[Politics] Protests/rioting in lots of places

[Seagull27]

Migrant numbers fall sharply after curbs on family visas

Applications for skilled worker, health and care, and student visas to come to the UK down by more than a third compared with last year

www.thetimes.com

So net migration is predicted to fall sharply in the next few months after migrants are banned from bringing families over, and Universities and health and social care are f***ed as a result. Tory policy, which Labour are keeping.

Begs the question of why the Tories were wasting so much on the Rwanda scheme to achieve very little, when they were planning on this change anyway.

 

[BadFish]

Serco also has a huge contract to run hotel accommodation. The last government gave them a 10 year contract back in 2019, which is costing billions. In my experience (when I volunteered with Care4Calais), Serco staff these hotels with inexperienced young people on close to the minimum wage. They then make huge profits (at the taxpayer’s expense), whilst providing crap living conditions for asylum seekers.

It’s a system that needs to be unwound ASAP. Thankfully the new government understands the issues and is assessing asylum claims more efficiently than the last.

So if the protesters really had legitimate concerns they should have been protesting outside the serco head offfice and perhaps their local conservative office.

One wonders how many of them voted Tory over the last 14 years and how many times.

 

[carlzeiss]

So landlords are paid money for housing asylum seekers? Is that what that link refers to?

Landlords being paid premium rates and terms for housing asylum seekers are bound to push up rental rates .

Hey if I was a landlord myself I would either be using the scheme or if I had tenants on a fixed term lease arrangement be replacing them when the agreement ended

It's just business , nothing personal .

 

[Thunder Bolt]

how do you prove who touches the keyboard?

She’s admitted it. She said ‘it was a mistake’.

 

[BadFish]

Migrant numbers fall sharply after curbs on family visas

Applications for skilled worker, health and care, and student visas to come to the UK down by more than a third compared with last year

www.thetimes.com

So net migration is predicted to fall sharply in the next few months after migrants are banned from bringing families over, and Universities and health and social care are f***ed as a result. Tory policy, which Labour are keeping.

Begs the question of why the Tories were wasting so much on the Rwanda scheme to achieve very little, when they were planning on this change anyway.

So those with legitimate concerns will be happy with numbers falling. Less students and people working in social care. It doesn't sound good for institutions that rely on them.

 

[BadFish]

Landlords being paid premium rates and terms for housing asylum seekers are bound to push up rental rates .

Hey if I was a landlord myself I would either be using the scheme or if I had tenants on a fixed term lease arrangement be replacing them when the agreement ended

It's just business , nothing personal .

Of course, so what are the figures paid to landlords for their rooms and how do they compare with local rental rates.

I was going to suggest that they would be paid lower than the going rate. Then @Jim in the West pointed out that the Tories set up the contracts with Serco and Serco enjoyed huge profits. So actually you are probably right.

On a totally unrelated note, I wonder if there are any links between those making a profit out of Serco and the Conservative party?

What I don't understand is why the protesters are furious with the poor asylum seekers who are living in shit conditions in serco housing and not making huge profits and not furious with the Tories, and Serco who are making huge profits.

Some must be pretty angry with themselves for voting for this situation over the last 14 years too.

Edit: I seem to have assumed that Serco would pay landlords well in this post. How incredibly naive to think they would eat into their profits in such a way. Apologies.

 

[Guinness Boy]

how do you prove who touches the keyboard?

She’s admitted it. She said ‘it was a mistake’.

It’s irrelevant anyway. You’re responsible for the account you own.

If an NSC account were to post illegal or inflammatory racist bollocks we’d ban the account. The “I was hacked” defence would get short shrift.

Presumably, someone who has a lot of opinions on this sort of subject posts on and reads their socials regularly. Very easy to delete a post, report a hacking and change your password if there’s something rogue there.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

That's Clarkson's Sun column btw. One of the rags that has spent the past decades demonising migrants and foreigners.

I know plenty of brickies and plasterers that don't bang on about immigration all the time.

Sadly though, I believe there are a lot who do think like that.

 

[BadFish]

Landlords being paid premium rates and terms for housing asylum seekers are bound to push up rental rates .

Hey if I was a landlord myself I would either be using the scheme or if I had tenants on a fixed term lease arrangement be replacing them when the agreement ended

It's just business , nothing personal .

