He knew it would be removed, and wanted it to be.

That’s why, instead of spraying it on a random wall like usual, where it would’ve likely been left alone, he purposely chose a grade 1 listed building, where it legally must be removed.

Grade 1 listed buildings are very protected, you even have to use period-correct ingredients in the paint when you’re doing maintenance, that’s how serious about preservation the laws are.

It’s a quite dishonest, because the implication from headlines is of course going to be that it’s a government attempt to silence him, but it’s certainly an effective strategy for advertising your work and raising your profile.

Honestly the whole Rayner thing has been very frustrating.

Woman who is not a financial expert or housing solicitor engages the services of a housing solicitor to sort out a house sale (as 90%+ of people do in the UK), then follows their expert advice on what to do throughout the process.

She later finds out that some of the advice given may have been incorrect, and immediately refers herself for investigation.

Investigation says the advice she received was likely incorrect, and that she owes tax. She pays the tax.

Media and right wing agitators, many of whom have purposely avoided tax, go apeshit, forcing her to resign.

What a joke. We had an ex Conservative chancellor who dodged tax, didn’t refer himself for investigation, then threatened to sue any journalists who talked about it. The media stopped talking about it after a few days. Total two-tier journalism.

Tories/Reform can do no wrong, Labour can do no right.

When I got my mortgage, there was so much paperwork, outdated processes, legalese, etc. when my solicitor said to do XYZ, I did it. If they advised me incorrectly, I’d also have had no way of knowing.

Why would you assume local papers in England are awful and the ones in Wales and Scotland are better?

There’s a great deal of romanticism about Scotland and Wales, but they’re culturally virtually identical to England. The only major thematic difference you’re likely to see from local papers from those three home nations is if you’re reading a Scottish nationalist one.

You think any and all instances of a country’s flag being flown means the person who put it up is racist? That seems like a bit of an extreme opinion.

Where I am, I see plenty of Scotland/Northumberland/Ukraine flags, interspersed with the occasional UK, England, and Palestine flag. Are all of these people who raised these flags racist/bigoted?

I’m not going to get my knickers in a twist over someone waving/displaying a flag, like plenty of people do.

But when you go around spraying it on things that don’t belong to you, houses, roundabouts, bush shelters, etc… nah. You’re just a scummy little vandal, and your behaviour needs to be challenged.

Which wouldn’t happen if uniforms were cheaper…

Hand me downs for other clothes still exists too.

Conservatives fucking up public finances? Say it isn’t so!

If you ask me, there should be a government-mandated spec of uniform, in a range of, say, 5 colours.

Schools can choose what colour they want to use.

All uniforms would be made to the same spec, purchasable basically anywhere (i.e. not just from the school itself), and can be mass produced by anybody. Doesn’t matter where you buy it from because they’re literally the exact same.

Prices would drop like a stone.

There are protests all the time, it’s Palestine Action (an organisation) specifically that the government is taking issue with.

After Palestine Action damaged business known to be owned or worked in by Jewish people (not all of whom expressed support of Israel), attacked a policewoman with a sledgehammer, drove a car through the wall of a factory with workers inside, had a leader that has expressed support for Hamas/violence towards civilian jews (not even just in Israel, either, I’m talking worldwide), and broke into an RAF base and destroyed the engines of two jets, the government had them classified as a terrorist organisation.

That means that any support of PA is illegal, even if you’re not involved in anything PA does. Some people think that is an overstep, or that it’s so resource-intensive to enforce that it’s a waste of police time.

Good. It was pointless red tape to begin with. Trade barriers with the EU was always stupid.

The UK does not sell bombs to Israel anymore.

It’s obviously bad that we ever did, but it’s not something that we currently do. It stopped a while back, and is probably partly why Israel has become very hostile with Labour/Starmer as of late.

Banning prostitution and/or paying for sex has never worked in human history, and it’s likely it never will.

Regardless of how you feel about the morals of sex work, surely any rational and compassionate person will see the truth in that above statement, and thus seek to ensure that the sex work that inevitably does happen should be done in the safest way that we can.

That is not achievable under blanket ban situations like this, IMO. It’s just creating a dodgy black market.

Again, there’s no use pretending we can just ban it and expect no sex to occur. That’s just not a realistic expectation.

Pointless to speculate on. I hope in time there is conclusive data.

Although, and I know this sounds a bit conspiracy theorist-y, it’s also possible that they aren’t doing this/aren’t doing it in any high numbers, and it’s just to make would-be harassers second-guess whether there are undercover police in the area – like those frequent road signs that say undercover police operate in this area.

Come to think of it, Sunak said he was putting undercover police in pubs all over the UK, as a means to prevent violence and harassment. Did that actually even happen, or was it just a cheap way to keep would-be criminals in line? Because I don’t recall hearing anything about the scheme after it made a few headlines.

Seems a bit of an over the top response.

He wasn’t aware he even needed one, and once he was informed he immediately fessed up about it publicly and referred himself to be investigated.

The sentencing guidelines state that the normal punishment for a first offence of this violation is a warning, which is probably what he’ll receive.

And Lammy is not the government minister who oversees fishing permits. The government does a lot of things, it’s frankly unreasonable to expect every minister to be experts in all areas of the law and everything the government oversees.

I imagine Labour are scared to go after them because it’ll be called censorship, and the Tories didn’t do anything because they thought they’d benefit from it (short-sighted, now it’s Reform getting the benefit).

Theoretically, Ofcom is independent, so the above shouldn’t be a thing, but in reality, like with Ofgem and Ofwat, I’m not sure that’s actually the case…

Personally I’d be fine with a compromise: you get to keep your licence to air, but you have to be reclassified as a news channel, as that’s clearly what you brand yourself as to the public.

It wouldn’t be the end of the world, you can still have an editorial slant. At the end of the day, Sky News has a mild right bias and Channel 4 News has a mild left bias. GB News just wouldn’t be able to get away with some of the more egregious stuff they do.

The Same Starmer who is increasing military funding, as well as support for Ukraine?

The same Starmer who is signing defence pacts with allies like the Nordic countries, Germany, and others?

The same Starmer who appears keen to expand various naval projects, as well as the GCAP programme, to like-minded allies such as Canada and Australia?

The Same Starmer who has increased resources towards the aforementioned GCAP (UK, Italy, and Japan’s joint 6th gen jet fighter project, which is significantly further ahead than the US’s and France/Germany/Spain’s respective 6th gen fighter projects)?

The same Starmer who’s overseen the Royal Navy successfully preventing Houthi terror groups attacking and boarding civilian cargo ships bound for Europe?

The same Starmer who, after Iran threatened to attack UK bases, warned them not to, and they immediately backed down, while simultaneously keeping us out of the conflict (unlike the US).

Starmer and his team actually seems pretty damn competent on defence so far.

This is just dumb posturing from a deranged Republican. And not just any Republican, the US embassador to Israel, a country who has became increasingly hostile to Starmer over the past year, because he wants them to stop committing war crimes.

Honestly, what a discardable opinion.

If it was a news channel it would already have been revoked, because they keep breaking Ofcom standards.

Unfortunately, they’re using the same loophole that Fox News uses in the US… “We’re an entertainment channel that covers current affairs. We are not a news channel.”

It’s staggering it works tbh, especially since their name literally has “news” in it.

E: My phone autocorrected news channel to newest channel. Oops. I hope the meaning still got through.

I have no idea why you’re so proudly ignorant.

Just watch the video or move along and accept that you aren’t informed.

It’s not advertising a corporation lmao, he spends half the video ranting about how much he hates Microsoft

The video isn’t that long.