Starmer the Puppet

Wrong group for this discussion but in the UK 80% of Conservative MPs and

We all know whose agenda Tucker Carlson is following. A Putin puppet if ever there was one. Regarding the "interview", he didn't even challenge any of her highly contentious points. He's no more a journalist than I am.

Super anti-semitic conspiracy theory! Well done!

It is NOT antisemitic, you need to brush up on the IHRA definition.

You can download the Register of Members' Financial Interests from:

Jeez, that *is* concerning. :(

There is no proper group.

uk.politics.misc is continually spammed by offensive bots, people weren't bothered enough to create kill files, so it died.

It is an interesting problem, how to create a viable discussion social media platform without getting spammed by disruptive bots or being vulnerable to government censorship. Something like a modern usenet.

I do sometime toy with the idea of creating a social media platform filtered by some kind of graph of correlated user respect, but I assume it is hard or someone would have done it.

Prepend OT: to the front of posts.

It is antisemitic.

--- IHRA definitiuon Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

We might note that most modern Jews are not Semites and that most modern Semites are not Jews, and in fact are more likely to be Moslems.

We might also note the comment usually attributed to Voltaire, but is probably much older, in identifying those who rule us.

It's certainly usable, though I have acquired a fair number of filter rules after years of using it. I see it as empty almost every day, and I've dumped about six spam posts in the last nine days.

I'm not convinced it's bots, as they don't change nyms very much. I just wish they'd pick some genuinely abandoned group to play in, there are thousands. None of them seem to be British.

There were a few trolls, who everyone else moaned about, but it now looks as if they kept the group alive. There are at least two older posters who still lurk, and occasionally post.

Nothing involving http, that's for sure.

Please tell me where I said anything about Jews and bear in mind conflating Jews and Israelis IS antisemitic.

uk.legal.moderated is OK and it would be on topic there.

That has, unfortunately been the way of it across Western society in general.

Being honest, these groups are full of pompous old men. People who will tell you how important they are, and how important they were professionally. If you criticise the core values, the worthiness, of their profession, they resent it.

It is the standard British thing of liberal art elitism, people who deal with social management concerns dislike technicians.

It is the same person.

Name? Not 5 letters beginning with T by any chance?

Yes, I'm not saying he is a bad fellow, or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that the group does have biases, which prevents interesting debate on some subjects.

Mainly ulm is well run, but it isn't a proper political discussion group.

In general, I think groups do sometimes need some kind of moderation or filter to prevent getting swamped with batshit crazy posts, which is what happened to uk.legal and uk.polics.misc. I'm also not opposed to light touch moderation on quality, but I recognise that is hard to achieve without bias.

Well maybe that's the problem here. If you're posting poltical views to a group dedicated to discussions on legal matters, you're probably getting blocked for being off-topic. I don't think you can reasonably complain if that's the case! There's at least one other Usenet group which *is* dedicated to politics. Try posting there instead and I'm sure your posts will be much better recieved.

That just possibly may be because it is a *legal* discussion group!

That is a little unfair, as I didn't suggest it was a political group. Other people do use it for politics. I gave an example of bias with respect to a legal issue.

This ambiguity of using it as a political group at some times and rejecting political posts as off-topic at other times is a classic example of the way discriminatory laws are applied in practice.