Jho

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Jho@feddit.uk 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (16 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New Zealand tried a similar tobacco ban in 2022, and it got repealed about a year later in order to fund tax cuts (if I am remembering correctly).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.

[–] Jho@feddit.uk 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I get the network effect of having all the other kids with phones.

I don't think the network effect is the only factor to consider here. Kids are at real risk of social ostracization and bullying by their peers if they do not have a smartphone. And that's dangeous in of itself.

I'm not sure if the dangers of being ostricised and bullied are more significant than the dangers presented by owning a smartphone. Either way, I don't think it's a simple decision for a parent to make.

[–] Jho@feddit.uk 53 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 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think it's better to vote for a party which has no chance of winning than to spoil your vote. At the very least it communicates what kinds of policies you would like to see and what policies would win your vote in the future.

I constantly think about the 2015 general election and how UKIP got almost 4 million votes (the third highest number of votes amongst all the parties). I feel that this caused a shift within the Conservative party towards populist, Eurosceptic, and anti-environmental ideals because they realised by doing so they could win back those 4 million voters.

I would personally never spoil my ballot for this reason. I don't think it's especially valuable to communicate that you're not happy with anything without communicating what would make you happy.

I'm currently in a circular debate with myself as to whether to vote Labour or Green. The classic eternal debate of "splitting the left vote" which we must deal with since we use an archaeic First-Past-The-Post system which should not exist in any modern democracy. I don't even especially like the Greens but a vote for them may communicate that one of my biggest values is preserving the environment and tackling climate change. Perhaps this could encourage Labour to establish policies to address these things in order to win back Green votes.

[–] Jho@feddit.uk 22 points 7 months ago (5 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 13 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 7 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:

The proposed oil-drilling operation is in Biscathorpe in the Lincolnshire Wolds, an important habitat for nature and wildlife that has been officially designated an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB).

The plans were rejected by the local council in 2021 but the oil company Egdon appealed against the decision and in November it was overturned by the government’s Planning Inspectorate, infuriating locals and environmentalists.

Now campaigners have been granted permission to seek a judicial review of the ruling in the high court.

The government has been widely criticised for pushing ahead with new oil and gas extraction in the midst of a climate emergency, with their own climate advisers, the International Energy Agency and hundreds of scientists and experts saying that no new oil and gas exploration can take place if the world is to limit global heating to 1.5C above preindustrial temperatures.

Despite this, Rishi Sunak has vowed to “max out” the UK’s oil reserves, ploughing ahead with huge new oilfields in the North Sea as well as three new onshore drilling operations in England.


Some quotes:

The area’s Tory MP, Victoria Atkins, came out against the plans in 2021, writing the proposals “represent the industrialisation of the Lincolnshire Wolds” adding that “as the UK strives to achieve net zero by 2050 … we must be cautious to ensure that we do not allow an application to go ahead that will do long-term damage to the Lincolnshire Wolds, its natural environment and our local communities”.

However, Atkins – who is now health secretary – did not respond when asked whether she was still opposed to the proposals.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero declined to comment on the case, instead issuing a general statement defending the UK’s decision to “max out” oil and gas in the midst of a climate crisis.

Mark Abbott, the CEO of Egdon, responded by saying it would rather not drill in an AONB “but could not control where oil is located”. He added there were extremely rigorous protection measures in place to protect the local environment.

“We’re happy to arrange for the local community to visit the site whilst we implement these important protection measures, so that they can see for themselves how seriously Egdon takes its environmental responsibilities.”

 

My TL;DR:

Spending on low-carbon measures for the three years from April 2020 to the end of April 2023 was about $33.3bn (£26.2bn) in total for the UK, the lowest out of the top five European economies, according to an analysis by Greenpeace of data from the International Energy Agency.

Italy topped the table for western European economies, having spent $111bn in the period. Germany spent $92.7bn, France $64.5bn and Spain about $51.3bn.

The data includes spending on electricity networks, energy efficiency, innovation on fuels and technology, low-carbon and efficient transport and low-carbon electricity.

On Wednesday, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor of the exchequer, will deliver the last budget of this parliament, which is likely to centre on tax cuts that economists have said will mainly benefit better-off people. Hunt is expected to devote little resource to energy or green issues.


Quotes from Greenpeace UK and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero:

Georgia Whitaker, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said the UK was losing out to international rivals in the race for the economy of the future.

“It’s clear that despite the government’s bluster, we are utterly failing on the world stage when it comes to green investment. Not only are the US and China leaving us in the dust in the race on green technology, we’re also doing terribly compared to our European neighbours,” she said.

