In todays news...

[Mussels]

A Labour MP must be getting worried that they may actually get voted in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65563918

Met Police will not investigate sexual assault claim against Labour shadow minister

Now anyone a senior Labour MP talks to won't hear a word, they will all be thinking 'are you the rapey one?'.

[Ant]

Trump 2024

"Trump is probably the only Republican who could lose to Joe Biden".

Ant strikes again.

Bring Back Boris

[demographic]

Bring Back Boris

The only thing I can think of that would destroy the Tory party faster would be putting Moggy in charge so I agree with you. He's a fucking liability but he likely took a term off the Conservatives reign.
So err, yeah bring Back Boris

[ZRX61]

[Slenver]

Only in the USA? Whatever, the lengths some go to for for views, likes and shares.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ertificate

The FAA revoked the pilot certificate of Trevor Jacob, a former Olympic snowboard competitor turned YouTuber, who posted a viral video of himself parachuting out of a 1940 Taylorcraft that he claimed had malfunctioned.

The video Jacob posted online showing his bailout and the subsequent crash of the 1940 Taylorcraft has been viewed more than 500,000 times, and sparked criticism from pilots and others in the aviation community. The footage taken from multiple cameras, including a selfie stick, shows Jacob (who claims to have just experienced an “engine-out”) leaping out of the aircraft with his selfie stick in hand and parachuting to safety. The Taylorcraft crashed into the Los Padres National Forest in Southern California, and Jacob retrieved footage from cameras he had mounted on the aircraft.

According to The New York Times, the FAA sent Jacob a letter on April 11 advising that the agency had determined that Jacob violated FAR 91.13 by operating his single-engine aircraft in a “careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.”

The newspaper obtained a copy of that April 11 letter, apparently before Jacob received his own copy, and elaborated on the FAA’s findings, including that, “Mr. Jacob made no attempt to contact air traffic control on the emergency frequency, did not try to restart the engine by increasing airflow over the propeller and failed to look for a place to safely land, ‘even though there were multiple areas within gliding range in which you could have made a safe landing.’ After the crash, the agency noted that Mr. Jacob also ‘recovered and then disposed of the wreckage…You demonstrated a lack of care, judgment and responsibility by choosing to jump out of an aircraft solely so you could record the footage of the crash…Your egregious and intentional actions on these dates indicate that you presently lack the degree of care, judgment and responsibility required of a certificate holder.’”

The FAA ordered Jacob to surrender his private pilot certificate, adding that failure to do so could result in “further legal enforcement action,” including a civil penalty of up to $1,644 for every day he does not comply.

Update from a couple of years ago. The guy has admitted it was faked and that he disposed of all the evidence illegally. Looking at 20 years...!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65567519

[Yambo]

Update from a couple of years ago. The guy has admitted it was faked and that he disposed of all the evidence illegally. Looking at 20 years...!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65567519

Fuck!

20 fuckin' years of YouTube videos (maybe YouPorn) of life inside? And adverts!

[Screwdriver]

There's no choice in the matter. You can't file a criminal suit after 5 years have passed, which was well over 20 years ago.

Obviously anyone could argue that she could've done this at the time, but I think it's well understood that women often don't report sexual attacks, especially back in the day, and especially when they're against famous people with powerful voices and legal teams.

A law was recently introduced that allowed people to file civil suits for sexual attacks that happened in the past. She did that on the day it came out.

Here's another way to look at that factually true spin using "alternate" facts which the media did not want you to know:

The prosecutor in this case (E. Jean Carrol) helped make up this new law (the "adult survivors act": aka the lets get Trump act)

E. Jean Carrol along with Roberta Kaplan was acting for the woman who made up this story, err, I mean invented, no, testified...

They immediately started litigation against Trump they day this new act was invented.

During the trial, the prosecution "forgot" to disclose it was sponsored by a billionaire Democrat supporter (Reid Hoffman) but promised , honestly, this wasn't politically motivated (despite trying to get a juror thrown out because they once watched Tim Pool on YouTube who isn't left wing enough...)

Despite claiming to be a champion for women victims of abuse, Roberta Kaplan previously worked for none other than Jeffrey Epstein and famously defended convicted sexual abuser Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo.

[Slenver]

Here's another way to look at that factually true spin using "alternate" facts which the media did not want you to know:

The prosecutor in this case (E. Jean Carrol) helped make up this new law (the "adult survivors act": aka the lets get Trump act)

E. Jean Carrol along with Roberta Kaplan was acting for the woman who made up this story, err, I mean invented, no, testified...

They immediately started litigation against Trump they day this new act was invented.

