Footage of Nigel Farage blowing up Rishi Sunak's Minecraft mansion 'not real' British democracy hangs in the balance after internet mischief makers published a deepfake of Reform UK leader Nigel Farage griefing prime minister Rishi Sunak's Minecraft server. Youtube Video As above, Farage is presented as livestreaming Minecraft to an active chat, explaining that he's joined Sunak's server "while he was …
Wow. Is there ANYTHING I could say that wouldn't get turned into a Trump vs. Biden thing?
Is this how it's going to be until November?
Seriously, I don't fucking care about your stupid election. You are fucked regardless of who wins, but just for different reasons. I hate this polarised politics of Trump Derangement Syndrome vs. MAGA nutters.
Just stop it already.
It was just a funny video of another annoying cunt Farage. Laugh. Move on.
Indeed.
for those fortunate enough not to live in Britain (which heads to the polls on July 4).
A couple weeks ago I would have agreed with this, now I'm afraid nous sommes way above the UK (or US for that matter) in terms of we-are-fucked-ness. Gold medal ahead for sure, we are doomed.
Britain, America, France...
...anybody else want to throw their country's hat into the ring?
At least in Europe we have the decency to get the f- on with it instead of dragging it out into an 18-month circus (which for some inexplicable reason, the rest of the world's media has to breathlessly report).
I'd be quite happy to hear nothing - nothing in mainstream UK press about the US elections until the 5th October. A month of coverage for an overseas political event seems more than adequate.
"dragging it out into an 18-month circus"
Absolutely! Most civilised countries manage to run an election campaign and election in around 6 weeks, and that's more often than not when the current government have to choose an election date. It *should* be even easier when you already know the election dates in advance
@Steve Button
"Wow. Is there ANYTHING I could say that wouldn't get turned into a Trump vs. Biden thing?"
This is about deepfakes which is something the Americans have been warning against. But I was just suggesting a legitimate use for the tool.
"Seriously, I don't fucking care about your stupid election"
Not my election. I am in the UK watching a bunch of nobodies compete to screw up the country further. There is the EU elections which dont matter even if we were in the EU. So the only election of note is (as you say) the TDS vs MAGA amusement going on.
Sorry to put your knickers in a twist, I can only recommend you relax and accept people on a public forum have the ability to press the reply button and post their own thoughts
This is about deepfakes which is something the Americans have been warning against. But I was just suggesting a legitimate use for the tool.
Now there's an idea. Dedicated UN servers for online diplomacy. Solve the world's problems with our leaders battling it out in Minecraft or Rust. Or there's probably Risk online if we want to do things the old fashioned way. Rather less messy than the usual kinetic diplomacy.
Presumably someone deleted their own, or mods removed the incendiary stuff??
Mods do this sometimes. If you delete a post, it leaves a message saying the user deleted it. When mods do it, it's often just a vanishing act, or there's sometimes a message saying it's been removed by a moderator. The good'ol days when The Moderatrix was around wielding her ban hammer were much more fun!
The message I have on one of my posts is:
This post is hidden from public view because one of its ancestors has been deleted by a moderator.
Sounds a bit Terminator, but I presume it not only prevents further comments lacking their context, but also the possibility of the offending comment being inferred from the responses to it.
You have seen the state of the Orange one's ramblings, haven't you? Whales vs. Windmills is a particularly ludicrous one. No deepfakery required. OFC for some listeners the utter gibberish spouted is what they want to hear and so it matters little what is said.
That US politics has converged on mediocrity on both fronts is a very, very sad thing. You don't have to go that far back to find grandiose statesmen and orators that had international respect and recognition. Raygun, Nixon, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Obama. Among many, many others.
From the article "don't believe anything you see or hear on social media"
You can unfortunately, say the same ("don't believe anything you see or hear") about huge swathes of the UK media.
I'm not particularly familiar with press & TV worldwide, but a lot (not all, but a big chunk) of the UK media must be near the bottom of the pile*
* I will exclude the "Sunday Sport" as they are the press equivalent of posting for LOLs & everyone knows its full of stupid content not to be taken seriously, the problem is with those outlets that pump out BS pretending its real (If you want a challenge to see how long it takes before you put your foot through the TV in irritation at the total bilge pouring out, watch Neil Oliver on GB News**).
