Jho

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Jho@feddit.uk 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

I feel like I'm living on a completely different planet right now.

I'm really surprised to see that this tobacco ban has so many supporters on all sides of the political spectrum. I am also surprised to see so many people on Lemmy supporting this...

I'm all for making corpos squirm, especially ones which create products that are designed to be addictive (e.g. big tobacco). But let's not go around pretending that these businesses are the only victims of substance bans. For one, substance bans are always disproportionately applied to vulnerable minority groups.

Furthermore, folks who are motivated enough to acquire these substances despite bans will be more vulnerable to exploitation and adverse health effects than they already are. Big tobacco already does a great job of harming and exploiting folks. But at least we can regulate and monitor them. The customer can know with greater certainty exactly what each cigarette contains, you don't get that privilege when acquiring substances illegally. You can also be fairly confident as to the affordability of legal substances versus getting fleeced for your entire income by a dealer who knows personally just how addicted you are.

If nothing else, this is going to end up as a massive waste of time. It is a fools errand to ban substances, and history has shown this time and time again. I do not see any evidence that we have learned from history, of what we will be doing differently to make this work when it has failed in the past. This ban will not last more than a few years at most.

[–] Jho@feddit.uk 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I doubt that the UK could lead anything on this front. Drugs which are already banned in the UK are still consumed in the UK and beyond. I do not think it's possible to stop humanity from consuming drugs (incl. tobacco and alcohol). It's something we have done for thousands of years for a wide variety of reasons.

Banning alcohol didn't work in the long-term during the Prohibition era in America. People will always find a way to access these things, they will just be less safe whilst doing so and their money will not be taxed.

New Zealand tried a similar tobacco ban in 2022, and it got repealed about a year later in order to fund tax cuts (if I am remembering correctly). I forsee this going the same way if it actually passes.

 

Original article title: Courtier demanded assurance king could not be prosecuted under new Welsh law


A Buckingham Palace official phoned the Welsh government to secure the assurance under an archaic custom that requires UK parliaments to obtain the consent of the monarch to draft bills before they can be implemented.

According to Buckingham Palace, the royal household rang the Welsh government to ensure that “as a matter of legal correctness” the monarch could not be prosecuted under the act.

The monarchy has been given personal immunity from swathes of British law, ranging from animal welfare to workers’ rights.

More than 30 laws stipulate, for example, that police are barred from entering the privately owned Balmoral and Sandringham estates without the king’s permission to investigate possible crimes, including wildlife offences and environmental pollution. No other private landowner in the country is given such legal immunity.

A Welsh government spokesperson said: “The immunity of the monarch from prosecution is a long-established principle.” They declined to comment further.

[–] Jho@feddit.uk 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

That this prejudice will follow these children into adulthood is perhaps the bleakest part.

This is the thing that horrifies me the most about this story. Adults, schools, and parents are setting an abominable example to these children.

I can only imagine the confusion and shame a child must experience when being told to hide their insulin pumps, their wheelchairs, their hearing aids, etc. And I'm frightened to think of the pupils who feel empowered to "other" their classmates because they are being "othered" by the adults. It's a clear example of how we teach children bigotry.

An experience from my childhood which still sticks with me to this day is from when attending an ultra-orthodox church. I was maybe 5 years old and tried to follow my dad into a restricted area and being stopped by the priest, being told "sorry, only boys are allowed back here".

As a child I was taught that adults are always right, and to listen to them. This may very well be my earliest memory of being taught sexism, which only got reinforced throughout my life due to trusting the adults at this church and through trusting my very religious right-wing father. Even as a kid I recognised that what I was witnessing was unfair, but I did not have the power, the understanding, nor the will to challenge this unfairness because the adults must know what they're doing... right?

 

OP details various first-hand accounts of disabled children across the UK who have been edited in their school photos. This is not a new phenomenon as one of the accounts is from the 1970s.

Some quotes from the article:

Behind the erasure of disabled children lies the frightening belief that they don’t belong in ‘perfect’ pictures – or public spaces.

If that feels somewhat chilling, it is because it should. Few of us – even at a time when someone, somewhere will always find a way to excuse bigotry – cannot understand the connotations of wanting to pretend disabled children don’t exist.