Serco contract was a train wreck!

So like many landlords in the UK, I’ve been presented with the Serco offer to house asylum seekers in my houses. They make a pretty good case; large company, strong covenant, high rent paid monthly…

www.property118.com

I found this guy talking about being able to get 2200 a week in bills for students and 1400 per week excluding bills from Serco.

I'll be interested to see the figures you are working off but i doubt this is pushing the market up very much. Especially if they are working in the student housing market.

Especially reading the rest of it.

 

[Zeberdi]

we really dont want this. any legislation that would affect "social media platforms" in this way would stiffle all free speech and affect smaller social platforms - such as NSC. imagine the forum owner being liable for harmful comments made by someone, deleted but seen, they would have to shut it down or impose post moderation.

individual posters and commentators should be, and already are in many cases, responsible for what they post. you can be held liable for comments on Twitter, cases of incitement based on tweets are going through the courts.

Well actually we certainly do if you had understood what I was saying:

In the name of free speech, Musk has completely turned back the clock on Twitter’s previous moderation guidelines and turned X into a ‘potent engine of hatred, divisiveness, and misinformation about elections, public health policy, and international affairs’

I was not proposing strict liability which would do as you are saying, make a website owner liable just because someone posted offensive/racist content on their website whether they had taken steps to remove it or not - which would be draconian and ridiculous even more so if the offensive material had already deleted.

I was proposing that in a situation where a site refuses to remove offensive/extreme/harmful content after already being made aware of it or refused to provide details of an account holder who is posting extremist content, when asked by investigative authorities, should be made criminally liable. Things Musk has repeatedly been accused of doing.

X Reportedly Refusing to Remove Posts the UK Deems Threat to National Security

Meta, Google, and TikTok take down posts that have led to real-world violence, but X pushes back as Elon Musk tweets insults at the UK's prime minister and posts 'civil war is inevitable.'

uk.pcmag.com

Social media platforms are already under obligation to remove toxic content under social media regulation but when Musk took over Twitter he has consistently dragged his feet in doing so. The first thing he did when taking over Twitter was to sack the moderation team - He has repeatedly refused to take down hate speech, saying it was up to him to decide what is ‘illegal’ and what was ‘inappropriate’ content. He restored accounts to far right extremists (already with a various convictions for racially motivated violence, drug trafficking and sexual offences ) , giving them a platform on X. Musk believes he is inoculated against criminal liability because it is not him posting the content and he is rich enough to absorb fines but he is openly promoting it with his ‘market place’ free speech bollix, suing advertisers who withdraw from X because of its toxic content.

For all that, he needs to be criminally liable personally.

To compare Musk with @Bozza or NSC to X is not only disingenuous but is an offensive twist of what I was saying - Not only is @Bozza not hosting a site to push a personal political agenda (hard right in Musk’s case) but NSC has a whole team of moderators led by an owner that is more than acutely aware of the need to moderate illegal/harmful content and does so daily without the need to get repeated warnings from outside agencies.

Still, the advertisers are having the most impact at the moment - ‘advertisers don’t want to promote their products next to disturbing, racist and hateful posts — and most people don’t want to spend time on chaotic online spaces where they are barraged by racist and sexist trolls’.

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/major-advertisers-pull-out-x-could-spark-a-bigger-shift/700250/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%20of%20Musk's,is%20growing%20by%20the%20hour



Referenced above

Musk given 24 hours to address graphic images of Hamas attacks

European Commissioner Thierry Breton and the UK’s Michelle Donelan want Elon Musk to get a grip on gruesome Israel attack videos posted on X.

www.politico.eu

X Fails to Remove 98% of Hateful Content Inspired by Israel-Hamas War, Hate Speech Watchdog Says

“Hate actors appear to have free rein to post viciously antisemitic and hateful rhetoric,” on X, CEO Imran Ahmed said

www.thewrap.com

Musk takes over Twitter, fires content moderation chief and now policing hate speech is his job

When it comes to Twitter content moderation, not even Elon Musk can have it both ways.

fortune.com

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Migrant numbers fall sharply after curbs on family visas

Applications for skilled worker, health and care, and student visas to come to the UK down by more than a third compared with last year

www.thetimes.com

So net migration is predicted to fall sharply in the next few months after migrants are banned from bringing families over, and Universities and health and social care are f***ed as a result. Tory policy, which Labour are keeping.