** I accept no responsibility for high blood pressure, aneurysms etc induced by watching him
Coincidentally both RT & KGBNews funded by money that can be traced back to Mother Russia.
There's nothing coincidental about it. RT & RIA are just Russia's version of the Bbc, with both being state funded and state controlled. Can't remember if the Bbc's World Service is still funded mostly by the UK Foreign Office, but that's always been a semi-propaganda channel. There's also stuff like Voice of America or Radio Free Europe that do the same for the US.
It's partly what the recent fuss in Georgia was about. There's a ton of 'NGO's that are really GOs that run either influence campaigns or outright regime change operations around the world. So a lot of money and effort's been spent running psyops and political warfare to try and keep Georgia in the West's or EU's sphere of influence, and Russia doing much the same to counter it. It's also why Macron's so butthurt at the moment because France is being de-colonialised. That's been partly kinetic but also Russia and China using soft power & influence to force France out of Africa, and probably territories like New Caledonia and Mayotte that most people couldn't find on a map, or realise are French. Mayotte's an interesting one given Russia's been dangling the prospects of naval bases there. There's also been rumblings in French Guiana which could be FUN! given that's the ESA's primary launch sites.
It's one of those awkward political moments where perceived Western weakness is creating a fair bit of global instability and geopolitical realignment. Turkiye, as usual, is playing both sides and has been talking about giving up on the EU and joining BRICS instead.
woahh. VoA - haven't listened to that since the 80's when I got into shortwave radio... blast from the past...
I still have fun sometimes with a nifty little Sony 'world radio', but lots of services seem to be shutting down on LW & SW in favour of 'transmitting' via the ever reliable and absolutely not easily blocked Internet. Oh for the days when I listened to Radio Caroline and Luxemberg :)
The Cameron government axed Foreign Office funding for the World Service, before partially reversing that decision a few years later. In recent years the World Service has been funded about 75% from the licence fee and 25% from the Foreign Office.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/bbc-world-service-soft-power-and-funding-challenges/
With a large proportion of the UK Media controlled by Rupert Murdoch, the bias towards Trump/Farage is understandable.
Just go onto YouTube and look at "Times Radio", "Sky News" and a few others.
Personally, I think Farage is a traitor. who should suffer the fate of traitors in the past. He (and Boris) were responsible for most of the BREXIT lies, lies which we will be paying for for decades to come even if Starmer takes us back into the EU.
ALL POLITICIANS LIE ALL THE TIME. I don't believe a word any of them say.
"even if Starmer takes us back into the EU"
What makes you think the EU would be interested?
Plus, all those cushy deals negotiated back in the early days have gone. If rejoining the EU means accepting the current entry requirements... yeah, that's gonna be a HARD sell.
Many of those requirements would not be a punishment for the UK as it would make the country work better, and politics more accountable.
The big challenge will be the reforms required to reach that level.
* A written constitution, with numbered articles and all in one place, so people could actually draw some rights from it, instead of it being some nebulous concept where rights or procedures are only part of the constitution if and when that right or procedure benefits the ruler of the time.
* A fully elected parliament, requiring elections for the House of Lords.
* A strong electoral watchdog, with teeth, to run general elections, instead of the sitting government running the elections who will oversee them.
* Becoming an actual Constitutional Monarchy where the monarch can only sign acts into law but not send them back to parliament if they don't like them.
* A well developed anti corruption programme, with teeth.
* Serious measures to tackle tax evasion, with teeth.
* Making the BBC independent from government
Slight pedantry over "written constitution"
Our constitution is written but its not codified, and unfortunately (as an accumulation of laws, precedent, and historical hangovers) too much of it is written down as conventions and accepted practices rather than set out as law.
The monarchy is very much a constitutional one under those same practices, everything the monarch does is on the governments "advice".
The monarchy is very much a constitutional one under those same practices, everything the monarch does is on the governments "advice"
On which point, has the Crown rejected any Acts in the last couple of centuries? The Crown of course also has the Privy Council and KC's to advise the King.
The problem with the Monarchy and laws is two-fold.