Children have had their disability aids removed by photographers. Other children have been altered with editing software or banned from their class photos entirely.

That is the thing with true ugliness. It does not come in the shape of a wheelchair, a cleft lip, white cane or scars. It sits in prejudice, digging and clawing its way into our culture until one day the nice man who is taking your child’s school photo asks her to hide her hearing aids. That this prejudice will follow these children into adulthood is perhaps the bleakest part. If only society had the desire to edit that out.

[–] Jho@feddit.uk 17 points 7 months ago (3 children)

My first thought was "wow those comments must be shockingly bad if even Reform UK is suspending/investigating them".

They absolutely are awful and embarrassing comments. But they're also comments I would fully expect a Reform UK candidate/supporter to make. Therefore I'm pretty surprised Reform UK is investigating them in the first place. Perhaps it's because they said the quiet bit out loud?

They're a right-wing populist and Eurosceptic party after all, so of course they're gonna attract racists and transphobes.

 

TL;DR:

Stephen McNamara is transphobic and David McNabb is racist.

Reform UK doubles-down on it's opposition towards Net Zero policies.

Comments include (spoilering for distressing content, just in case):

spoilerMcNamara branded three Scottish equalities organisations as “tax payer funded peadophile (sic) services.”

A response to a 2023 tweet from LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall said: “Time to ‘Stonewall’ the absurdity that being trans is normal. It’s not. You’re all mentall (sic) ill and need psychiatric treatment.”

David McNabb said first minister Humza Yousaf should not be able to hold a rugby trophy because he is “more Pakistani than Scottish.”

McNabb’s account also shared a video from the far right commentator, Katie Hopkins, which accused the UK legal system of treating fellow far right activists unfairly.


Suspended candidates included Stephen McNamara, who was selected as the candidate for Kilmarnock and Louden, and David McNabb, the party’s candidate for Mid Dunbartonshire.

A Reform UK spokesperson said: “The party has launched an immediate investigation into Mr’s McNabb and McNamara who have been suspended pending the result of that investigation.”

Linked article details public comments made by both these suspended candidates, as well as highlighting some other candidates who are not being investigated.

Reform is not investigating candidates with links to climate change denial groups, or who have made comments denying climate change. These candidates include:

  • Kenneth Morton, the candidate for Angus and Perthshire Glens.
  • Martyn Greene. who is Reform UK’s Scotland organiser.

A Reform UK spokesperson said: “Reform Scotland is proud to oppose the calamity that are the Net Zero policies."

[–] Jho@feddit.uk 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Two spring to mind. I could rant forever about them but I'll try to keep it short.

First was an apprenticeship at a furniture logistics company. I was essentially an extremely overworked and underpaid spreadsheet monkey (I got paid £4 an hour). I received no training and gained no valuable experience or qualifications. In hindsight it's clear to me the company just wanted cheap labour from vulnerable teenagers.

After this I took a job handing out leaflets for a store which buys/sells goods. The job was in fact not to hand out leaflets like I thought but to harass people I saw walking towards CEX (to try and convince them to sell their games/consoles to us instead of CEX). Obviously this was seedy as hell and embarrassing. I'd get told off at the end of the day every day for not bringing in multiple PS4s or whatever.

[–] Jho@feddit.uk 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Of the £21.5m in cash received by Labour in 2023, just £5.9m came from the trade union movement, compared with £14.5m from companies and individuals – a huge increase on the previous year, and indeed more than in the three previous years of Keir Starmer’s leadership combined.

As trade union contributions have dipped slightly, from around £6.9m in 2020 and 2021 to £5.3m in 2022, donations from businesses and individuals have soared: they totalled £2.3m in 2020 and rose to £3m in 2021 and £7.6m in 2022 before nearly doubling last year.

Around £10m of this total comes from just four sources: Gary Lubner (£4.6m), David Sainsbury (£3.1m), Fran Perrin (£1m) and Ecotricity (£1m). This means that just two individuals gave the Labour Party more money last year than all the trade unions combined.

Very concerning... but also not surprising.

 

All parties declared more than £93m in total compared with £52m in the previous year.

The Conservatives received the most donations by far, raking in £44.5m in cash, compared with Labour’s total of £21.6m, £6m for the Liberal Democrats, £610,000 for the Green Party and £255,000 for Reform. The SNP registered only £76,000 cash donations in 2023.

