"The businessman behind the plan, Bradley Mitchell, also hopes to offer thrill seekers a 115ft (35m) freefall experience with a belay system slowing their descent before they hit the ground."
Then find the cash, and pay for the upkeep.
I come from the area where the James Watt Dock crane is situated. I don't care. The yards are gone, the docks are a ruin, the land is Clydeport or Peel ports.
If neither are paying for the upkeep, then the land should be placed back into public hands, not sold to private interests, and the cranes demolished. Practically every boat that came out of these yards is long since scrap.
The Goliath crane that was at Port Glasgow is now a Tesco.
The UK government’s proposed 3p-a-mile electric vehicle tax lays bare its true nature: it is a Treasury revenue-raising exercise masquerading as environmental policy. Far from a green initiative, this mileage-based levy exposes a systemic geographic and political disparity that disproportionately punishes rural Scotland and Wales to the benefit of London and the South East.
Consider the stark regional financial disparities. Under this proposal, drivers in densely populated, heavily polluted urban centres with extensive public transport networks, such as London, will pay an average of just £33 a year. Conversely, drivers in rural Scotland and Wales—who rely entirely on their vehicles for essential travel across vast geographies—face averages of over £156 a year, with a standard 8,500-mile driver paying upwards of £255.
What this mileage-based tax completely ignores is the environmental heavy lifting performed by these rural landscapes. The extensive forests, mountains, and peatlands of Scotland and Wales act as vital carbon sinks for the entire UK. UK woodlands currently hold roughly 150 million tonnes of carbon in their biomass and sequester millions more annually. Furthermore, through the process of evapotranspiration, these vast green spaces act as natural air conditioning, significantly cooling the wider UK climate and regulating regional temperatures.
To understand the inherent value of these rural spaces, one only has to look at the continent. European cities are currently investing millions in urban tree-planting initiatives, desperately trying to mitigate the 'Urban Heat Island' effect that traps emissions and drives up deadly urban temperatures. The irony here is profound: a tax purportedly born of environmental concern now financially penalises rural drivers who live amongst and navigate natural carbon sinks, whilst effectively offering a massive discount to drivers contributing to the very urban heat islands that the rest of Europe is spending fortunes to cool.
However, the inequity extends far beyond the roads and into the very power grid that charges these vehicles. Both Scotland and Wales are significant net exporters of electricity. Through vast wind, hydro, and renewable energy infrastructure, they generate considerably more power than they consume, exporting the surplus directly to England to meet the massive energy demands of cities like London. Despite powering the UK, neither Scottish nor Welsh consumers receive a discount on their electricity bills. In fact, due to the structure of the national grid, rural consumers frequently pay higher standing charges for their electricity than the consumers in the urban areas that absorb their exported energy.
This presents a stark picture of two UK nations being disproportionately squeezed. They generate the clean electricity and their landscapes absorb the carbon, yet their residents are forced to pay the highest transport taxes and energy premiums simply because of their geography.
The ultimate pay-off of this policy failure is highly political. For decades, a prevailing Westminster narrative has accused Scotland and Wales of being heavily subsidised by England. Yet, when one examines the actual flow of resources—clean energy flowing south, whilst punitive mileage taxes and high energy standing charges flow north and west—the narrative is exposed as nonsense. Policies like the 3p-a-mile EV tax serve as undeniable fuel for Scottish and Welsh independence movements, providing empirical evidence of an economic union that extracts resources from the rural periphery merely to subsidise the urban core.
If you think that RAM costs $900 because of AI cat memes, rather than AI being leveraged into every facet of life to create a tech-military-surveillance complex, then you are a fucking fool.
Maybe spend more time looking at Dual-Use venture start-ups working hand in hand with your national security services, especially in NATO countries, and their recent proclamation to increase military spending to 5% of national GDP, to leverage future military contracts, and the obvious necessity for things like, oh, I don't know, drone guidance systems, rather than Power Rangers cat memes.
AI generated image of a huge cat fighting a power ranger like a godzilla
Caption:
TWO sticks of RAM costs $900
because of THIS btw
There is something I find unnerving in the religious who "display" their faith. It is in numerous monotheistic religions, despite numerous avowals that this may not be the way.
But no, they double down in the guidebook and ignore every chapter which tells you to think, interpret, hope, and that the judgement isn't yours to make.