Begs the question of why the Tories were wasting so much on the Rwanda scheme to achieve very little, when they were planning on this change anyway.

Because that was part of the weaponization of 'the boats', a 'policy' that probably won them most of their GE votes.

All part of the Johnson 'wheeze' policy approach to politics, which Sunk appeared reluctant to bin.

 

[Springal]

I found this guy talking about being able to get 2200 a week in bills for students and 1400 per week excluding bills from Serco.

I'll be interested to see the figures you are working off but i doubt this is pushing the market up very much. Especially if they are working in the student housing market.

Especially reading the rest of it.

Quite - these companies are experts as paying as little as possible, and keeping as much. No way are they paying anywhere near market rate

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Well actually we certainly do if you had understood what I was saying:

In the name of free speech, Musk has completely turned back the clock on Twitter’s previous moderation guidelines and turned X into a ‘potent engine of hatred, divisiveness, and misinformation about elections, public health policy, and international affairs’

I was not proposing strict liability which would do as you are saying, make a website owner liable just because someone posted offensive/racist content on their website whether they had taken steps to remove it or not - which would be draconian and ridiculous even more so if the offensive material had already deleted.

I was proposing that in a situation where a site refuses to remove offensive/extreme/harmful content after already being made aware of it or refused to provide details of an account holder who is posting extremist content, when asked by investigative authorities, should be made criminally liable. Things Musk has repeatedly been accused of doing.

X Reportedly Refusing to Remove Posts the UK Deems Threat to National Security

Meta, Google, and TikTok take down posts that have led to real-world violence, but X pushes back as Elon Musk tweets insults at the UK's prime minister and posts 'civil war is inevitable.'

uk.pcmag.com

Social media platforms are already under obligation to remove toxic content under social media regulation but when Musk took over Twitter he has consistently dragged his feet in doing so. The first thing he did when taking over Twitter was to sack the moderation team - He has repeatedly refused to take down hate speech, saying it was up to him to decide what is ‘illegal’ and what was ‘inappropriate’ content. He restored accounts to far right extremists (already with a various convictions for racially motivated violence, drug trafficking and sexual offences ) , giving them a platform on X. Musk believes he is inoculated against criminal liability because it is not him posting the content and he is rich enough to absorb fines but he is openly promoting it with his ‘market place’ free speech bollix, suing advertisers who withdraw from X because of its toxic content.

For all that, he needs to be criminally liable personally.

To compare Musk with @Bozza or NSC to X is not only disingenuous but is an offensive twist of what I was saying - Not only is @Bozza not hosting a site to push a personal political agenda (hard right in Musk’s case) but NSC has a whole team of moderators led by an owner that is more than acutely aware of the need to moderate illegal/harmful content and does so daily without the need to get repeated warnings from outside agencies.

Still, the advertisers are having the most impact at the moment - ‘advertisers don’t want to promote their products next to disturbing, racist and hateful posts — and most people don’t want to spend time on chaotic online spaces where they are barraged by racist and sexist trolls’.

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/major-advertisers-pull-out-x-could-spark-a-bigger-shift/700250/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%20of%20Musk's,is%20growing%20by%20the%20hour



Referenced above

Musk given 24 hours to address graphic images of Hamas attacks

European Commissioner Thierry Breton and the UK’s Michelle Donelan want Elon Musk to get a grip on gruesome Israel attack videos posted on X.

www.politico.eu

X Fails to Remove 98% of Hateful Content Inspired by Israel-Hamas War, Hate Speech Watchdog Says

“Hate actors appear to have free rein to post viciously antisemitic and hateful rhetoric,” on X, CEO Imran Ahmed said

www.thewrap.com

Musk takes over Twitter, fires content moderation chief and now policing hate speech is his job

When it comes to Twitter content moderation, not even Elon Musk can have it both ways.

fortune.com

Great post. Musk has shown himself to be entirely unsuitable to wield such enormous influence. And self-policing his own site so that his evil views can be espoused. He is truly a terrible person.

 

[Springal]

Great post. Musk has shown himself to be entirely unsuitable to wield such enormous influence. And self-policing his own site so that his evil views can be espoused. He is truly a terrible person.