She called instead for a green industrial strategy and infrastructure investment. “Jeremy Hunt should use the spring budget to address this embarrassing failure, but instead he’s flirting with tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest. Meanwhile, the rest of us struggle on with the cost of living,” she said.

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “This report fails to recognise our progress compared to European allies. We are the first major economy in the world to halve our emissions, and we have the second largest renewables capacity in Europe.

“We have a clear strategy to boost UK industry and reach net zero by 2050 – backed by £300bn in low carbon investment since 2010.”

 

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.
 

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.

 

My TL;DR:

The UK government decided to set catch limits for fish populations above those recommended by scientific advice and breaking their own post-Brexit rules.

When the government introduced the Fisheries Act in 2020, it said it would create a “world class” management regime drawing on “best available science” to ensure fish populations are healthy and sustainable.

The reality is different, say conservationists.

In the first year post Brexit, more than 65% of catch limits were in excess of independent scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (Ices). In the second year, they were 57% above.

This month, for the third year in a row, ministers agreed to set at least half of the catch limits for shared stocks above scientific advice.

This means a green light for overfishing, according to the Blue Marine Foundation.

The legal challenge, expected to start in January, will argue that the government is “illegally squandering” a public asset and going against laws aimed at improving sustainable fishing.

 

My TL;DR:

Photos mostly garnered from fishing industry social media accounts, show that trawling the seabed for langoustines to produce scampi also traps many other fish, including young white fish, flatfish, starfish and sharks.

Fishing for langoustines in Scotland is big business, with landings worth £91m in 2019, providing 43 per cent of the world’s supply.

But there have long been concerns about the fish accidentally caught in the nets of the langoustine trawlers.

One picture shows a critically endangered flapper skate, dead and allegedly dumped on the seabed.

The industry body, Seafish, insisted suggestions that bycatch made the langoustine fishery unsustainable were “incorrect”. Whiting, haddock and cod caught along with langoustines can be harvested and can together make up 80 per cent of catches, it said.

But Seafish accepted that “unfortunately, endangered, threatened and protected species can occasionally get caught in fishing gear”.

 

My TL;DR:

The five-year Wilder Humber programme seeks to restore the seagrass meadow at Spurn Point. It also aims re-build the estuary’s lost native oyster population and halt the decline of other precious habitats such as salt marshes and sand dunes.

Thriving seagrass meadows can be havens for nature, providing a breeding ground for juvenile fish and a feeding ground wading birds as well as absorbing carbon dioxide at a rate which is estimated to be between and two and four times faster than a rainforest.

Seagrass can also help improve water quality by removing excess nutrients, chemical contaminants and biotoxins.

A vast oyster reef once stretched from the mouth of the Humber to the Thames estuary. However, this has all but vanished. The small number of surviving fragments of this biogenic reef considered too isolated and depleted to be able to recover naturally.

The Humber programme is giving mother nature a helping hand. The goal is to reintroduce 500,000 native oysters to the area.

Once in the estuary, their filter feeding system naturally helps clean the water by removing algae, organic matter and excess nutrients as they grow.

 

My TL;DR:

Downing Street is facing calls to explain why it has appointed an unelected shooting enthusiast as its animal welfare minister after it emerged he has backed the culling of seals and wild birds.

Robbie Douglas-Miller, who was last week given a peerage to allow him to become minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), owns a grouse moor in Scotland and has argued for the relaxation of rules on shooting wild birds that prey on salmon.

He is also on the board of a fishery which applied to obtain a licence to kill seals in 2021; last year he gained a licence to kill wild cormorants and sawbill ducks.

Furthermore, in September, he signed a letter with fellow grouse moor owners lobbying the Scottish government to water down new laws that bring in licences for grouse-shooting in an effort to address persecution of birds of prey.

Douglas-Miller was made a baron on Friday in a surprise appointment as an environment minister and given the portfolio responsibility for animal welfare this week.

 

My TL;DR:

Red squirrels are one of Scotland’s most beloved and most threatened woodland animals.

Red squirrels and their tree nests are protected under law. But in 2017 Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) was granted a licence by the Scottish Government’s wildlife agency allowing dreys to be damaged during forestry operations.

FLS estimated that the “theoretical maximum” of red squirrel babies killed when their nests were destroyed during tree felling between 2017 and 2022 was 1,976.

FLS’s estimates, however, were dismissed as “bullshit” by Dave Anderson, an award-winning wildlife expert who worked for FLS and its predecessor bodies for 43 years.

What was going on within FLS was a “disgrace”, with staff being put under increasing pressure to ignore wildlife so that more money could be made from selling timber, Anderson alleged.

FLS treated the deaths of red squirrels, birds and other wildlife as “collateral damage”, he told The Ferret.

view more: next ›