Double down into force and proselytising despite every verse which states not to do that.
Don't make a show, you might not get into heaven that way, but there they are, full in the flesh of judgement.
Casting stones.
Controlling.
That's not faith, that's coercion. It's performative piety.
Jesus explicitly condemns religious theatre.
Matthew 6:1, 5-6: "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven... And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others... But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen."
The Quran has a specific term for this: Riya' (doing deeds to be seen). It describes those who pray only for social credit as "unmindful."
These extend to coercive acts which are performed to be seen.
Surah Al-Ma'un (107:4–6): "So woe to those who pray, [but] who are heedless of their prayer, those who make show [of their deeds]."
Surah An-Nisa (4:142): "Indeed, the hypocrites... when they stand for prayer, they stand lazily, showing [themselves] to the people and not remembering Allah except a little."
The Bible (The Instruction to the Twelve):
Jesus instructs the disciples to rely on hospitality, not force. If they are not welcomed, they are not to fight or dominate, but simply leave.
Mark 6:8-11: "He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money... And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them."
The Quran explicitly strips the Prophet (and thus his followers) of the right to control others.
Surah Al-Ghashiyah (88:21–22): "So remind, [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not over them a controller."
Surah Yunus (10:99): "Had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?"
Religious ritual is worthless if you lack human empathy. Judgment belongs to God; service belongs to humans.
"When I came to you as..." This is the ultimate separation of the religious performers from the truly faithful.
Matthew 25:42-45: "For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in... 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'"
John 8:7 (Casting Stones): "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
Surah Al-Baqarah (2:177): "Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is... [one who] gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveller, and those who ask...".
I am an atheist, but for the love of God, think:
1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Test everything; hold fast what is good."
1 John 4:1: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God..."
"Afala ta'qilun?" ("Will you not use your reason?")
Surah Al-Anfal (8:22): "Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason."
Surah Al-Baqarah (2:170): "When it is said to them, 'Follow what Allah has revealed,' they say, 'Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.' Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?"
There is more on this in the Qu'ran too, but:
(2 Corinthians 3:6):
"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
(Romans 12:2):
"Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is..."
I could go on. But, suffice to say, as a linguist, it's best not to take words entirely literally, but as a general direction.
There are numerous theories which outline why.
But hey, I am a Constructivist theorist with a penchant for Dadaism, shitposting, and an atheist to boot. WTF do I know?
The questions are so simple too: what if I am wrong? What arrogance must I have to believe I must be right.
I can't recall a single religious text I have read which doesn't contain something which effectively says: "you know what, this game isn't played the way you think it is."
Which is basically the first two lines of the Tao Te Ching. "You think you know this game? You know nothing. That you want to know is your first problem. FFS, you mug. Do. Be."
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name."
You know nothing. You're using words, you clown. Useless.
Throws brother under bus for sake of state. This was coming. As soon as Andy was turfed out from being a Royal, and ejected to being a marginally more fancy pleb, it was the writing on the wall.
Andy and Mandy are officially on the naughty step.
Any notion that Pedro Sánchez represents a genuine leftist or human alternative is political posturing. No figure so frequently praised by the Blairite network—specifically the Tony Blair Institute—holds those convictions. While Sánchez occasionally markets "leftist credentials," he is a dyed-in-the-wool technocrat and a disciple of the Third Way. He is firmly Team Clinton, Blair, and Barak.
When Sánchez speaks, the rhetoric is often disingenuous. He is the Spanish equivalent of Keir Starmer: the puppet out front, masking a deeper alignment with Atlanticism.
The real game is not social democracy, but the securement of defence contracts supported by the private sector, spun off into data products, and used to bolster AI. This is the Military-Industrial-Data Complex, and Sánchez’s administration is a key node in it.
The Artigas Connection: Madrid to Harvard. Sánchez’s former Secretary of State for Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence (2020–2024), Carme Artigas, is the primary operator here. Her appointment as a Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in 2024—specifically in the "Tech and Geopolitics" program—places her in the exact same cohort as the US intelligence officials who frequent the institution.