Given his dad had children with his own step daughter - family of wronguns IMO

 

[Half Time Pies]

Well actually we certainly do if you had understood what I was saying:

In the name of free speech, Musk has completely turned back the clock on Twitter’s previous moderation guidelines and turned X into a ‘potent engine of hatred, divisiveness, and misinformation about elections, public health policy, and international affairs’

I was not proposing strict liability which would do as you are saying, make a website owner liable just because someone posted offensive/racist content on their website whether they had taken steps to remove it or not - which would be draconian and ridiculous even more so if the offensive material had already deleted.

I was proposing that in a situation where a site refuses to remove offensive/extreme/harmful content after already being made aware of it or refused to provide details of an account holder who is posting extremist content, when asked by investigative authorities, should be made criminally liable. Things Musk has repeatedly been accused of doing.

X Reportedly Refusing to Remove Posts the UK Deems Threat to National Security

Meta, Google, and TikTok take down posts that have led to real-world violence, but X pushes back as Elon Musk tweets insults at the UK's prime minister and posts 'civil war is inevitable.'

uk.pcmag.com

Social media platforms are already under obligation to remove toxic content under social media regulation but when Musk took over Twitter he has consistently dragged his feet in doing so. The first thing he did when taking over Twitter was to sack the moderation team - He has repeatedly refused to take down hate speech, saying it was up to him to decide what is ‘illegal’ and what was ‘inappropriate’ content. He restored accounts to far right extremists (already with a various convictions for racially motivated violence, drug trafficking and sexual offences ) , giving them a platform on X. Musk believes he is inoculated against criminal liability because it is not him posting the content and he is rich enough to absorb fines but he is openly promoting it with his ‘market place’ free speech bollix, suing advertisers who withdraw from X because of its toxic content.

For all that, he needs to be criminally liable personally.

To compare Musk with @Bozza or NSC to X is not only disingenuous but is an offensive twist of what I was saying - Not only is @Bozza not hosting a site to push a personal political agenda (hard right in Musk’s case) but NSC has a whole team of moderators led by an owner that is more than acutely aware of the need to moderate illegal/harmful content and does so daily without the need to get repeated warnings from outside agencies.

Still, the advertisers are having the most impact at the moment - ‘advertisers don’t want to promote their products next to disturbing, racist and hateful posts — and most people don’t want to spend time on chaotic online spaces where they are barraged by racist and sexist trolls’.

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/major-advertisers-pull-out-x-could-spark-a-bigger-shift/700250/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%20of%20Musk's,is%20growing%20by%20the%20hour



Referenced above

Musk given 24 hours to address graphic images of Hamas attacks

European Commissioner Thierry Breton and the UK’s Michelle Donelan want Elon Musk to get a grip on gruesome Israel attack videos posted on X.

www.politico.eu

X Fails to Remove 98% of Hateful Content Inspired by Israel-Hamas War, Hate Speech Watchdog Says

“Hate actors appear to have free rein to post viciously antisemitic and hateful rhetoric,” on X, CEO Imran Ahmed said

www.thewrap.com

Musk takes over Twitter, fires content moderation chief and now policing hate speech is his job

When it comes to Twitter content moderation, not even Elon Musk can have it both ways.

fortune.com

As well as the content online, we also need to look at the algorithms that decide what content people see. I came off twitter because I realised that I was starting to live in an echo chamber where I never saw anything that didn't support my point of view, I recognised it was definitely taking my thinking down a more extreme path, giving me more and more reasons to become angry but without any balance. With the youTube algorithm their content seems really slanted towards right wing and conspiratorial content, for example if I watch a video with any mention of divisive characters like Andrew Tate or Tommy Robinson, even if that video is criticising them, I start to see lots of right wing propaganda pop up on my feed.

Anything that invokes a strong reaction is going to be prioritised and fed to people, which tends to be the more extreme stuff, and its therefore not difficult to see how misinformation spreads so quickly and how people views become polarised and radicalised when the algorithms of the social media platforms they use are designed in this way.

 

[Justice]

Serco contract was a train wreck!

So like many landlords in the UK, I’ve been presented with the Serco offer to house asylum seekers in my houses. They make a pretty good case; large company, strong covenant, high rent paid monthly…

www.property118.com

I found this guy talking about being able to get 2200 a week in bills for students and 1400 per week excluding bills from Serco.

