GrAnd944
1.1K posts


@LabourLGB @AmnestyUK If you monsters were a genuine organisation rather than one operating with performative cruelty, you'd be asking why and engaging rather than posting this. But that would be stating the obvious.
English

We are devastated to learn that @AmnestyUK have left us out from a list of wonderful organisations who stand up for the rights of women, children and LGB people. Sob!


English

@CountBinface @GavinBarwell Ngl would you legit take campaigners? Asking for a friend.
English


@polplotting So I used to work with a UK force, and spoke to someone about this. Now this is UK vs US so take w a grain of salt.
In short, if you have made a decision to shoot someone, you shoot to kill. However, what the US often misses is the attempt after incap to save the offenders life.
English


@JoshStrifeHayes @cgsanfordwrites Okay good I'm not *that* out of the loop lol
English

@cgsanfordwrites @GAnd944 It is absolutely not intentional, lol
English

@David90shaw Again, why is this annual property tax thing so bad? This is better for me. It represents a saving of over a thousand pounds a year, which at present goes towards public services that are only getting worse.
English

🚨 YOU LITERALLY HAVE TO READ THIS TO BELIEVE IT.
If you own a home, have a pension, or plan to leave an inheritance, Andy Burnham's leaked economic plans should terrify you. 🤡
He is planning to scrap the capital gains tax "uplift on death," meaning grieving families will be hit with double tax bills on inherited family homes.
Begbies Chartered Accountants confirmed this double levy will hit grieving families with an effective 62% tax rate!
But it gets even worse.
Burnham wants to replace council tax with a new annual property tax of 0.48% of your home's value.
If you live in an average £553,000 house, you will be forced to pay £2,654 every single year just for the privilege of living in your own home!
They want to tax you while you live, tax you when you die, and tax your children for mourning you.
RT to expose the ultimate Labour wealth grab and demand a general election NOW! 🔁🇬🇧🔥
English

@realSi_jeff Dude, I pay 1700 a year for my much cheaper home. This isn't the policy hill to die on.
English

@psergiomr Wait where's the red jester lady who looked kinda like Hexadecimal?
English

@RyanShorthouse It is not a small price to pay, particularly for those of us who have no interest in how other people parent their children. Other people's children are not my concern nor responsibility, and it should not be for us to suffer so others can abdicate responsibility.
English

Are you sure young people with mental health problems don’t just use social media more? No, there are RCTs and natural experiments which show that heavy social media usage causes mental health problems in young people. It’s causation not just correlation.
This is like Sunak’s generational smoking ban - Starmer trying to create a legacy. No. No one is banning social media sites from recruiting adults. It has been illegal to sell cigarettes to children since 1908.
Children will circumvent the ban. Yes, of course they will. Many 16-18 year olds kept smoking after the 2007 ban on shops selling cigarettes to under-18s. But, after the ban, studies have shown smoking rates among 16-18 year olds fell by about a third. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
This is giving loads of power and data to government. No, social media sites will be responsible for age verification. That will cause some friction for adults accessing the platforms; a small price to pay for children’s freedom and wellbeing.
Some social media sites provide educational content. Yes, they do. But creators of the content can now focus on using books, TV and the internet for young people to access that content.
English

@JonathanPieNews Well bloody said.
Glad to see you're on the correct side of this from the ID perspective.
English

This translates to: "I feel very comfortable about this invasion of my privacy because of the current political climate."
The definition of 'hate speech' can change from one government to the next.
Tony Harwood@sciantificnew
If banning social media for U16s means linking a profile to an ID to verify age then I think that's all the more reason to do it. If you are worried about legal repercussions of what you are saying on SM then that's a pretty good hint that you probably shouldn't be saying it.
English

@sciantificnew And there it is. The cowardly response of everyone supporting this situation. Fingers in ears, eyes screwed shut, humming to keep the noise out.
English

It's been fun listening to you nutters but now it's time to mute. I love you all!
Tony Harwood@sciantificnew
If banning social media for U16s means linking a profile to an ID to verify age then I think that's all the more reason to do it. If you are worried about legal repercussions of what you are saying on SM then that's a pretty good hint that you probably shouldn't be saying it.
English

@ovierocks1 Alright, faced X account and a labour voter (at least I was until this bullshit.)
Forcing childless adults to submit their identification to use a service that never needed it before to placate useless parents is a chilling government overreach and we should all be fighting this
English

@IGMansfield Tell me what website forces you to hand over your government ID? Or at least which websites did before this ridiculous unworkable legislation came in?
English

We'll look back at the idea we let children drink from the social media firehose with the same disbelief that we now apply to letting them smoke.
A ban for under 16s isn't a silver bullet - but it's a good first start.
Responses to 10 common objections:
open.substack.com/pub/edrith/p/s…

English




