The lineage is clear: Douglas Alexander, David Miliband, Ed Balls, Ehud Barak, and Larry Summers have all passed through either the Belfer Center or the closely linked Mossavar-Rahmani Center (M-RCBG). This synthesis informs the Blairite project, which is effectively Clintonism repackaged—a strategy outlined by American consultants like Greenberg, Carville, and Shrum. It is worth noting that James Carville was retained as a consultant for Palantir around 2011, cementing the link between this political ideology and the surveillance state.
The Trans-Atlantic Conveyor Belt The connection between Artigas, the Belfer Center, and the Anglo-American intelligence network reveals a precise mechanism:
Public Money funds "Innovation" (Defence/AI).
Private Companies develop the tech (often incubated by state-aligned accelerators).
Regulators (like Artigas) write the rules to favour these "trusted" vendors.
The Tech is deployed for consumer data harvesting and state surveillance (Dual-Use).
The UK Parallel: The CyLon Model To understand what Spain is doing, one need only look at the UK. This model was formalised under the Strategic Defence Review and relies on the "privatisation of intelligence." A key example is CyLon, a cyber-security accelerator co-founded by Grace Cassy, a former Foreign Policy advisor to Tony Blair (2004–2006).
CyLon sits at the intersection of GCHQ and Venture Capital. Instead of the government building spy tools, they fund startups to build them, then buy the contracts. Anthony Finkelstein is a mentor there; Lord Daniel Finkelstein (close to the Cameron/Osborne circle) operates within the same neoconservative network that overlaps with Peter Thiel’s Palantir. Epstein's personal hacker, Vincenzo Iozzo, too was a CyLon mentor. Mandelson and Blair are very large bridges.
Keir Starmer, as a dutiful Blairite, is undoubtedly aware of this architecture. Spain is now importing this exact model.
Artigas as the "Dual-Use" Agent Carme Artigas’s receipt of the Gran Cruz del Mérito Militar (Grand Cross of Military Merit) is the smoking gun. Publicly, she was a civilian Secretary of State; in reality, the award proves her primary success was integrating civilian tech into military command. This is the "Palantirization" of the Spanish military—shifting from heavy hardware to software (AI/Data).
Crucially, Artigas led negotiations for the EU AI Act, where she helped carve out exemptions for national security. This ensures that while consumer AI is strictly regulated, defence AI—where the profitable contracts lie—remains largely untouched. It effectively creates a slush fund moving public monies to private companies and back again.
The "Sideways" Move to the UN Artigas’s subsequent move to the UN, via a stopover at the Belfer Center, was not a sideways career step. The Belfer Center served as the ideological bootcamp. Under the late Ash Carter (former US Secretary of Defense) and Eric Rosenbach (former Pentagon Chief of Staff), the Center focuses on "The Tech-Security Dilemma"—ensuring European regulation does not hamper NATO’s ability to compete with China.
Artigas bridged this gap, ensuring US defence companies were not regulated "too hard." Her role at the UN is now about Global Standardization. Future defence contracts (autonomous drones, predictive policing) require interoperable global standards. By setting these standards at the UN level, only massive incumbents like Microsoft, Google, Palantir, and Indra can afford to comply. This effectively kills open-source competition and secures the market for the "approved" vendors.
Sánchez’s government is not "socialist"; it is the local franchise for this global alignment.
Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez:
“If we defend international law in Ukraine, then we must defend
international law in Gaza.”
“We must end the policy of double standards.”
Other conversations have suddenly brought to mind an ex-workmate in the education sector, who was a collegiate athlete and on track for US Olympic selection for women's hammer throw, until her foot exploded, twice, which retired her from competition.
Strong.
I once remember the little adolescent boys not understanding what strength was, and telling her to "prove it", as obviously she was chunky, so they didn't believe her. She one-hand yoinked a four person desk above her head as if it was a sheet of paper.
Now, the desk may not be heavy, as such, but it is unwieldy, and takes ludicrous wrist and grip strength to clean that into the air.
I laughed like a drain in the corner, and they shut the fuck up.
You know what? If all you are arguing is a constructed Black history versus an equally constructed White history, and you cannot see how they continually co-construct one another—setting the grounds for racism, diminishing voice within the macro-construct, and agglomerating difference into nothing more than a non-existent binary—you can get in the fucking bin.
You cement the semiotic reinforcement of racism simply by occupying either of these binary poles.
You cannot have a history of ‘Whiteness’ without a history of ‘Blackness’. They were invented at the same moment, by the same people, for the same economic purpose. To narrate them separately is to ignore the mechanism of their invention.