During the trial, the prosecution "forgot" to disclose it was sponsored by a billionaire Democrat supporter (Reid Hoffman) but promised , honestly, this wasn't politically motivated (despite trying to get a juror thrown out because they once watched Tim Pool on YouTube who isn't left wing enough...)

Despite claiming to be a champion for women victims of abuse, Roberta Kaplan previously worked for none other than Jeffrey Epstein and famously defended convicted sexual abuser Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo.

Sorry, you lost me at 'facts which the media did not want you to know'.

Presumably the 'media' hang out in some bar with the doctors who withhold that one secret fat-loss technique they don't want us to know.

Edit: I've since done a little research on these 'facts' and, as suspected, they're generally either bollocks or wildly exaggerated. You need to stop relying on Fox as a single source of 'news' and thinking it's real.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65572257

I read this hoping to mock the pious twat, but £500 for 5mph over the speed limit is ridiculous, and who exactly is the victim that there's a £120 surcharge for?

[KungFooBob]

Iirc speeding fines are means tested.

He must be minted.

[Greenman]

Here's another way to look at that factually true spin using "alternate" facts which the media did not want you to know:

The prosecutor in this case (E. Jean Carrol) helped make up this new law (the "adult survivors act": aka the lets get Trump act)

E. Jean Carrol along with Roberta Kaplan was acting for the woman who made up this story, err, I mean invented, no, testified...

They immediately started litigation against Trump they day this new act was invented.

During the trial, the prosecution "forgot" to disclose it was sponsored by a billionaire Democrat supporter (Reid Hoffman) but promised , honestly, this wasn't politically motivated (despite trying to get a juror thrown out because they once watched Tim Pool on YouTube who isn't left wing enough...)

Despite claiming to be a champion for women victims of abuse, Roberta Kaplan previously worked for none other than Jeffrey Epstein and famously defended convicted sexual abuser Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo.

Sorry, you lost me at 'facts which the media did not want you to know'.

Presumably the 'media' hang out in some bar with the doctors who withhold that one secret fat-loss technique they don't want us to know.

Edit: I've since done a little research on these 'facts' and, as suspected, they're generally either bollocks or wildly exaggerated. You need to stop relying on Fox as a single source of 'news' and thinking it's real.

Who's to say the media outlet you used to research the falsity's of Screweds info isn't also posting false information?

It's horses for courses, i think you need to take a pinch from each media outlet and try and use your own real life experience as to what parts are actually true otherwise you could just say that all media outlets are corrupt, surely that isn't the case...? -

[Slenver]

Who's to say the media outlet you used to research the falsity's of Screweds info isn't also posting false information?

It's horses for courses, i think you need to take a pinch from each media outlet and try and use your own real life experience as to what parts are actually true otherwise you could just say that all media outlets are corrupt, surely that isn't the case...? -

This is kind of the point though. I would never dream of reading 'a' media outlet. I read at least 5 or 6 for every point I researched, and as the right-wing, pro-trump media is at least as prominent as the left or balanced media, I'd have expected to have found at least some reference to some of the points that didn't appear anywhere.

[Horse]

Picking a chunk of text and Googling:

(E. Jean Carrol) helped make up this new law (the "adult survivors act"

Finds (first in the list)

said Marissa Hoechstetter, who is among a group of survivors of sexual assault who volunteered their time for years to help get the Adult Survivors Act passed.

The law, which has a one-year window through late November, follows a 2019 law that expanded opportunities for survivors of child sexual assault to file civil lawsuits.

So, a law already existed, it's been expanded, and there's a group who have been campaigning for years.

[gremlin]

Sneaky anglers get time in prison for cheating.

Fishing cheats net prison sentence over scandal

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65567422

No getting off the hook for them. Felt the full weight of the law. The scales of justice. Ad infinitum.

[Screwdriver]

Sorry, you lost me at 'facts which the media did not want you to know'.

Presumably the 'media' hang out in some bar with the doctors who withhold that one secret fat-loss technique they don't want us to know.

Edit: I've since done a little research on these 'facts' and, as suspected, they're generally either bollocks or wildly exaggerated. You need to stop relying on Fox as a single source of 'news' and thinking it's real.

I don't know where they hang out but they are 90% owned by left wing media tycoons and are clearly being briefed by the same source, typically the propaganda machine within the Whitehouse. Naturally in order for that not to sound like mere guesswork, you would also need to know how many Whitehouse staffers pop in and out of high powered mainstream media/Whitehouse positions. Let alone all of the government operatives infiltrating social media.

Look where Karine Jean-Pierre came from (NBC, MSNBC - her partner works at CNN) and look where Jen Psaki is now for example (MSNBC). It's a left wing propaganda merry go round.

Who's to say the media outlet you used to research the falsity's of Screweds info isn't also posting false information?

