Let's not go down that route. There are plenty of other reasons the UK and Israeli establishments cooperate, not least military industries and intelligence, which would make the government beholden to them.

Entirely possible that PA have intent to do significant actions - but by #spycops or worse(?) within them as agent provocateur to tip it over the edge into terrorism and prosciption on this fabricated pretext to disable the whole organisation

Not necessarily so. Means testing the state pension above a reasonable level could save it. Withdrawing it from the better off who already have income several multiples of the basic state pension is low hanging fruit and is the next step at age 68

There is a third pillar: regulatory capture entrenching oligarchs' rentierism; we see it happening in the property market where they are buying up assets while the young are being squeezed out of the lifeline property market and the oligarchy hammered Corbyn for countering with #LandValueTax policy

Add an option to avoid all family farm and business inheritance tax at any value: Place farm inheritance assets in a state held trust free of IHT, to separate real family business from financialised activities and allow farms to focus on investing in production. amergent.blogspot.com/2025/07/prot...

And that brings me to the point of an essay I wrote about backpropagation back in 1998, that AI will run rings around human thought processes the moment it can dig deep enough into our linguistic cognitive processes. In terms of linguistic keys we are already there. Copyright will be an own goal.

It could well be that it will evolve to include a writer/artist's style or theme due to the development of AI, and hence removal of all fair dealing. But that then brings us to the point where no artist can even hint at another artist's work. Only the true AI can then create something novel....

Copyright came about in order that reproduction of arts could be commercialised. Intellectual property is a legal fiction and is thus negotiable leading to a change in its market value, unlike other types of property.

What AI is capable of is the extraction of underlying fundamental languages in human thought, and then using those languages to create new and different patterns. Some artists and authors may be able to argue that their work has been replicated but AI companies will soon avoid doing that. Then what?

Or photographs taken of two different architects' buildings then using the underlying patterns to create something that is neither but with the objective of then evolving something new and maybe improved. That is where evolutionary algorithms are going

To take this argument about generative AI with regard to text: an analysis of an author's style which is then used to create something that sounds like the author but on a different subject, would that infringe copyright, or creating a synthesis of a work? That's the harder one to argue.

Agreed on that example. If they are keeping a copy and reproducing it then that goes beyond AI analysis of the content

Copyright does not protect the information, only the work. Extracting the mathematical patterns from within text is not a violation of copyright, and AI companies are likely to argue that this is what they have done as a process of fair dealing. Only the scale has changed

Copyright violation is not theft, it is copyright violation. Copyright is an instrument that is supposed to protect the creator of arts, it only applies in some jurisdictions, and it is negotiable. Copyright periods have recently been extended, they could as easily be removed.