Every time you invoke Blackness, you invoke Whiteness. Every time you invoke Whiteness, you invoke Blackness.
I am done with anyone mining this. Decolonisation is local, small, and ethnographic. The former are macro-classifiers designed to construct and reinforce specific political policies, compressing and minimising the local and the individual.
To accept a binary as glib as Black versus White is merely to place oneself in a convenient administrative unit for the benefit of those who profit from it.
"I do not want to be the victim of the deceit of a black world... I am not a black man; I am a man. There is no white world, there is no white ethic, any more than there is a white intelligence."
— Black Skin, White Masks, Frantz Fanon
"There is no Negro mission; there is no white burden... I find myself suddenly in the world and I recognize that I have one right alone: That of demanding human behavior from the other."
— Black Skin, White Masks, Frantz Fanon
There is only the micro-politics of the particular. The macro-politics of the universal—or any bipolar state—is the violence of agglomeration, where the disparate becomes bound as a unit due to pigmentation.
On the one hand, I was looking at purchasing a cheap computer to cobble into my own Mastodon server with Wordpress federation and maybe a sneaky Peertube.
Cookie Monster, a furry, blue Sesame Street monster, holds in his left hand some form, of least, inhaling tobacco, or similar, and in his right he holds a giant F.
"Here’s the setup: We take the absolute worst-case scenario—the nightmare fuel of the internet conspiracy boards—and we make it the status quo. We have an administration, right? The President, the VP, the Cabinet—the whole executive branch is effectively an elite, billionaire paedophile ring. I’m talking a 'Who’s Who' of Super-Injunctions. And the First Lady? She’s not arranging flowers; she’s a high-class escort. It’s Caligula, but in the West Wing.
But hang on—stay with me—here’s the engine. Who’s funding this car crash? The Tech-Bros. The Silicon Valley oligarchs. The sort of blokes who want to upload their consciousness to the cloud just to escape the age of consent laws. They are bankrolling this entire circus to institute a sort of... techno-fascism. Digital serfdom. You don't vote; you simply click 'Accept All Cookies' and forfeit your soul.
[Writer stops, staring intensely at the producer.]
Now, how do they sell this to the punters? This is the kicker. They run on an anti-paedophile ticket.
The irony is absolutely radioactive! They are screaming 'Save the Children' whilst wiping their own hard drives! And the base? Oh, the base is magnificent. We’re talking about a demographic of largely illiterate 'Christians' who treat the Sermon on the Mount like the Terms and Conditions—they've never bloody read it. They don't want a Prime Minister or a President; they want a God-King.
So, you have these voters aiding and abetting the dismantling of the Republic—literally tearing the social fabric to shreds—because they view these monsters as divine saviours. And the twist? The properly dark joke? The base isn't tricked. Deep down, they resonate with it. Because back home, in the privacy of their own clans, they’re keeping it very much in the family, if you catch my drift.
It’s a feedback loop of absolute depravity. The leaders are noncing the kids, the voters are noncing their cousins, and everyone is screaming that the other lot are the perverts. It’s the end of history.
"Right, hold on, hold on, put a pin in the perversion for a second. That’s just the flavour; I haven't told you about the fuel. We need a schema for the money, because that is where the soul of this show lives.
You’re asking, 'Who pays for this dystopia?' And the answer is: Everybody. It’s an economic perpetual motion machine. It’s the Human Centipede, but it’s a circle, and it eats money.
Picture the economy. It’s not manufacturing; we don't make things anymore. The economy is an Entertainment-to-Tech Loop. It is a closed system.
First, you’ve got your Tech Workers. The San Francisco lot. The coders, the UX designers. They wake up, they drink their oat milk lattes, and they tell themselves they’re 'progressive.' They hate the political campaign. They tweet about how awful it is. But here’s the gag: They build the pipes. They are the technical underpinning of the entire vehicle. They code the 24-hour news algorithms; they optimize the rage-bait on the social platforms. They are paid by The Ring. Their stock options? Funded by The Ring. So they sit there, cashing checks signed by the Paedo-Oligarchs, paralyzed by their own mortgages, building the very cage they claim to despise because it keeps their wages high. They are the complicit middle management of Hell.
