I've never seen the podcast and have not followed their careers, so this is new to me. But if two of them express abhorrent views like this, Lewis may feel he has no choice but to leave. I would like to think he'd at least consider it in the lihgt of this.

I'm sorry, Maaike.

Everything points to Brianna's parents being very supportive of her during her lifetime. Brianna's grieving mum's co-option by different forces is an entirely different matter.

It was instructive to see that the Prescott memo argued at one point for completely the opposite: that enabling trans voices even as counterbalance to GC dogma is not legitimate, based on a spurious analogy with maternity care.

And it closely reflects the bit of the Prescott memo, where he talks of being approached by GCs about a month into his role, in what looks like very planned ideological capture of him but he takes as being him doing his new job really well.

It was in screenshot. Don't worry, I've looked it up on Facebook. It's to do with argument re: dismissal for 'reputation damage' being weak because the actual act by DPD damages its own reputation. Screenshot was a bit clickbaity

What's the "crucial detail"?

I may be in my stupid hour, Phil, but I don't get what you mean.

I wasn't clear. Any case would obv only succeed if submission presented was objectively false e.g. made up caselaw, incorrect refs to landuse policy, but if that's the case you then work back to "the defendant should have known that LLMs are mathematically going to create falsehoods, your honours"

Agreed.

Isn't Young Labour 14-26? Maybe just copying.

The whole idea of a segregated section for people up to age of e.g. 26, allegedly to allow space for their political development of people who may by then have a PhD, be a train driver, have four children etc etc etc just feels like it's not segregating them for that alleged reason.

Very interesting, thanks. May write the broad idea a bit more fully. I think if favour of potential for proving falsity is the word "might" at 2(b), given the proveable maths around LLMs having a greater likelihood of being wrong the higher the specificity of the prompt given.

Yes, sorry, wasn't v clear. I know it's encompassed in tax powers/formula for skinter areas. I was thinking more of how political narrative about what change will be seen might be done i.e. the daily things that pretty well everyone notices when they get worse, or then better.

Perhaps a quiet Statutory Instrument which gives statute-level weight to an interpretation of "dishonestly" which is inclusive of wilfully disregarding mathematical certainty that LLMs will provide ever falser information in positive correlation to increased specificity of subject matter.

Fair point, tho I think "dishonestly" is counterbalanced by "might" at 2(b). Impossible to know without testing. What might be handy is to see PR, equal to that given to this new service, about potential criminality, perhaps even hosted on council planning websites and telegraph pole notices.

3/ That seems eminently prosecutable, if there is enough of a case to indicate that using a LLM for this purpose creates enough likelihood of some kind of false represenation, of the type the planning firm Aardvark say in the Guardian article that they have already found.