 

My TL;DR:

Bus services in West Yorkshire will be brought under public control, as it becomes the third major region of the north to reverse four decades of deregulation.

West Yorkshire follows Greater Manchester and Liverpool in deciding to return to a franchised system, where private operators must win contracts to run routes and timetables decided by the local authority, which also sets fares and takes revenues.

Under devolution, metro mayors have had the right to take buses under local control since the 2017 Bus Services Act, although the legal and political processes required remain arduous.

The region’s mayor, Tracy Brabin, who was elected in 2021 on a pledge to bring buses under public control, is also hoping to bring a wider mass transit system to Leeds and Bradford, two of the worst served cities for public transport in Europe, which will also include a tram.

 

My TL;DR:

The government has U-turned on its plans to phase out badger culling after campaigning from farming unions.

It is believed ministers wish to create a point of difference with the Labour party, which has said it would stop the cull, in an attempt to retain seats in rural areas.

Badger culling was first introduced in 2013 and has failed to get support of eminent scientists over more than a decade and has caused some badger populations to go locally extinct.

Furthermore. ministers plan to introduce controversial targeted culling, also known as “epidemiological culling” or “epi-culling”, whereby populations of badgers can be reduced to almost zero. A consultation launched by the government on Thursday included “chilling plans to kill 100% of badgers in bovine TB affected areas, an increase on the limit previously imposed since culling started in 2013”.


Some quotes:

Tom Langton, an ecological consultant and badger expert, argues that epi-culling is “is based on a single ‘model’ trial in Cumbria where over 1,100 badgers were shot dead between 2018 and 2022, but where a published report states no demonstrable benefit was achieved in terms of reduced TB breakdowns in cattle herds.

The government cites peer-reviewed evidence from the first 52 areas where badger culling was conducted, which shows a reduction in rates of bTB breakdowns in cattle by 56% on average after four years of culling. But independent scientists have challenged this analysis, highlighting the presence of so many different variables and the absence of any scientific control.

[–] Jho@feddit.uk 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

My cynical ass cannot stop my eyes rolling into the back of my head when I see "tax breaks for billionaires". But I'll try to put that entire ugly can of worms to the side for now.

Ultimately the devil will be in the details as to how this is implemented, and unfortunately at this stage it seems there's not a whole lot of information as to exactly this will work. From the article: "There’s still uncertainty around how the government will approve eligibility for the projects. [...] adding more guidance is due to be provided in the near future."

I've got so many questions. Like, how much of the land has to be rewilded? Will this land be regularly monitored and checked? How are we going to decide whether or not a plot of land has been sufficiently rewilded? Can the landowner do any sort of rewilding even if it's unsuitable for the surrounding area and it's needs? Is there anything to stop someone from simply creating a monoculture conifer forest, which doesn't provide a great benefit for wildlife?

Are there any measures in place to stop land owners from demolishing these rewilded areas after it no longer becomes profitable to keep them that way? Can someone just create a monoculture conifer forest and then cut it down for timber once the inheretance has gone through on the land? Is there going to be a cap on the tax break itself? If the tax break ends up saving more money than the cost of rewilding an area and then demolishing it afterwards then this is just going to be another way for billionaires to dodge taxes whilst contributing nothing to the UK.

I'm skeptical to say the least.

 

My TL;DR:

Lucy Moore, a UK academic, has completed a project creating a Wikipedia page for a woman in every country in the world and is calling for more women to contribute to the world’s largest encyclopedia.

She has now written biographies of 532 women since 2019, when she first became a Wikipedia editor, including scientists, monarchs, activists, writers and women whose faces are well known but their stories are not.

She tended to focus on women who share her interests, she said, such as poets, activists and coin specialists, known as numismatists, which is her own field.

But it has not been easy. She said one of the issues was that Wikipedia required three reliable sources for each biography and, while there may have been a lot written on social media about some of the women, they may not have appeared in newspapers, especially in countries where women’s achievements are not taken seriously.

Run as a non-profit, open-source encyclopedia that is free to use, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone but only a fifth of its 124,000 regularly active editors are women.