And who are they extracting the wealth from? Who is the battery in this Matrix? The Base. The Redneck, Football, and Christianity cousin-humpers.
These people have zero tech know-how. They are economically destitute. But what do they do? They consume. They are addicted to the drip-feed. They sit there on a Sunday, watching the Football and the Fire-and-Brimstone sermons, all streamed on digital platforms owned by the Paedo-Oligarchs.
Do you see the beauty of it? The Base is paying a subscription to their own brainwashing! The Oligarchs use the platform to sell them 'Anti-Paedo' hysteria. The Base clicks, the Base watches, the Base pays. That money flows up from the trailer park, through the hands of the cynical Tech Workers—who take their cut to keep the servers running—and lands right in the pockets of the Billionaire Ring... who use it to fund the campaign that keeps the Base angry, illiterate, and glued to the screen!
It’s perfect! The cousin-humpers are funding the very tech-bros who despise them, and the tech-bros are building the pulpit for the fascists they claim to hate. It’s an impressive, unbreakable loop of wealth extraction and moral bankruptcy. Nobody can stop it because everybody is getting something out of it: the Base gets a God, the Techies get a Tesla, and the Ring gets the White House.
It’s not just a government, it’s a subscription service for the end of the world! Tell me that doesn't have legs!"
[Writer stops. He stares intensely at the producer, panting]
[The producer ponders]
"I don't know how we would get that past the regulators...
"ICE agents blocked from entering Ecuadorian Consulate in Minneapolis, ministry says
Law enforcement is generally prohibited from entering consulates or embassies without permission. Ecuador’s Foreign Ministry said it had filed a formal diplomatic protest."
During the exchange, an ICE agent was recorded telling the staff member, "If you touch me, I will grab you." The staff member stood their ground, citing the building's diplomatic status, and the agents eventually left without entering.
So, to clarify, ICE potentially fucked the Consular diplomatic status of the U.S., everywhere.
The protection of diplomatic missions is governed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963). It is a severe breach of protocol.
Article 31 outlines the inviolability of consular premises, and states that "authorities of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the consular premises which is used exclusively for the purpose of the work of the consular post except with the consent of the head of the consular post."
Diplomatic immunity is fundamentally reciprocal. If the U.S. allows its law enforcement to breach foreign sovereign soil (which a consulate legally represents), it weakens the protections afforded to U.S. Consulates and diplomats abroad. This potentially creates a "fair game" scenario on U.S. diplomats, exposing U.S. personnel in hostile nations to similar incursions under the guise of local law enforcement.
Consulates are not required to comply with domestic warrants unless there is a specific waiver from the head of the consulate or in cases of extreme emergency (like a fire), though the latter is often debated.
Consulates are permitted to grant sanctuary to their own nationals inside the building. Once an individual is inside the consulate, U.S. law enforcement cannot enter to arrest them without the Consul’s express permission.
The Consulate is well within its rights to bar entry and insist that law enforcement leave, or face diplomatic escalation, which includes: expulsion (Persona Non Grata), the recall of Ecuador's ambassador, and International Legal Action, where Ecuador could theoretically take the U.S. to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for breaching the Vienna Convention, seeking a judgment that the U.S. violated international law (similar to Mexico's lawsuit against Ecuador after the 2024 embassy raid in Quito).
Diplomatic bags would remain protected in transit, as these are protected under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and are absolute. Article 27 states they "shall not be opened or detained."
Consulate bags, however, could become fair game, as their protection is the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This protection is weaker. Article 35 states that if authorities have "serious reason to believe" the bag contains non-official items, they can request it be opened.
This means that any Ecuadorian Consulate doing business with the U.S. could simply state that it believes there is contraband within the baggage or documents of US personnel entering the premises and demand it be opened. If they are refused, they can deny entry.
Ecuador could claim they have "serious reason to believe" every single U.S. consular bag entering Quito contains contraband. The U.S. would then face a choice: allow their confidential bags to be searched, or have them all sent back to Washington, effectively freezing U.S. diplomatic work in Ecuador without Ecuador technically breaking the treaty.
If the U.S. ignores the "Inviolability of Premises" (Article 31), hostile nations (like Russia or China) may decide the U.S. has abandoned the conventions entirely. They could use this as a pretext to ignore the stricter Diplomatic Bag protections, forcibly searching U.S. Embassy pouches under the guise of "national security," citing the Minneapolis incident as justification that the old rules no longer apply.
