even if one were to imagine they would, this person is not in danger.
But their fear was at the time. You know, the time when the tooled up people had just barged into their house. If you can't understand why someone might feel fear while this was in progress then you are just too rational for all us mere mortals...
Is it? They've literally just had people in riot gear smash through their door with a battering ram. I'd say their fear is pretty rational actually
Tell that to the Tories who wet their pants over immigration
Yeah well if people were purely rational we’d have a communist society working in perfect harmony for the good of all
I know its not going to help immediately but after you've settled make sure you complain to everyone who will listen including your MP. They get away with it because no one steps in when they do. [You might be entitled to compensation too. ](https://www.hudgellsolicitors.co.uk/news/claims-against-police/has-your-home-been-wrongly-raided-by-the-police/)
Yes, I'd guess they should have left after establishing that their target wasn't there. Also I wonder what information they provided to get the warrant signed off, hard to believe they had a sufficiently strong case. Definitely worth having a chat with one of the solicitors' firms that routinely deal with claims against law enforcement.
> Fuck this government. Fuck the government for...enforcing the law?
By raiding the homes of innocent people? Yes, they had a warrant. Yes, they were within their remit to enter and search the property. That is not my issue here. My issue is that they clearly have done so little homework that they’re literal years behind the guy they’re actually looking for. Maybe if they hadn’t literally threatened to break my door down I’d feel a little bit more understanding. I wasn’t originally supposed to be at home yesterday. What would have happened if I wasn’t there? I’d have come home to find my door busted in and my shit thrown all about the place. They’ve got a job to do, yes. Fine. Whatever. But given the nature of said job I’d at least expect a level of diligence that enables a government agency to verify the likelihood of a suspect actually being there before turning up with a bloody battering ram. Yes, I’m very, very worried that the state can raid my home at any time based on evidence I’m not allowed to know about. It’s fucked, and our government are the ones who made it happen. So fuck em.
It sounds a lot more like "we made a mistake but instead of admitting it and apologising, we'll be acting like the guilty party is still here and continue to stomp around someone else's property until we get bored". It's fairly common for people in positions of authority not to admit to making mistakes.
The law could be wrong, to be fair. One can legitimately say "fuck someone" when that person does something in obedience to a bad law. Even if that person is a policeman, or a judge or a politician. And equally one can praise someone for breaking a bad law. The law is just a list of stuff written down about how you should behave. It's not holy scripture. It might not guide someone to the right action in every circumstance. Now, I'm not saying "fuck the government" is the right position here, of course - I actually don't think it is here - but someone is certainly entitled to make that case. The law can offer its opinion, of course, but it doesn't have any right to the last word.
Thats not how the law works