Some of the women recognised by Moore:

  • Julia Chinn (c. 1790 – July 1833) was an American plantation manager and enslaved woman of mixed race, who was the common-law wife of the ninth vice-president of the United States, Richard Mentor Johnson.
  • Sharbat Gula (born c. 1972) is an Afghan woman who became internationally recognised as the 12-year-old subject in Afghan Girl, a 1984 portrait taken by American photojournalist Steve McCurry that was later published on the cover of National Geographic.
  • Jeanne Gapiya-Niyonzima (born 12 July 1963, in Bujumbura) is a human rights activist from Burundi. She is the chair and founder of the National Association for Support for HIV-Positive People with Aids (ANSS) and was the first person from the country to publicly admit they had HIV.
  • Ólafía Einarsdóttir (28 July 1924 – 19 December 2017) was an Icelandic archaeologist and historian, becoming the first Icelander to complete a degree in archaeology. She taught at the University of Copenhagen and published many works about Icelandic sagas and Viking history.
  • Gloria Meneses (1910 – 1996) was a Uruguayan performer and activist who lived openly from 1950 until her death as travesti – a term used in Latin America to designate people who were assigned male at birth and develop a feminine gender identity.
 

Edit: I would recommend checking out the original article just for the sake of seeing the pictures of what hock burn looks like on packaged chicken you would buy from the supermarket.


My TL;DR:

"Hock burn" is caused by ammonia from excrement. A sign of poorer welfare on farms, it can be seen on a third of birds in some supermarkets.

Hock burn is often associated with a high-stocking density of birds and is a result of prolonged contact to moist, dirty litter. It shows up on packaged and prepared meat as brown ulcers on the back of the leg.

Chicken with hock burn markings are still safe to eat. But the amount of hock burn within a poultry flock is an industry-accepted indicator of wider welfare standards on farms.

Red Tractor, the UK's biggest farm and food assurance scheme, sets a target rate for hock burn of no more than 15% of a flock.


Hock burn statistics from various supermarkets:

The BBC requested animal welfare data from 10 leading UK food sellers: Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons, Aldi, Co-op, Lidl, Waitrose, Iceland and Ocado.

Five of the companies - Asda, Morrisons, Lidl, Iceland and Ocado - failed to provide specific figures.

  • Co-op, which is supplied with an estimated 30 million chickens a year, recorded hock burn in 36.7% of its poultry.
  • Aldi's most recent annual figures revealed it had found hock burn in 33.5% of its chickens.
  • Company animal welfare reports reveal Tesco recorded a 26.3% rate in its chickens in 2022/23.
  • Sainsbury's found hock burn in one in five (25%) of its chickens.
  • Waitrose had the lowest recorded annual figure of 2.7%.
  • Lidl was one of the stores that did not provide data to the BBC. Volunteers found 74% of the chickens they checked had hock burn.
 

My TL;DR:

The UK’s net zero economy grew by 9% in 2023, a report has revealed, in stark contrast to the 0.1% growth seen in the economy overall. This includes renewable energy, building energy efficiency, electric vehicles, carbon capture technology and green finance.

Thousands of new green companies were founded in 2023 and overall the sector was responsible for the production of £74bn in goods and services and 765,000 jobs.

Hotspots of net zero businesses and the well-paid jobs they provide occur across the country, rather than being concentrated in London and the south-east. It also highlighted strong net zero activity in some of the most deprived areas (including Hartlepool, Nottingham, Redcar and Cleveland) and in marginal constituencies that will be focal battlegrounds in the coming general election (including High Peak, Cheadle, Derby North, and Lancaster and Wyre).

Achieving net zero emissions by 2050 is vital to limiting the damage from the climate crisis. Doing so would not only bring an economic boost but also cut energy costs for households and businesses and ensure energy security by ending the UK’s reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets.

Nevertheless, the report pointed out that strong future growth from green businesses was being put at risk by government policy reversals, lack of investment and competition from the EU and US.

 

Title is not the same as the original Guardian article. The original title was: ‘It’s soul destroying to find nests have failed’: inside the battle against Scotland’s falcon thieves


My TL;DR:

High-status racing falcons can sell for up to £250,000 in the Middle East, according to the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU). The UK exports more live raptors than any other country, and the United Arab Emirates is the largest importer.