The U.S. has far more personnel and sensitive material exposed abroad than Ecuador has in Minneapolis. By eroding this norm, the U.S. creates a massive strategic vulnerability for its own intelligence and diplomatic corps.
Congratulations to ICE. While this will be glossed over, you have provided succour to foreign nations.
SNP, Scottish Government, Scottish Water bastards and their 8.7% price hike.
It’s outrageous, isn’t it? I mean, look at the numbers. We’re getting slapped with a £42 rise this year, taking the average bill up to £532.
Meanwhile, look at the poor, suffering souls down in London. Thames Water customers are only seeing a rise of 0.4%. That’s a measly £3 a year.
Clearly, this is proof that the Scottish nationalised model is failing and we should be looking jealously at the efficiency of the private sector down south. The gap is narrowing! We’re losing our advantage!
Except, if you actually scratch the surface it is easy to see "efficiency" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The reason Thames Water is only raising bills by 0.4% isn’t because they’ve discovered a magical, cost-free way to purify water. It’s because they are currently operating a literal shit show.
And I don’t just mean that as an insult; I mean it as a regulatory fact.
Here is the reality of that "value proposition" down south:
1. The "Discount" is actually a fine.
In England, prices are regulated by Ofwat using a system of "Outcome Delivery Incentives" (ODIs). Basically, if you do a good job, you can charge more. If you miss your targets—like, say, spewing record amounts of raw sewage into rivers or losing oceans of water to leaks—you get penalised.
Thames Water’s 0.4% rise is effectively a massive real-terms price cut. But it’s not a gift to the customer; it’s a punishment for the shareholder. They have been fined into suppressing their prices because they are failing.
So when you compare Scotland’s 8.7% rise to Thames’s 0.4%, you aren’t comparing like-for-like.
Scotland is paying the actual cost of fixing pipes and keeping the water clean.
London is receiving a near price-cap for a broken service.
We’re might hear a lot of noise from some politicians about how the price gap between Scotland and England is "narrowing." And mathematically, it is. The difference used to be bigger.
But context is everything. The gap is narrowing because the English system is in distress. If Thames and others were actually hitting their performance targets—fixing leaks, stopping spills, and actually investing—their bills would be skyrocketing way past inflation to pay for it (plus the standard shareholder dividends, which we don't pay up here).
Instead, their prices are being artificially depressed by the regulator as a sanction for underinvestment. This has lowered the overall price rises in England and Wales, and narrowed the gap. Thames Water is huge, serving around 16 million. If they had been unpunished, and their prices rose inline with other English and Welsh companies:
We would then be looking a 16 million people on a 9% rise. Thus, if Thames had risen by £55 instead of £3, the national average increase would likely have been around £47 - £48. That adjusted reality: would be closer to Scotland (+8.7%) vs. "Functioning" England/Wales (+7.8%). The difference is negligible.
This is the bit people forget. Scottish Water is a public corporation. It doesn’t have shareholders screaming for a return on equity. It operates on a cost-recovery basis. That 8.7% hike? That’s what it actually costs to run the system and invest in the infrastructure right now. Every penny of that £42 goes back into the pipes.
Down south, the model is designed to extract profit. When that model fails—as it spectacularly is doing in the Thames region—the regulator steps in to stop the bleeding, creating these weird price anomalies where a failing company looks "cheaper" on paper than a functioning one.
So yes, let’s shout about the 8.7%. Nobody likes a bill going up.
But let’s be very clear about the alternative. I’d rather pay the fair price for a utility that puts the money back into the network, than pay a "discounted" rate for a private monopoly that’s currently being fined for turning its own catchment area into an open sewer.
Scottish Water is still over £100 cheaper a year than the English average (£532 vs £639), and we aren’t paying for dividends.
The price gap might be narrowing, but the competence gap is a canyon.
It's not as if Scottish Water doesn't have problems, but at least it isn't turning its equivalent of the Thames basin into an open sewer, while profits are on hold for a suitable period of "mea culpa".
Your cut-out and keep guide to The Nandy Doctrine of who decides on Self-determination.
