[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 27 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

That's why we're cutting disability benefits

- Conservatives, (Forced) Labour

[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 73 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)
[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

London has seen a spate of ​antisemitic attacks ⁠in recent months, including the stabbing of two Jewish men

Hmmm... I don't like how those stabbings are being used here. Especially given what happened in context.

Still, it's good this man is behind bars.

Most of the coverage here is by all the dodgy right-wing papers. In fact, no left leaning paper is covering this story. Not too surprising given how this is being used to justify broader crackdowns on free speech. That said, not covering it at all is not great either.

[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Thank you for taking the feedback 🙂. Yeah sorry I didn't realise PIP was not explained. As others have said it's Personal Independence Payment and it's basically an extra allowance of benefits for disabled people to account for the extra costs they experience in their lives.

At the moment it's very hard to get and many mental health conditions have recently been excluded by the (Forced) Labour government to "get people back to work", even though that doesn't make any sense.

[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

While I get the joke, I think it's a little insensitive.

33

While this is a high-profile case, this is pretty emblematic of Conservative and Forced Labour policy. Labour have cut back even further on what constitutes a disability, when in reality many hundreds of thousands of people who should receive PIP do not.

If a state cannot provide comfortable lives for disabled people and, even worse, stigmatises them as scroungers, it is a failed state.

[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's good. I went for a walk in the Wye valley in Wales many years back and I'm happy it's getting some protection.

Rivers in Ecuador, Canada and New Zealand have been granted legal personhood in recent years, and the House of Lords is considering a proposal by the former leader of the Green party, Natalie Bennett, to change nature’s legal status from objects, property and resources to subjects with inherent rights.

I'm not sure why you'd need rivers to have personhood to be protected. I guess that might just be a result of weird legal frameworks.

Last year, the Ouse, which runs through East and West Sussex, became the first river in the country to have its rights formally recognised.

Is this really a UK first then? Maybe I've just misread.

[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

I reviewed the original guidance and while this is a miniscule bit better, its still basically saying "ban trans people from single-sex spaces".

They're saying that businesses and whole hospital wings will need to be built just to house them, but of course there is no legal requirement to do so and no funding from the government will ever be provided for this.

What theh really want is for trans people to vanish from public life.

“The supreme court was very clear … if you are providing separate toilets for women and men, that has to be on the basis of biological sex.”

Wrong. An obvious lie.

I know someone who has researched this extremely deeply, and they will tell you that the EHRC has been infested with transphobes since around 2020. Most non-transphobic staff has left since then, leaving a thoroughly rotten organization.

An FOI they filed found that while they communicated thousands of times with anti-trans hate groups like Sex Matters since 2020, they didn't record a single set of meeting minutes with trans advocacy groups since then. Not once.

The current goal for some trans activists is to get the EHRC to lose its accreditation as a human rights organisation with GANRI, and there's plenty enough evidence to do that. I just hope it will happen in time before this guidance becomes law.

[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

We need more people to drop Labour, as although more Labour defectors went to Greens, significantly more councilors elected were Reform. That's presumably because the vote was split.

(The above numbers may be a little out of date)

27
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Armand1@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

Chart of seats up for election and how many were gained and lost by party.

As the remaining council votes start slowing down, we see that the greatest growth and numbers go to Reform council members, but the Green Party have gained significant ground.

Meanwhile, Labour have lost over half of the seats up for election this May.

23
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Armand1@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

Basically, they're all horrible people, to no ones surprise. And these are the ones who have not been recently arrested for being Russian shills

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yd878ejqko

Maybe this will be the thing that finally gets your weirdo uncle to reconsider voting reform.

25
32
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Armand1@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

Not sure if this qualifies for this community, but given Lemmy is the primary source of news for many I thought it was important enough news to share.

This is a developing story, and it's not even clear yet that Trump was the target.

29
14
[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 215 points 1 month ago

Both. Both is true.

97
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Armand1@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world

Alt text: Picture of E.T. laying back on a Sinclair C5

25

To the surprise of no one at this point, Kier Starmer's Labour prepares to squeeze more money out of poor people. Anything to not tax billionaires.

The (Forced) Labour party seem to earnestly believe that disabled people are just too lazy to work, and cutting their benefits will incentivise them to do so. In reality, what will happen is that most will sink into deeper poverty and many will become homeless. Homeless people are a lot more expensive to the state than people on benefits, and their health will only deteriorate, causing them to be even less likely to work and costing more to the NHS.

82
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Armand1@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

EDIT: Changed the article from Guardian to Independent as it was a more complete, less odd article without a cookiewall.


The numbers are still unconfirmed, but having been there I can tell you it was massive and fantastic.

The police estimates of 50 000 are comically false. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Most likely in the multiple hundreds of thousands.

Either way, it dwarfs any of the half a dozen protests I've seen in London over the last year, and some of those were really big.

243
submitted 2 months ago by Armand1@lemmy.world to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

To be completely precise, some she reverse engineers herself, others she finds an implementation someone has already done and just creates a UI for them. Still very cool.

In the video, she then describes how she did it, tools and all.

It's a shame people in the US (and possibly UK?) would be putting themselves at legal risk if they did the same. See Louis Rossman's videos on the DMCA if you are curious.

35
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Armand1@lemmy.world to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

The news first came in 2024, but it's been very quiet since.

I've been waiting this whole time to jettison WhatsApp from my phone.

Is it available only in some parts of the world? If so can I spoof it?

We know that adversarial interoperability works, so why have we not been able to make this work?

All else failing, are there any unofficial WhatsApp clients I can use to preserve my privacy?

[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 229 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah, calling the only black dude Shacklebolt as well. The more you look the worse it gets.

[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 176 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Controversial take (though maybe not in this community):

If it's needed for survival, it should be free. No exceptions.

[-] Armand1@lemmy.world 177 points 10 months ago

The company should be sued into the ground. This is horrendous

view more: next ›

Armand1

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago