More than 400 people per year are dying from dihydrogen monoxide poisoning, yet the media aren't all over it. Why? https://www.nationalwatersafety.org.uk/media/1005/uk-drowning-prevention-strategy.pdf
A finely balanced panel of wh@nkers hear Matt Le Tissier brand the Conservatives Online Safety Bill as ‘communism’ out to get anyone who threatens the State, like Russell Brand. This would seem to be a classic demarcation dispute. The Government wishes to nationalise bullshyte, but Matt wants it to remain the prerogative of yer working bullshyter. The clip, an unintentional lol. https://x.com/gbnews/status/1706412550139548159?s=46&t=oqOMSJXE_g7J5C7kNPG9LA
Painful misogynist with a platform and seemingly endless patronage. You’ll not be shocked to learn it was the Woke to blame.
He's a disgrace, But then so are these comments by her: When the host mentioned a call by a Conservative MP for a dedicated minister to address such issues, Evans - who is the political correspondent for online news platform PoliticsJOE - said: "I think that it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. "[Mental illness] is a crisis that's endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to - I'm sorry - make an enemy out of women."
The annoying **** has thrown the other annoying **** under the bus after **** number 2 had done his best Sir Norman Fry earlier this morning https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1706982058340307094?s=46&t=dJMeIix2oCIhjphLJhwpfg
She's right though - you know that the Conservative MP is punting a "Minister for Men" as a wedge issue rather than calling for more money for our woefully, woefully underfunded mental health services.
I've no idea what the motivations are behind the Conservative minister's proposal, though, naturally, I mistrust them. I'm just saying that her dismissive attitude on the matter, simply because it involves men, is disgusting. I haven't seen the clip so I'm basing that off the comments I read in response to Geoff Norcott's point. In fact, I look and see that she herself has admitted her comments were rash. In light of which, I retract my outrage. Everyone's allowed to be a bit heated when dealing with GBeebies pundits and then cool off a bit later to be a bit more rational.
Again, my insight into GB News is purely as a mistake on Twitter's algorithm's behalf in conflating it with my interest in 'amatuer GangBang' videos however, I had understood that Wooton was facing serious allegations with relation to sexual misconduct. Has that blown over?
I may be wrong but I think GBN said they were taking no further action as anything he did wasn’t on their watch/network. A bit hard to hide behind those words last night
Nope, that's still on the go. But they decided to keep him on air while awaiting the outcome of investigations elsewhere. Think they basically said he's been charged with anything so why would they take him off air? Turns out the answer is that he was always going to be ticking timebomb.
I think there are potentially good reasons for a minister for men. Men are more likely to do dangerous jobs, have serious industrial injuries, have mental health issues that are about masculinity, may be disadvantaged in the family courts, have poor health and low life expectancy, carry out most crime etc etc. These are often complicated by class and other factors, but there is a broad theme about men. But it’s possible to argue against having a separate ministry without being a raving misandrist and she is quite correct that GB News hacks are only interested in it as a way of devaluing the focus on women. I think her acceptance that her comments were rash suggests that she doesn’t actually dismiss those real life impacts on men.
How does Lozza make money these days? Presumably the acting offers have dried up. Does he receive a fee from Twitter or Facebook or whatever every time someone reads one of his comments - like Russell Brand?
He receives money from yer actual ruling classes. His political party was funded by a global asset/hedge fund manager, Jeremy Hoskins with other hedge fund millionaires and hedge fund multi millionaire Sir Paul Marshall founded GB News with capital from all sorts of global investment entities. He has his barmy platform to put over their views and fight their culture war. Why would they do that? Answer, to weaken and discredit social movements, organised labour politics that could lead to regulation, strengthened trade unions and wealth redistribution and to some extent, national Government itself for a smaller state.
I don't think it's too conspiraloony to assume that all these rabble rousers are paid to stir **** up, since that's what they do. I know and accept that people have different opinions but the sort of shyte these people peddle and double, then triple and quadruple down on are simply nonsense designed to enrage and distract.
You may well be right. I can't believe anyone would dedicate so much time to peddling their theories unless they are genuinely slightly unhinged or they are making money from it - or maybe both
Discussions where participants just repeat each others' ideas in slightly different ways seem unlikely to gain traction, in my opinion.
To what end? Why do certain people think it’s worth millions? Laurence Fox’s political party isn’t going to make money and neither is GB News. Simply paying people to enrage is an odd purpose to have, unless you believe it leads somewhere.
That's the big question isn't it. I don't believe these people believe all that they say about immigrants, clean energy, the EU etc. But it plays well with a core of British public. Either it's a pure distraction, to have enough people worried about the 1000 or so gay people who seek refuge in the UK every year so they forget about billions of pounds of PPE theft, or it's just a simple way to get notoriety. There's a girl called Sophie Corcoran. Entirely unremarkable in every way apart from her nasty views on everything. She's essentially a celebrity with a following now. A somebody, simply because she spouts populist foam about immigrants and woke Green policies that people enjoy agreeing with.
Sophie Corcoran is one of dozens of contrarians, funded on an almost industrial scale. There is a seemingly never-ending conveyor belt of opportunities for them, from think tanks, to the several right wing news platforms and radio stations, all the newspapers that will publish them, the speaking opportunities they enjoy at well-funded events/dinners and their heavily promoted social media. By contrast, there is barely any money to promote in the media people who actually know anything worthwhile. There is a dual purpose to enraging, which is to provoke and thereby discredit the liberal and left (or even moderate conservative) opposition ooh they want to cancel me! Look how angry they are! and to rally support for an extreme politics which remains anti-expert, anti regulation, for low taxation (aspirational!) and low regulation. The very wealthy’s best life. Doses of nationalism, male victimhood, thinly veiled racism (can’t we talk about immigration!) the apparently existential threat provided by a few transgender people etc. bring the boys to the yard, but the fundamental is the rich must be allowed to be rich and anything else is communism.