(Image generated).
alt="Flowchart illustrating 'The Nandy Doctrine on Self-Determination', outlining which groups are allowed to decide their political future according to Lisa Nandy's stated views. It categorizes scenarios like Greenland and Chagos Islands under 'resisting external imperialism' (allowed to decide), Scotland and Catalonia under 'divisive internal nationalism' (not allowed to decide), and Palestine under a conditional, negotiated process (maybe later). The chart uses blue for questions/scenarios, green for 'YES', red for 'NO', and yellow for 'MAYBE' outcomes."
I mean, can we play this by Pangea rules, and have Africa, Europe, and Greenland just claim the U.S., given that the East Coast of the US (from New England down to Florida) was directly tucked against Northwest Africa (modern-day Morocco, Mauritania, and Senegal), when the Appalachian Mountains and the Atlas Mountains in Morocco were once part of the same continuous mountain range.
The Northeast US and Canada were connected to Greenland, Great Britain, and Scandinavia.
While largely connected to Africa, the northern edge of South America (Venezuela/Colombia) was nestled against the Gulf Coast region.
I have been reliably informed by boozebags in the know that the Hearach is "fucking mint". So, get it before its probable price hike, seeing as it is the gift bag for the Golden Globes.
"BBC viewers fume over 'worst 30 minutes in TV history' as they switch off."
It was Celebrity Mastermind. It must have been truly terrible, as I watched episode four of Stranger Things earlier, and it was so bad I insulted my T.V., twice, for the same thing.
The worst scriptwriting I have recently seen, and I watched that Harlan Cobden shit with Bill Nighy.
Just think, if all those years ago Amy Winehouse had sung, "they tried to make me go to rehab, and I said, yes, yes, yes", she might now be carving a nice little career Jane McDonalding on the cruise ships.
An illustration of a Mothman-like creature with red eyes and large wings, sitting in a wooden chair and screaming with its mouth wide open. The text "SCREAMING" is arched above the creature, and "IS SELF CARE" is written in a straight line below it. Both the creature and text are in a vintage, etched, or woodcut style against a plain white background.
Greta Thunberg was arrested under the Terrorism Act for displaying a sign that read: "I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION PRISONERS".
The police allege she was displaying support for a proscribed (banned) organization. However, a linguistic analysis reveals a critical distinction. The police are reading keywords; grammar dictates she was supporting people, not an organization.
Here is how Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)—a tool used to analyse how language functions in real contexts—deconstructs the sign to show why the arrest is linguistically flawed.
In English, when we group words together to name something (like "Red delicious apple" or "Palestine Action Prisoners"), there is always one word that anchors the meaning. We call this the Head or the Thing. Everything else is just decoration or categorization.
Let's look at Greta's object of support: "Palestine Action Prisoners"
The Head (The Thing): PRISONERS
This is the core reality of the sentence. The physical beings she is referencing are incarcerated people.
The Classifier: PALESTINE ACTION
In grammar, this functions as a Classifier. Its only job is to tell us which type of prisoners we are talking about. It restricts the category.
To prove this, we can swap the classifier for something else. This is called the commutation test.
If she wrote "I support [remand] prisoners," she is not saying she "supports remand" (keeping people in jail). She is supporting the people subject to that condition.
If a lawyer says "I defend [murder] suspects," they are not "defending murder." They are defending the suspects.
The police have conflated the Classifier (the label) with the Thing (the people). Linguistically, you cannot simply lift the modifier "Palestine Action" out of the phrase and claim it is the object of her support. It is glued to the word "Prisoners."
Linguists use a system called Transitivity to map "who does what to whom." It traces the energy of the verb.
The Actor (Doer): "I" (Greta)
The Process (Verb): "Support"
The Goal (Target): "Prisoners"
Imagine the sentence as an arrow. The arrow of "Support" is fired by Greta. It flies over the words "Palestine Action" and lands squarely on "Prisoners."
Grammatical Reading: Greta → Support → Prisoners (who happen to be associated with Palestine Action).
Police Reading: Greta → Support → Palestine Action (the organization).
By ignoring the word "Prisoners," the legal interpretation creates a new sentence that Greta did not write. She is validating the human rights of the individuals (the Goal), not the manifesto of the group (the Classifier).
Language doesn't happen in a vacuum. We must look at the second line of the sign to understand the first. This is called Appraisal Analysis—how we judge value and stance.
