I certainly don't. Most don't really know what is going on in any instance. They all probably think the booths are for a Punch and Judy performance, they will expect a show, so on and so forth. It's just setting everything up for disaster.

Furthermore, I don't think the upper or middle classes should have a vote, nor women, not those with disabilities, nor anyone from a minority ethnic background. Just white men, but not all whites, just English protestant men... aged 30-60. In fact, not even them, no votes for anybody. Ah, politics.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Personally I've always thought that if you work and pay tax into the system you should get the vote.

If you don't pay tax into the system you shouldn't.

Essentially stakeholder voting.....If you don't have a stake you don't get to decide....but it would have to come with certain protections.

There are flaws with this system though, for example most women work less then men because they have children to raise and so this is unfair on them....and so obviously it's pie in the sky.

However, I view the affects of feminism to have been disasters for both men and especially women.....Convinced many of them that being worker drones was what they wanted other than families. A plan to lower wages and break up the power of the family that worked.

Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Dec 2022 3.46pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Yep, no taxation without representation.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

That’s some amazing mental gymnastics to absolve yourselves of responsibility for right wing mass shooting. Interesting that you bring up Muslim mass murderers, another warped ideology that tries to put the blame on the victims. I wonder what it is these two groups have in common?
I would make another puerile joke, but what you’re peddling isn’t funny.

It most certainly does not prove your point! That's yet another typical misrepresentation. What I said was I hadn't read every file. Have you?

I have read enough, and I have also read the analysis of the releases, and what I said was I haven't seen anything at all which supports your assertions.

Which you now confirm as being censorship and security services meddling in elections. The suggestion that they were paid to do so is new. I look forward to seeing that justified.

I have read all such allegations before and can confirm that there is nothing at all in the Twitter releases which justify them. Everything that was done can be explained logically and reasonably in the circumstances that prevailed at the time. Just remember the security services are charged with keeping the country safe from foreign interference and alerting social media companies to a perceived threat is within their remit. Those media companies are private businesses who can determine whatever policy they like. If they decide to remove, restrict or even censor anyone that's entirely their choice. Their role is to make money for their shareholders, much of which comes from advertising. If the advertisers get nervous about content, then it's likely to be removed. They are not a public service. Other outlets which don't moderate in the same way, are available.

You carry on and provided examples. I will knock them over the boundary faster than Ben Stokes can score 100.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

What's that supposed to prove? That a right leaning editor believes that social media businesses constrain free speech? Hardly newsworthy, is it? The right have been bleating the same old baa baa for years. It isn't true. They are private businesses, who can decide for themselves what their moderation policy is, and in turn where they get their advertising revenue. Platforms exist for all views. Trying looking on Gab for socialist views, let alone trying to post anything that doesn't conform with their community standards.

There are great dangers online from misinformation and the involvement of foreign countries who wish us harm. We are constantly under attack in a cyber war. Listen to, or read, what the head of GCHQ had to say about this only today. He was the guest editor on the Today programme on Radio 4. It was chilling to hear what's going on.

That's real. That needs action. The idea that the social media companies are restricting free speech is a total misunderstanding of what is really happening.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.