I love to criticise the government, I do it quite a lot. But one thing the UK gov does really, really incredibly well is its website. The gov.uk pages are one of the most intuitive and informative things to browse on the internet. It really is excellent AS IT IS. It ain’t broke is what I’m saying.
So on top of all the very valid concerns about AI accessing the information of i.e. desperate citizens looking for legal help in dire, highly private circumstances, I’ll be mourning the loss of a formerly excellent resource.

why is a Labour MP regurgitating industry lies?

Real head-scratcher, that one. Reeeeal brainteaser. An honest-to-goodness Labour MP? Shilling for think-tanks? In this economy? On Christmas Eve, in the rain?
Surely not. Because that would mean…

We have no valid voting choice as people on the left who care about progress and compassion and social justice, and haven’t since the 1970’s. Different flavours of Thatcherite neoliberalism are the only thing anyone under 50 has ever known, and the seemingly endless inertia of that failed ideology within the class-captured, self-reinforcing, closed system of government means it’s likely all we’ll ever know

Probably just a coincidence.

A lot of GB isn’t either, to be fair.

“brevity is the soul of wit”

~Shakespeare

“Um actually, wit is actually a subjective phenomenon, with everyone having a different idea of what it actually means. How could such a construct actually possess a ‘soul’? And that’s not even getting started on the assertion that souls actually exist in any real way”.

~Obinice

rude

I’m on the spectrum so I can neither tell nor give a shit! The soundness of what you’re saying is most important to me.

Oh yeah, agreed 100%

She already had nine points on her licence, so she’s a repeat offender, hence the book getting thrown at her.
Conversely, this happened in Oxford, which is well known for being strict on drivers. She might have got away with it elsewhere.

I’m not sure I follow you. Can you explain

In fifty years, people will be writing essays about why this comment makes sense and is hilarious.

\\ Hello future essay writers, I hope you have accrued enough credits to keep your crate cool tonight!\\

Yeah I feel this. “Failed experiment” implies, to me, that we should forget this avenue of thought and go back to what we had before.
“Outdated concept” might have been better?
Either way we’re all in agreement fundamentally

They use computers, or so I’m told.

Is that Northern Ireland? Could well be where “geg” comes from if so!

This same site reports that Baby is dead: https://sportlines.co.uk/spice-girls-star-emma-bunton-dies-at-48-world-mourns-loss-of-baby-spice/

The Scouse British dialect has a nice term for this: “Geg out”. As opposed to “Fred is gegging in”, used when someone is trying to implicate themselves or become part of the group/conversation.
Someone involving themselves when they shouldn’t be? Two syllables: Geg. Out.
No idea where it comes from but I heard it a lot in my youth. Forsomereason.

Nu-male here. Basically like the old school males but with baggier basslines.

The nuance here is that they’ve been proscribed as a terrorist group. They are a direct action group but they don’t hurt people, just damage property. That’s a crime, but it’s not terrorism. They can and should be tried for criminal damage, B&E, damage to government property etc, but this is a freedom of protest issue, and now freedom of speech, too, since I can no longer say things like “I think Palestine Action went too far, but they’re fighting for a just cause”, for example, because I’d be expressing support for a terrorist group and therefore committing a crime.
Compare to e.g. the suffragette movement who bombed buildings and all kinds to get the vote for women: they’re now lauded by the same person who proscribed this group. Or more recent examples like just stop oil or the protesters that threw the Edward Colson statue into the River Avon. They were tried for criminal damages. Then recently, some protesters have been starting to get tried under the far, far harsher anti terrorism laws, usually when it involves protesting Israel’s war crimes. These are the laws that allow things like extended detention in solitary without charge or phone calls, massively longer sentences and all manner of nasty punishments. It’s clearly a power grab to reduce the will to protest.

I didn’t mean to say say sabotage could not be terrorism in general, I’m agreeing that this is absolutely sabotage, but in this case it is not terrorism. The govt do not have a valid reason to proscribe them as a terrorist organisation. There are other available methods of opposition.
Terrorism is generally linked with a risk to personal safety at the very least, not mere property damage. These people are criminals, not terrorists.

It’s sabotage. It’s not terrorism. The gov is wrong to proscribe this group, you must see that? Regardless of your stance on the issue, this is an anti democratic move by Labour.

Well instead of guessing incorrectly, you could do a very small amount of research and find out!

As mentioned, direct action historically has produced results via political pressure.

Palestine Action has clear goals though.