The sign reads:
"I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION PRISONERS"
"I OPPOSE GENOCIDE"
The second line acts as a "decoder key" for the first.
"Oppose Genocide" sets a moral framework. It is a statement about humanitarian law and saving lives.
Because the bottom line is about human rights (opposing death/genocide), the top line must be read in the same context.
She is not supporting "Palestine Action" because she loves their logo or their specific tactics; she is supporting the prisoners because she views them as victims of the same system she is critiquing in line two. The sign frames the prisoners as humanitarian subjects (people suffering), not political agents (people acting).
The Verdict
The arrest relies on "Keyword Searching"—seeing a banned word and acting on it. But grammar relies on structure.
Greta Thunberg sits cross-legged on the ground, holding a handwritten sign that reads "I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION PRISONERS" and "I OPPOSE GENOCIDE". A police officer in a black uniform and peaked cap kneels directly in front of her, appearing to speak to her. Behind them are grey metal crowd control barriers and other police officers standing in the background.
2/2
If I hold a sign that says: "I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION; I DON'T SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION"
...do I support the proscribed group?
Under a basic "Keyword Search" approach (the method effectively used in the arrest), the answer is a confused "Yes and No." The machine sees the banned word count = 2.
But under Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), this sentence creates a Logical Paradox that renders the statement legally unanswerable. Here is the logic sequence of why this sentence breaks the "Guilty" verdict.
If we read "Palestine Action" as a Proper Noun (The specific banned organization) in both halves of the sentence, the statement is nonsense.
Clause A: I support [The Group].
Clause B: I do not support [The Group].
This results in a logical nullity (A and Not-A). A court cannot rely on a statement that cancels itself out. To find meaning, the human brain, and the law, looks for a way to resolve the conflict.
To make the sentence make sense, we instinctively shift the meaning of one of the phrases. We stop reading it as a Name, and start reading it as a description.
This is called Nominalisation.
"Palestine Action" (Proper Noun): The corporate entity/group.
"Palestine Action" (Common Noun Phrase): The process of taking political action for Palestine.
Because "Action" is a word derived from a verb (to act), it is linguistically fluid. It can slide between being a "Thing" (the group) and a "Process" (the deed).
Once we allow that shift, the sentence suddenly has a valid, non-criminal reading:
"I support [the political act of resistance]; I don't support [the proscribed group]."
Or, depending on which clause you assign the value to:
"I support [the group]; I don't support [the specific acts]."
The Result: Semantic Erosion By placing these identical phrases side-by-side with opposite polarity (Support vs. Don't Support), the text muddies the water. The capitalized letters lose their authority. You can no longer prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the speaker is referencing the group, because the sentence structure itself suggests they are distinguishing between the Entity and the Concept.
The Verdict
The police rely on Lexical Rigidity—assuming a word always means the same thing. This defence relies on Functional Ambiguity.
If a sign creates a "Zone of Indeterminacy"—where a legal reading is just as grammatically likely as an illegal one—the text cannot serve as a confession. The grammar itself provides the reasonable doubt.
So, if you feel bold, go get yourself a t-shirt reading "I DON'T SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION; I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION", and make the police fucking explain its meaning to you.
They won't be able to. They will still pick you up for "Reasonable Suspicion", but that is where the fun may begin.
You see, as we have illustrated, the "unreadability" creates a conundrum, where an offence may or may not have been committed, and they don't really know. The defence is already baked-in grammatically.
And the definition there is piss-weak:
"A person in a public place commits an offence if he wears an item of clothing... in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation."
It would be for a legal defence team to defend the position, but the ready baked in defence, perhaps, gives credence that any arrest would constitute Illegal Detainment, as:
The arresting officer lacked objective reasonable grounds to suspect I was a supporter of a proscribed group, because the text on my clothing explicitly contained a negation of that support ('I don't support...'). The officer relied on a selective reading of keywords rather than the full semantic context, rendering the suspicion irrational and the arrest unlawful.
This also needs stuff I once knew, but fell out of my ear. Stuff I thought I knew, but was grossly mistaken about, and stuff I said I knew, but actually had no clue about.
I know that this is probably Flashscore just buggering up the positions, but also, Luke McCowan could be at CB, with Ralston on the rightwing, and Johnny Kenny in left mid.