There very much are law requiring archival, but now it's been ordered in the hearings as well. This makes it much more obvious that it's a problem.
wewbull
joined 2 years ago
I believe some people have been ordered to archive the chat so that it can be presented to Congress in the future. Trouble is, looking at the screenshots it's already gone as they had the message lifetime set to a week.
I wonder if this will be seen as destroying evidence .
There are none (worth speaking about)
....with the vast majority unaware how many people were enslaved, how long the trade went on for, or for how long UK taxpayers were paying off a government loan to “compensate” enslavers after abolition.
Talk about having your cake and eating it.
Taxpayers paying for the freedom of enslaved people shows how dedicated the British people were to ending the Atlantic slave trade. The fact that they try to use this as a negative in our history stuns me. You can spin it as "compensating slavers" but the fact is the person was free. And at that time the UK did everything in it's power to free as many as it could by any method.
Yes, the empire has it's history with slavery and British citizens were involved in the slave trade. However British sailors died fighting to end to transatlantic slave trade. Sometimes, I expect there was British on both sides.
If you're going to educate people about our history you have to teach the negatives and the positives, and not spin the one in to the other.
Nobody started it. It's ever-present from prehistory to today.
I don't know much in this crazy, crazy world, but I do know that if you don't let us fuck this asshole, we are going to have our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit.
Please mean Boris!
Why would dissidents want to use something insecure? 🤔
Oh, and it also hallucinates.
Oh, and people believe the hallucinations.
William engaged with soldiers...
Top choice of phrasing there BBC.
To give you a less conspiratorial answer than other, because those that stood against it were labelled as being against "the will of the people". Basically even though it was non-binding, those that were pro-brexit clothed themselves as following democracy, and those who opposed them as anti-democratic.
There were several problems with the referendum:
-
It was called to try to quell a split within the conservative party. Not because of any real movement in the country.
-
It never specified what "leaving the EU" meant. When, how fast, what remaining relationship? So the debate was nebulous. Positives were extremely optimistic and negatives were dismissed as pessimistic (despite being true).
-
The non-binding nature meant that no margin of certainty was set. It should have needed a majority of the voting public, or > ⅔ to be taken as something we really wanted to do. It was too major a change to enact on 52-48.
-
We don't govern by referenda in the UK. They go against the principle that parliament is sovereign because they place the people's voice above parliament's. We're a representative democracy and not a direct one. The only other ones we've had are
- 2011: The Alternative Vote voting system held a few year before. Also called by David Cameron and also a complete sham of a process.
- 1975: Continued membership of the European Community. Called by Edward Heath to quell the same split in the conservative party.
Hence the rules that surround referenda are poorly specified.
Ironically the US is more likely to drop the sanctions before Germany, where Codeberg is based.
Edit: They've gone self hosted. That makes more sense.