@SNEWSLEYPIES
@lemm.eeNo.
There's no need for monoculture - especially on a platform that aims to be decentralised.
Look at it this way - if some town has three gay bars, three metal pubs and three old-man real-ale pubs, it's not an issue for the LGBT community, the metal community or the drunk old men; they're just different places to drink. Possibly the drunk gay old metal fans might get confused, but they sound awesome and are likely welcome everywhere.
...actually, thinking about it, I bet the drunk old men probably do have an issue with all eight of the other pubs they don't go to. But that's just them.
I would love to know more without having to actually research who this guy is.
With the greatest of respect: the guy was Chancellor of the Exchequer for years. It seems reasonable to assume people know who he is in a UK politics forum. (edit: sp.)
on par with Private Eye
...dear god man. I mean, it's great at what it does, but comparable to the Eye? No. Just... no XD
We have been contacted by George Osborne and Thea Rogers’ lawyers
This, though, may as well be a straight-up admission of truth.
I mean, let's be real - it's totally inconsequential. We've known for years who he is and how he fills his days waiting for his inheritance, and more importantly, none of this stuff, even if true, will actually affect him in any meaningful way.
But I can't claim for a second that I'm not chuckling at his misfortune today.
"PopBitch" (that's a new one)
They've been around for knocking on 20 years, if not longer.
Absolutely nothing more noble than a gossip-sheet (and they don't aim any higher either, to be clear), but they are legit and are broadly non-partisan.
Matey's checked out at this point. I reckon all his press statements are just ChatGPT now.
Maybe some of his video appearances too tbh.
Fundamentally they work the same way - it's just that comment threads are the first-class citizen in Lemmy.
You can follow Mastodon posts from Lemmy and vice-versa, although obviously the UI and UX may go a bit squinty.
Yeah, I woke up to that yesterday. My mood was not improved by it.
and water when it was in public ownership was way down the queue.
Or in other words, "when we had responsibility for it we didn't want it because we couldn't profit from it, so we shirked our responsibility so we could shrug it off in '89. Naturally, no other attitude to the matter is conceivable".
On the contrary, I'm putting the goalposts back where they were before you misunderstood them.
From the article:
Hall concludes the companies have borrowed to pay dividends, rather than to invest in infrastructure projects. The £123bn of capital expenditure spent by the companies has all been financed by customer bills, the analysis states.