Firstly, there is a period (two weeks off the top of my head) for the Monarch to review and reflect on Acts of Parliament that are sent to them before they sign and the Act achieves Royal Assent. If the Monarch would just always sign any Act of Parliament (as is the norm in Constitutional Monarchies) then this period wouldn’t be necessary. King Baudouin of Belgium abdicated for one day in 1990 because he couldn’t reconcile his Catholicism with having to sign the legalisation of abortion into law. That’s how things work in Constitutional Monarchies, the Monarch has no choice but signing an Act, they don’t have two weeks of thinking time and the power to send Acts they don’t like back to Parliament.
Secondly, and probably a lot more often, the Monarch uses their power of King’s Consent where they get to review draft laws and can influence them in the drafting stage to prevent having to refuse signing them in the Royal Assent stage. We don’t know how many times the Monarch sends Acts back in the drafting stage as that is kept a secret but the Guardian has identified at least 67 cases in Scotland alone.
The problem is that there is no agreement about what is actually part of the UK Constitution and what isn’t.
When the constitutional shit hits the fan, as we have seen quite a few times in the last seven years (for instance about whether the elected House of Commons has certain powers or whether the will of an unelected Prime Minister is enough to push policy through. Or when the Cabinet unlawfully closed down Parliament by lying to the Monarch to prevent debate about a number of quite vital steps for the country), we first need to have a debate, and often a cumbersome step to the UK Supreme Court, to decide about whether a specific convention is just that, a convention that can be ignored at will, or whether it’s part of the Constitution.
You could argue that only rules and processes that have been approved by both houses of Parliament and have been given Royal Assent should be part of the Constitution. But that is currently not always the case.
Is the Ministerial Code part of the UK Constitution? Many people will argue that it is as it regulates the duties and obligations of Cabinet Ministers. Yet Boris Johnson decided to unilaterally rewrite the Ministerial Code instead of stopping his regular breaches. No Parliament was involved in that change. Does that mean the Ministerial Code is not part of the Constitution? Should the country not have a part of the Constitution that spells out the duties and obligations of Cabinet Ministers if the Ministerial Code is not part of the Constitution?
Is the Barnett Formula part of the UK Constitution? Many people will argue that it’s not as it has never received Parliamentary approval and is just a Convention that the Treasury can follow or break at will. It is, however, quite a fundamental part of the running of the Kingdom and plays a big role in keeping the four nations together in the Union. If you ask a random Scot or Welshman whether the Barnett Formula is or should be part of the Constitution you'd probably get a different answer then if you'd ask a random Englishman, and that is a problem. Should the framework (but perhaps not the percentages) not be part of a UK Constitution so all four parts of the Kingdom know where they stand and democratically legitimise its working?
These are just two examples and probably not even the best. In practice we have to work with a tapestry of conventions that must be followed when politically expedient for the ruling party but are suddenly very fluid when not in the interest of the ruling party. That is not a decent way to run a country in the 21st century.
As the EU goes through Constitutions of prospective members with a fine tooth comb (after all they need to assess whether this country could fit in the union) I suspect the UK as a new entrant would have some work on its hands. I could write the process of how to go about codifying this on one side of an A4, unfortunately the challenge will be that too many people have an interest in the UK Constitution being a bit vague.
I could write the process of how to go about codifying this on one side of an A4, unfortunately the challenge will be that too many people have an interest in the UK Constitution being a bit vague.
Much the same is true of EU legislation as well, though. The core rules for most things could be written on one side of A4, but getting 27 countries to agree on it would be impossible. That's why they each need 20,000+ lines of carefully curated text, so that everything is sufficiently vague and ambiguous that each member can interpret and present them to their citizens in an acceptable way.
Well the EU is trying to work across 27 different legal systems. Sometimes it has to be a bit vague, and get individual countries to decide what to do, and sometimes it can be clear and tell everyone what they should do. Remember, the EU is not a country, but a body that 27 countries have agreed to be a member of, and each to play a part in setting its rules. The last bit is important. The EU does what the member states tell it they want it to do. It does not impose on them, but simply reflects their wishes, taking account the acquis communitaire that to be a member state you must agree to.
It is not a bogey man a la the Daily Mail, but a construction, a sui generis construction that improves the lot of each member state -- ie it is greater than the sum of the parts.
Here's one link to explain directives, regulations, decisions, etc: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/types-eu-law_en
The big challenge will be the reforms required to reach that level.* A written constitution, with numbered articles and all in one place, so people could actually draw some rights from it, instead of it being some nebulous concept where rights or procedures are only part of the constitution if and when that right or procedure benefits the ruler of the time.
