• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • Have you considered putting letters written on paper in the post?

    Seems unwise to give your child’s early life story to any of these companies, especially when mapped to a network of her relatives and likely including photographs which people may not be as diligent to keep private as you.

    Your daughter cannot consent to this, and it is your duty as parents to protect her privacy until she is old enough to decide for herself what to share and where.


  • Correct.

    You qualify through low income, and as the list to get council housing is long, need is taken into account also.

    Right to Buy allows council tenants to buy their homes at a substantial discount on market value. This is alright, as it promotes stability and gives tenants equity, but at the same time, council tenants don’t get evicted anyhow, even if their income has become very high, and you can pass on a tenancy when you die if a relative was living in the council house with you.

    But the money from the sale of council houses to tenants does not get ploughed back into buying or building more council housing, and the people who bought them can in turn sell them on the open market rather than back to the council.

    This has made it near impossible for councils to maintain levels of housing stock, let alone increase it to reflect population growth. In central London, many types of essential worker are hard to obtain as too few can afford to live within commuting distance - large & high quality housing estates in the centre and all through the Boroughs having been sold off under the scheme long ago & snaffled up by developers.

    Thatcher brought it in as a populist policy, and to weaken state services, but every other PM after permitted the policy to carry on unaltered.






  • We dumbly agree, out of convenience or some notion that if we wanted to read the paper edition we’d have to pay for it, but one can shell out cash for the paper, pick it up in a waiting room, read a friend’s copy, etc.

    As soon as we attach a subscription to an online edition, all that happens is they get more data on us (as we are les inclined to delete their tracking cookies) whilst handing over solid confirmation that we are who they suspected we probably are.

    If you must subscribe, use a dedicated browser & multiple measures to confound tracking.


  • Right now, they can’t.

    Money has gone, opportunity for very cheap borrowing (which is what a sane government would have grasped enthusiastically grasped in the wake of the last crash instead of breaking out to exploit everyone harder) is gone.

    Maybe, if Reeves is given scope to do her shit, this country can not merely stall the accelerating decline, but turn stuff around.

    Nothing is more vital right now & for some time than keeping faith against the odds that that can happen.

    There is nothing to lose by trying to hold our nerve.




  • In the absence of irrelevant descriptors, many people struggle to remember that fascists can seem quite normal in other respects. Giving a few details helps them to imagine the woman. In turn this can quell fallacies that attach to ideas about “respectable” or “nice”.

    That doesn’t matter with regard to this woman as her behaviour is now a matter for the courts, but reminds Times readers that the terror threat doesn’t come solely from disaffected louts hopped up on larger & sun exposure (& who may be quite partial to kicking off violently anyhow).

    I’d think that in the absence of much to go on about her, they lifted stuff from her Twitter bio.





  • Most one could do is go after them once in office if they lied whilst campaigning for election to that office. You could maybe go after them even if they don’t win that election.

    It probably needs to be done as a strict obligation to not say anything in office or when campaigning which is not verifiably true.

    Would also need to be backed with hefty fines on parties if one of their candidates are proven to have lied, or if the party spread that lie.

    Tbh any version would be very hard to get right, and if it isn’t robust the likes of Farage will use it as yet another tool of discord & disruption as they attack democratic institutions and the rule of law.



  • Am tired, but bit confused at sequence of events.

    Did Russia ban Mozilla from offering specific extensions, whereupon Mozilla removed for Russian users the banned extensions?

    Or…

    Did Russia ban Mozilla from offering some undefined type of extension, whereupon Mozilla removed for Russian users any which seemed to fall under the ban under an abundance of caution until they could assess each & reinstate those which did not fit the ban?

    Or, more worryingly, but maybe implied by the supposed temporary intent of the ban…

    Did Russia ban Mozilla from offering specific extensions, whereupon Mozilla temporarily removed for Russian users the extensions in order to give Russia the ability to track or otherwise meddle with Russian users of those extensions… or to enable Russia to interfere with the extensions’ code for their own ends?

    I feel I can make a reasonable guess, but there’s a fairly big safety issue here depending on what happened.

    Anyone dissenting within an authoritarian regime knows to exercise extreme caution, but always good to put out reminders to have multiple layers of protection, so if one fails you are still ok.