@uphillwheezer.bsky.social
In a way, I agree, but not for her reasons. A lot of people have no idea what is going on under that rock - you need to kick it away, and expose the roaches to sunlight.
November 16, 2025 at 3:05 PM
In a way, I agree, but not for her reasons. A lot of people have no idea what is going on under that rock - you need to kick it away, and expose the roaches to sunlight.
Remarkable that out of all of them, she's the one that pops up with at least a show of principles.
November 16, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Remarkable that out of all of them, she's the one that pops up with at least a show of principles.
He needs to be careful, Trump is looking for a bit of distraction regime-change, and the target will be whoever catches his eye first.
November 13, 2025 at 3:52 PM
He needs to be careful, Trump is looking for a bit of distraction regime-change, and the target will be whoever catches his eye first.
I can see why club owners would be miffed, but it's an employment arrangement, not a loyalty pledge, and he's not indentured to the club. Most fans slamming him wouldn't stick around at a job if a much bigger opportunity came up. Owners regularly sack new hire managers, it's a two-way street.
November 13, 2025 at 10:54 AM
I can see why club owners would be miffed, but it's an employment arrangement, not a loyalty pledge, and he's not indentured to the club. Most fans slamming him wouldn't stick around at a job if a much bigger opportunity came up. Owners regularly sack new hire managers, it's a two-way street.
Some regression towards mean intelligence might have been hoped for, but alas, not for Ivanka. Or the other offspring, come to think of it.
November 13, 2025 at 10:37 AM
Some regression towards mean intelligence might have been hoped for, but alas, not for Ivanka. Or the other offspring, come to think of it.
Exactly. Defamation requires reputational damage. A pervert like Trump has no reputation to damage, even if he holds the highest office.
November 12, 2025 at 5:25 PM
Exactly. Defamation requires reputational damage. A pervert like Trump has no reputation to damage, even if he holds the highest office.
Does either involve extreme time dilation and hiding in bookcases?
November 12, 2025 at 2:21 PM
Does either involve extreme time dilation and hiding in bookcases?
I echo your sentiment, but if he does somehow prove defamation, and a court orders the BBC (us) to pay, we're paying up. Actually trying to prove defamation is a tough one, but as I said, the BBC isn't known for standing firm in these circumstances.
November 12, 2025 at 1:58 PM
I echo your sentiment, but if he does somehow prove defamation, and a court orders the BBC (us) to pay, we're paying up. Actually trying to prove defamation is a tough one, but as I said, the BBC isn't known for standing firm in these circumstances.
The edit amplifies the overall meaning, suggesting that Trump was more directly inciting an illegal act. However sure we are as to his underlying intent, his actual statements didn't go as far as the BBC report suggested. Whether that was bad faith reporting or just sloppy editing, who knows?
November 12, 2025 at 1:56 PM
The edit amplifies the overall meaning, suggesting that Trump was more directly inciting an illegal act. However sure we are as to his underlying intent, his actual statements didn't go as far as the BBC report suggested. Whether that was bad faith reporting or just sloppy editing, who knows?
Ha! his contractors are stiffing him, claiming they are solid gold! Not that he'll pay them, but at least they're losing less.
November 12, 2025 at 1:07 PM
Ha! his contractors are stiffing him, claiming they are solid gold! Not that he'll pay them, but at least they're losing less.
The BBC would have to defend the 'meaning' of the edited clip - that Trump directly incited an insurrection. I suspect they could have a decent stab at that based on publicly available information. Should be an interesting case, bring it on. Of course, I expect them to capitulate.
November 12, 2025 at 1:01 PM
The BBC would have to defend the 'meaning' of the edited clip - that Trump directly incited an insurrection. I suspect they could have a decent stab at that based on publicly available information. Should be an interesting case, bring it on. Of course, I expect them to capitulate.
As a Dr Who fan, I find Virginia Foxx a little disturbing.
November 12, 2025 at 11:03 AM
As a Dr Who fan, I find Virginia Foxx a little disturbing.
If a single penny of licence fee money goes towards the appeasement of Trump, that's the final nail in the coffin of my dutifully coughing it up every year despite diminishing returns and the steady decline of their journalistic standards.
November 11, 2025 at 11:56 AM
If a single penny of licence fee money goes towards the appeasement of Trump, that's the final nail in the coffin of my dutifully coughing it up every year despite diminishing returns and the steady decline of their journalistic standards.
And even if the headline rate was falling, that would still mean higher grocery prices month on month. Economic illiteracy and lying, the perfect combo.
November 11, 2025 at 9:02 AM
And even if the headline rate was falling, that would still mean higher grocery prices month on month. Economic illiteracy and lying, the perfect combo.
Sounds more like he's asked AI to post some weak praise of random movies on his behalf. Which is a relief, because if Musk says he likes a movie, I instinctively to like it a little less.
November 11, 2025 at 8:57 AM
Sounds more like he's asked AI to post some weak praise of random movies on his behalf. Which is a relief, because if Musk says he likes a movie, I instinctively to like it a little less.
Like the guest presenters on HIGNFY after Deayton had his little moment.
November 10, 2025 at 5:17 PM
Like the guest presenters on HIGNFY after Deayton had his little moment.
The perfect publication for Trump. And his entire cabinet.
November 10, 2025 at 4:47 PM
The perfect publication for Trump. And his entire cabinet.
Blackhawks deploying on your streets? The level of armaments available to these goons and their willingness to use them against civilians does not bode well for the future of your country, even if you get to vote the current administration out.
November 10, 2025 at 12:54 PM
Blackhawks deploying on your streets? The level of armaments available to these goons and their willingness to use them against civilians does not bode well for the future of your country, even if you get to vote the current administration out.
I suppose they could name the ballroom after him. Five minutes before they send the bulldozers in and start restoring the East Wing.
November 9, 2025 at 8:57 PM
I suppose they could name the ballroom after him. Five minutes before they send the bulldozers in and start restoring the East Wing.
I thought it was a feature to force riders to pedal out of the saddle.
November 8, 2025 at 4:43 PM
I thought it was a feature to force riders to pedal out of the saddle.
It's the Twat Pack.
November 6, 2025 at 4:15 PM
It's the Twat Pack.
There is a big difference between 'not well informed of risks' and 'told there was zero risk'. Data on longer-term issues associated with these vaccines was patchy at time of rollout, millions of doses = more problems, and yes, these people, along with covid long-termers, have been largely failed.
November 5, 2025 at 6:24 PM
There is a big difference between 'not well informed of risks' and 'told there was zero risk'. Data on longer-term issues associated with these vaccines was patchy at time of rollout, millions of doses = more problems, and yes, these people, along with covid long-termers, have been largely failed.
I agree, Indy SAGE had some valid criticisms of the govt's approach to science and evidence in its pandemic response, and public messaging. I don't recall any promise of zero risk vaccination, although I'm sure political interviewees probably said 'the vaccine is safe' without caveat on occasion.
November 5, 2025 at 2:34 PM
I agree, Indy SAGE had some valid criticisms of the govt's approach to science and evidence in its pandemic response, and public messaging. I don't recall any promise of zero risk vaccination, although I'm sure political interviewees probably said 'the vaccine is safe' without caveat on occasion.
..I had some qualms about the push to vaccinate ever younger, I felt the risk/benefit to individual children (rather than their household members) had not yet been fully evidenced at the time, but now this suggests that there was an element of protection for them as well.
November 5, 2025 at 2:25 PM
..I had some qualms about the push to vaccinate ever younger, I felt the risk/benefit to individual children (rather than their household members) had not yet been fully evidenced at the time, but now this suggests that there was an element of protection for them as well.