It's horses for courses, i think you need to take a pinch from each media outlet and try and use your own real life experience as to what parts are actually true otherwise you could just say that all media outlets are corrupt, surely that isn't the case...? -

Incredibly both E. Jean Carrol and Roberta Kaplan appeared on CNN boasting about how they had managed to work this scam. They didn't call it a scam of course but I paraphrase their comments in my response above. Unless the interview was a ChatGPT deep fake, I take it from the horses mouth.

This is kind of the point though. I would never dream of reading 'a' media outlet. I read at least 5 or 6 for every point I researched, and as the right-wing, pro-trump media is at least as prominent as the left or balanced media, I'd have expected to have found at least some reference to some of the points that didn't appear anywhere.

It is and you should both look in a mirror and ask yourselves the same question. I stopped watching Fox News when they sacked Tucker Carlson for being too honest. You might want to think about that.

I don't blame anyone for not being so engrossed in current affairs as I am but if you are not so well informed, I would appreciate it if you would pause a moment before making assumptions about where and how I form my opinions.

There are multiple examples of where these tactics have been used historically. Control of the media, education system, weaponise the instruments of state, smear and harass opposition figures, maintain a healthy "army" of political activists using them to harass opposition figures. You should know which types of authoritarian regimes used such tactics and they are clearly being used right now.

I would be more interested to hear why those observations are not true than dismissing my opinions with some made up excuses.

[Count Steer]

I stopped watching Fox News when they sacked Tucker Carlson for being too honest. You might want to think about that.

All it says to me is that if a media organisation does something you disagree with they lose your attention and therefore I wonder what happens to those media organisations that don't propagate your particular views.

[Screwdriver]

I stopped watching Fox News when they sacked Tucker Carlson for being too honest. You might want to think about that.

All it says to me is that if a media organisation does something you disagree with they lose your attention and therefore I wonder what happens to those media organisations that don't propagate your particular views.

Then you would be wrong. It is nothing to do with "what" they say it is more about what factual evidence supports their claims.

I lose interest in any media outlet that tells lies. Falsehoods are easy to confirm, truths are more difficult to prove. This is the foundation of science for example. The logic is fairly easy to understand, ask Betrand Russell

Is that wrong of me then?

<edit> what I find fascinating is that, once again, it is not "what" I am saying people are reacting to, it is the fact that I am saying it. The implication is that therefore it must be "wrong" simply because it does not comply with the narrative from the mainstream media. Typically the poster will then go on to criticise my "source" without even knowing what it is. The flip side of that observation is that in order to have a contrary opinion, they must themselves be relying on some source of information they would claim is "better".

CNN perhaps? MSNBC? The fucking BBC? Don't make me laugh...

[Slenver]

You should know which types of authoritarian regimes used such tactics and they are clearly being used right now.

'"Clearly" being used right now'

[Slenver]

what I find fascinating is that, once again, it is not "what" I am saying people are reacting to, it is the fact that I am saying it.

I've no idea how you come to that conclusion. It is very much "what" you are saying that people react to. "Who" you are on an anonymous internet forum is essentially a word-one nickname and one small icon.

The implication is that therefore it must be "wrong" simply because it does not comply with the narrative from the mainstream media.

Or, one could just as easily say, the known facts contradict the narrative from the far-right media.

Typically the poster will then go on to criticise my "source" without even knowing what it is.

There aren't all that many to choose from. I guessed and got it right. Wasn't hard.

The flip side of that observation is that in order to have a contrary opinion, they must themselves be relying on some source of information they would claim is "better".

Agreed.

[Screwdriver]

what I find fascinating is that, once again, it is not "what" I am saying people are reacting to, it is the fact that I am saying it.

I've no idea how you come to that conclusion. It is very much "what" you are saying that people react to. "Who" you are on an anonymous internet forum is essentially a word-one nickname and one small icon.

Easy, you don't ever answer any of the questions or comment on my opinion, merely suggest Screwdriver must be wrong because he must be relying on Fox News. If I could be arsed, I'd quote you doing exactly that.

The implication is that therefore it must be "wrong" simply because it does not comply with the narrative from the mainstream media.

Or, one could just as easily say, the known facts contradict the narrative from the far-right media.

Yes of course. If that was the case you could. But because it isn't you can't (in this example).

Typically the poster will then go on to criticise my "source" without even knowing what it is.

There aren't all that many to choose from. I guessed and got it right. Wasn't hard.

Err, you guessed wrong and if you could tear yourself away from your own confirmation bias and merely read what I wrote above, you'd see why you are wrong.

The flip side of that observation is that in order to have a contrary opinion, they must themselves be relying on some source of information they would claim is "better".

Agreed.

Awesome. Do tell. Which is your valued source that never lies?