I'll be interested to see the figures you are working off but i doubt this is pushing the market up very much. Especially if they are working in the student housing market.

Especially reading the rest of it.

I read that as monthly figures what student is going to pay £500 a week? It was only a 4 bed house.

 

[beorhthelm]

Well actually we certainly do if you had understood what I was saying:

In the name of free speech, Musk has completely turned back the clock on Twitter’s previous moderation guidelines and turned X into a ‘potent engine of hatred, divisiveness, and misinformation about elections, public health policy, and international affairs’

I was not proposing strict liability which would do as you are saying, make a website owner liable just because someone posted offensive/racist content on their website whether they had taken steps to remove it or not - which would be draconian and ridiculous even more so if the offensive material had already deleted.

I was proposing that in a situation where a site refuses to remove offensive/extreme/harmful content after already being made aware of it or refused to provide details of an account holder who is posting extremist content, when asked by investigative authorities, should be made criminally liable. Things Musk has repeatedly been accused of doing.

X Reportedly Refusing to Remove Posts the UK Deems Threat to National Security

Meta, Google, and TikTok take down posts that have led to real-world violence, but X pushes back as Elon Musk tweets insults at the UK's prime minister and posts 'civil war is inevitable.'

uk.pcmag.com

Social media platforms are already under obligation to remove toxic content under social media regulation but when Musk took over Twitter he has consistently dragged his feet in doing so. The first thing he did when taking over Twitter was to sack the moderation team - He has repeatedly refused to take down hate speech, saying it was up to him to decide what is ‘illegal’ and what was ‘inappropriate’ content. He restored accounts to far right extremists (already with a various convictions for racially motivated violence, drug trafficking and sexual offences ) , giving them a platform on X. Musk believes he is inoculated against criminal liability because it is not him posting the content and he is rich enough to absorb fines but he is openly promoting it with his ‘market place’ free speech bollix, suing advertisers who withdraw from X because of its toxic content.

For all that, he needs to be criminally liable personally.

To compare Musk with @Bozza or NSC to X is not only disingenuous but is an offensive twist of what I was saying - Not only is @Bozza not hosting a site to push a personal political agenda (hard right in Musk’s case) but NSC has a whole team of moderators led by an owner that is more than acutely aware of the need to moderate illegal/harmful content and does so daily without the need to get repeated warnings from outside agencies.

Still, the advertisers are having the most impact at the moment - ‘advertisers don’t want to promote their products next to disturbing, racist and hateful posts — and most people don’t want to spend time on chaotic online spaces where they are barraged by racist and sexist trolls’.

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/major-advertisers-pull-out-x-could-spark-a-bigger-shift/700250/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%20of%20Musk's,is%20growing%20by%20the%20hour



Referenced above

Musk given 24 hours to address graphic images of Hamas attacks

European Commissioner Thierry Breton and the UK’s Michelle Donelan want Elon Musk to get a grip on gruesome Israel attack videos posted on X.

www.politico.eu

X Fails to Remove 98% of Hateful Content Inspired by Israel-Hamas War, Hate Speech Watchdog Says

“Hate actors appear to have free rein to post viciously antisemitic and hateful rhetoric,” on X, CEO Imran Ahmed said

www.thewrap.com

Musk takes over Twitter, fires content moderation chief and now policing hate speech is his job

When it comes to Twitter content moderation, not even Elon Musk can have it both ways.

fortune.com

you have some heavily bias views on Musk and Twitter, which is not the only public space on the internet, and assume only the right benefit from his relaxed approach to free speech. or hate speech. who is to decides, you, me, Musk, some 20yo analyst in a office cubical? Musk has veered off too far for many, mostly as a direct response of others that veered too far another way. the general issues involved have been talked about for longer than Twitter existed. people want to control and stiffle public internet forums and will use instances such as current situation to drive through the legislation that effect everything, not just one company or CEO who's disliked.

 

[Chicken Run]

Post Numbers on this thread impressive, it’s like the olympic medal table, I think it’s all about who’s coming second though

Latest table

 

[Is it PotG?]

Post Numbers on this thread impressive, it’s like the olympic medal table, I think it’s all about who’s coming second though

Latest table

View attachment 186749

Who'd have thunk it?

 

[Chicken Run]

Who'd have thunk it?

Here’s the runners and riders for the thread about that c u n t Farrage