Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, xxialac said:

They've actually delayed that.

And the goal is to weaken the BBC and bend it to the government's will, not to help people avoid going to jail! 

I've never quite understood why they think they are damaging the BBC by suggesting that, because it's the Treasury that gets any fines etc, not the BBC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BobWillis interesting that you downvoted my post considering that you previously have said the government messaging hasn’t been strong enough when it comes to protecting people from this virus. 
 

On 10/30/2020 at 10:25 PM, BobWillis said:

They should have never made masks mandatory, cases have risen steadily ever since. 
People (idiots) think they can ignore social distancing if they’re wearing a mask. The messaging on this hasn’t been strong enough. 

The point of my post is to make people aware of the risks of socialising this Christmas with their extended family. A harsh message will hopefully make enough people think whether socialising is worth it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Copperface said:

I've never quite understood why they think they are damaging the BBC by suggesting that, because it's the Treasury that gets any fines etc, not the BBC. 

Logic is decriminalise the paying of the license = fewer people pay = lower income for BBC = weaker BBC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Forget about the divine right.

Today, most Israelis live on the land they were born on, and today most Palestinians don't.

Whether we like how the state of Israel came about - 70 years ago - should matter as much as whether we like how the state of Pakistan came about (which in case you've not noticed, was much the same thing but with much worse violence).

There's lots to criticise Israeli govts about, but existing isn't one of them.

Even as we speak, Mike Pompeo is visiting the new settlements in Israel where fundamentalists continue to pour in and displace Palestinians, in breach of UN resolution 2334.

But that's okay.  Let them get on with it.  Mr Trump might have a few slightly troublesome policies, but he's bang on the money here.  We don't want to be accused of antisemitism because all Jews are Zionists, like all us Anglo-Saxons are fundamentalist witch-burning Christians, right?  And their iron age book tells them they're fulfilling God's word so it's basically fine.

Any attempt to stick up for a UN resolution is now antisemitism and must mean you're a fundamentalist Muslim who believes Israel shouldn't exist.  The far right have beaten us without a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

Logic is decriminalise the paying of the license = fewer people pay = lower income for BBC = weaker BBC.

I know, but quite often civil remedies can be equally as adverse and serious as criminal convictions in terms of effect on peoples lives. Lasting CCJs, credit searches, tenancy references etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Copperface said:

I know, but quite often civil remedies can be equally as adverse and serious as criminal convictions in terms of effect on peoples lives. Lasting CCJs, credit searches, tenancy references etc. 

Having a criminal record when trying to get a job is surely worse, no?

Will be less of a deterrent...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Anyone able to explain why sending emails is bad for the environment? 

3F1BB757-70F4-43EA-B50F-A79F5DBBF6EF.jpeg

So even in emails, they are going for the "You the little person can change climate change"

Before it was individual recycling, plastic straws, not driving as much, now its don't send as many emails. 

As if these insignificant things can do anything without large corporations making huge changes to their companies. 

This even applies here, if normal people are sending too many emails, what about corporations who send millions and millions of marketing emails, that no one read. - 
All of our individual actions are pointless if the largest companies refuse to make meaningful changes themselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

So even in emails, they are going for the "You the little person can change climate change"

Before it was individual recycling, plastic straws, not driving as much, now its don't send as many emails. 

As if these insignificant things can do anything without large corporations making huge changes to their companies. 

This even applies here, if normal people are sending too many emails, what about corporations who send millions and millions of marketing emails, that no one read. - 
All of our individual actions are pointless if the largest companies refuse to make meaningful changes themselves

Spot on.

 

I don’t know how climate change can be managed. My gut feeling is the best approach is to let it happen then adapt our living habits to deal with the new climate. But the ordinary little guy can’t do much about it. It’s up to governments sorting out the polluters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Spot on.

 

I don’t know how climate change can be managed. My gut feeling is the best approach is to let it happen then adapt our living habits to deal with the new climate. But the ordinary little guy can’t do much about it. It’s up to governments sorting out the polluters.

If let it go it could just spiral out of control, feedback loops broken everywhere....we would have to continually adapt but life will be very hard for many people, and many more species will become extinct. Maybe we'll be ok, but future generations would just have to deal with this shit.

So, stop sending emails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
    • Too good for the legends slot 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...