Legally, captive-bred peregrine falcons can be traded, but the birds cannot be taken from the wild. They are strictly protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

For racers, however, wild birds are more desirable: considered stronger, fiercer and faster. UK birds, particularly Scottish specimens, are prized in the Middle East.

Between 2007 and 2022 there was a 4,500% increase in export permits for UK peregrines, according to Police Scotland, and it is not known how many were illegally caught.

Despite being one of the highest value areas of crime globally, it is falling down the list of policing priorities, according to research led by Nottingham Trent University. In the UK, campaigners say there has been a weakening of legislation which means this illegal trade is easier to get away with.

People used to have to register a peregrine in the same way they would register a vehicle, says Tom Grose, investigations officer at the RSPB, but that changed in 2008, when the government weakened the Wildlife and Countryside Act’s registration controls. “Now, if you want to sell a peregrine falcon you need to fill out a certificate but you don’t need to send it out anywhere – you just need to fill out this piece of paper.”

 

As an upfront disclaimer, it's not all good news. Programmes like this are unlikely to become common in the near future due to large costs. It costs £1,355 each week for an elderly person to stay in these care homes. The cost of the nursery is £59 a day per child. This is not something that is accessible for most British folk.

Nonetheless, reading this article was a heartwarming experience and certainly gives insight into a solution which can enrich the lives of the elderly, young children, their families, and care home workers. I really hope to see programmes like this become more accessible and commonplace in the future.


My TL;DR:

Belong Chester claims to be the first older people’s “care setting” in the UK to include a fully integrated children’s research nursery, where children and residents come together every day.

Alan and his wife, Diana, both 82, often invite the children to their apartment to see their budgie, Joey. Diana is living with Alzheimer’s, but has “always loved children”, says Alan. “If she’s not having a good day I bring her down to the nursery and it’s as if someone has turned her switch back on. It’s that powerful.”

The change in some of the older residents is remarkable “We call it unfurling. We see it in some of our older people. When they arrive, they are a bit closed down. Then the children arrive and you can actually see their whole body unfurl.”

Interacting with the children is “incredibly important” for the men, thinks Dorothy Hulford, 87, a former university administrator who moved in with her 95-year-old husband, Frank, last year: “That generation weren’t involved with their children, back then, because they were at work. I see how much they enjoy being with the nursery children now.”

Many of the nursery parents think their children have become more caring by mixing with older people.

“Some of them use a wheelchair, some have limited speech or communication, and I think it has made Jacob more empathic,” one mother says, “I’m six months pregnant and I’ve been really ill, and when Jacob has seen me be unwell, he checks on me. I don’t know if that’s normal for a three-year-old, but Belong is definitely teaching the children they have to be a little bit careful around their grandfriends. One of them had a fall and was bruised and Jacob was asking how she was.”

Another mother says her daughter, Charlotte, aged three, has learned a lot from her grandfriends at nursery. “Charlotte’s language, compared to her peers from our antenatal group, is head and shoulders above. She uses words in the right context and talks in full sentences.”

 

In other news: water is wet. I think we all knew that Charles wouldn't have to go through the same pains us common British folk do in regards to accessing healthcare. But nonetheless I think it's important to continue to highlight these ever growing class divisions in the UK, such as those between people who can afford private healthcare and people who have to rely on our public services. People in positions of authority and power in our country do not understand the struggles of everyday British people.


My TL;DR:

Charles is already receiving expert care for his cancer within days of diagnosis. His speedy treatment should draw fresh attention to the long cancer treatment waiting times that most British people experience with the NHS.

The proportion of patients in England waiting less than 62 days from an urgent suspected cancer referral or consultant upgrade to their first definitive treatment for cancer is 65.2%.

Amid growing frustration at NHS waiting lists, record numbers of people are paying for private healthcare. Nearly 300,000 people in the UK have paid for chemotherapy in the last five years.

Survival rates for cancer in the UK lag behind those of other European countries for nine out of 10 of the most common types of the disease.

Researchers said cancer waiting times across the country were among the worst on record, too many cancers were diagnosed at a late stage, and access to treatment was unequal.

Buckingham Palace has not specified whether the king is receiving private healthcare or being treated on the National Health Service.

view more: next ›