Tom (he/him)

I think this is more about not taking the time to understand someone’s politics. A recycled clip on social media doesn’t tell you much about a person or their actual positions.

Critique the decisions if you want, that’s fair. But calling people “con artists” instead of discussing policies doesn’t really move the conversation forward.

If the argument is about policy outcomes, let’s talk policies. If it’s just replaying old cringe clips and slogans, that’s not really analysis.

What was wrong with the Modi/Starmer post. Do you know who Modi is? Not unreasonable to call out politicians/governments who fall over themselves to suck up to etho-nationalist facists, responsible for riots and pogroms against Muslims and has carried out assinations in other countries.

Not sure Greens are fighting with Labour. From what I've seen, Greens have largely been ignoring Labour - apart from calling out the nonsense Labour MPs have been spouting on TwiX for the last few weeks.

That clip’s from the coalition era over a decade ago. UK politics. and pretty much everyone in it, has moved on since then....

Do try to keep up.

isn't he?

how about austerity?

Really odd first wish though.

Honestly, even a halfway decent LLM shows you how much of law is pattern-recognition, applying standards, and reasoning from precedent.
Obviously AI shouldn’t decide cases - that would be a non-starter politically and ethically - but the point stands

We already use mixed tribunals, judges, lay magistrates, specialist courts, and appeals panels. The idea that the only safeguard is 12 random people with no legal training, facing incredibly complex evidence, feels more like tradition than principle.

Yes. I’m saying the binary of jury = good, anything else = tyranny is nonsense. All I’m questioning is whether 12 random people with no legal expertise are the best way to decide complex cases.

I didn’t say replace juries with one old man. That’s your leap, not my argument.

Juries aren’t magically perfect. Complex legal cases decided by untrained laypeople raise real fairness issues. A system with proper funding and mixed panels of legally-trained decision-makers is hardly dystopian.

Why is it so important? I don't think that 12 randos with no legal experitse, making decisions on really complex points of law based on not much more than "feels" is a particularly good thing.

Politics was never part of the plan. I worked at kids’ adventure company PGL for years. I’m sure there’s thousands of pictures of me around the UK that kids have taken from…

Again, quote taken out of context / misleading.

medium.com/%40ZackPolan...

It's irrelevant. It was the request of the Sun hack. He agreed to do it, specifically said he didn't want to be paid for it. It's so funny to me that this is the only thing you folks have got to attack Zack on.

😂 😱

You're really voting Reform! That's hysterical.

It was 2013, he wasn’t even a politician. It’s a bit weird to retroactively frame a tabloid sting on a private citizen as a politician chasing self-publicity.

Anyway, it's a non-story. I'm sure the enlightened crowd at Reform have your vote. 😅

If being misrepresented by the Sun makes someone unfit for national politics, then every minister since the 80s should pack their bags. Gullibilitys not the issue. The issue is tabloids manufacturing stories and people pretending that proves anything about a politician’s competence.

The Sun "journalist" came to him and then fucked him over in the write up. It's not complicated (for most people).

Hypnosis for improved body image and self esteem isn't impossible. It's quite common.

It was the Sun who asked him to do it, he said he would as long as the Sun made it clear he didn't charge for it and they said he charged for it anyway. He never offered that "service" in his normal life. The Sun got him to do it and he was just like whatever, if it's to do with body image, then OK.

Of course it can. I'm very happy to be proved wrong. For instance, you could say the renters rights bill. Good policy, a step in the right direction.

Yeah and I’ve already said you’ll never eliminate it entirely.
The point is: if you actually care about people crossing in boats, safe routes reduce that. If what you really care about is simply fewer people coming, then no policy will satisfy you

There’s plenty of comparative evidence though. France/Spain/Italy routes shifting with policy, Afghan/Ukrainian/Hong Kong schemes reducing irregular arrivals, Canada’s private sponsorship model etc.

He frames Starmer as serious; Farage as a looming danger; Tories as negligent/compromised.

He doesn’t interrogate the UKs ongoing structural enablers of kleptocracy (property, opaque trusts, London’s financial sector), which are bipartisan failures.

Not illegitimate, but it is selective.

We could dramatically reduce the boats by creating safe routes. We don't need open borders. But you're never going to 100% elimiate people risking their lives to seek asylum here.

You enjoy falling asleep in front of the telly?

In the policy sense, not the electoral one. Small boats only exist because the UK made every safer route illegal.