Not going to happen. But that's kind of the UK's Human Rights Act 1998, which was the UK's implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Inside the EU, anything the UK does would be subservient to the EU in any area where the EU's exercised 'exclusive (in)competency'.
Outside the EU, the UK remains sovereign and can do whatever it wants, which is why Brexit happened. It's somewhat ironic that independence movements like Scotland or even Ukraine want to promptly lose most of their independence by joining the EU. Some of the other stuff are good ideas, some we already have but aren't very effective, eg anti-corruption efforts. Or one of my favorites, making the Bbc independent and stand on it's own feet by scrapping the licence fee and making subscription voluntary.
It's somewhat ironic that independence movements like Scotland or even Ukraine want to promptly lose most of their independence by joining the EU.
I personally wouldn't like to see Scotland leave the UK but I'm not a Scot so I don't wish to voice a very strong opinion on this as it's not for me to decide.
I think I understand the reasoning of many Scots that they'd rather join the European Union as an independent member than remain in the UK Union as a subservient member. The EU is run by the member states, the UK is not run by the four Nations. They would have much more control over their destiny as an independent country in the EU than having to beg a foreign city like Westminster to also think of Scotland occasionally because Scotland doesn't have a vote in Westminster.
Perhaps if the UK created a proper federal structure where the English government and the UK government are separate to each other. But that opens the can of worms about whether England is one or two countries.
@AC
"I think I understand the reasoning of many Scots that they'd rather join the European Union as an independent member than remain in the UK Union as a subservient member."
I think that is a serious insult to the Scottish education system if they truly think such an extreme oxymoron. Consider the independent members punished by the EU for not complying and not voting as the EU wants.
"They would have much more control over their destiny as an independent country in the EU than having to beg a foreign city like Westminster to also think of Scotland occasionally because Scotland doesn't have a vote in Westminster."
The Scottish are overrepresented in English politics. They have input on UK politics. The one amusement of Scotland joining he EU would be to watch them blame Brussels all the time just as they do with Westminster.
Remember, the referendum to leave the UK was to have the UK fund Scottish liabilities, reject their share of existing liabilities and still provide services and benefits of the UK. Then the price of oil fell and even the most extreme hopes of independence fell apart.
But that opens the can of worms about whether England is one or two countries.
Why stop there? Restore the Heptarchy I say! Then everyone can pile on the Mercians and demand reparations, while the East Anglians fight over who's better, the North or South. We think our politicans cause problems, but just look at Alfred the 'Great'. Much like Starmer, Sunak or even that colonial Schumer, none of'em can be trusted to cook a scone/biscuit or even a burger, let alone run a country!
All those reforms ignore the most important one - Proportional Representation (for both, but at least for the Commons). Move away from two-party dominance.
A codified constitution is a nicety but unnecessary. An elected HoL... don't get me wrong, I'm against hereditary lords but two elected chambers are not necessarily better - ask the Americans when they get periodically deadlocked. Even "new build" bicameral parliaments like the EU have decided to go with a single elected chamber and the other composed of appointees (albeit they've switched it round with their elected chamber solely scrutinising bills and having no initiative to introduce them). Of course others (such as Norway and Sweden, to mention a pair of comparable monarchies) have ended up just merging or abolishing a second chamber into a single one.
Tax evasion is an obvious one. Every pound spent on HMRC tends to net £3-4 back.
As for the BBC... the difficulty is that in order to be independent they need independent funding, and I quite like them not being beholden to advertisers and being able to do (say) lower-viewer educational content because they're not reliant on selling ad slots. So we could pass a law that says the BBC can set the Licence Fee in perpetuity and isn't subject to the 10-year charter renewal cycle, which always sees a bit of brown-nosing in the preceeding 18months. But future governments could always threaten to repeal that, or impose new restrictions. I suppose they'd have to go through Parliament to impose those, rather than being able to do it unilaterally, which would be an improvement. Fundamentally though, it's always at the mercy of future governments.
Apart from the funding issue, which is not easy to solve, there's the issue with the sitting government installing their cronies to the top of the BBC. You know the Conservative Party has been in charge of the country for fourteen years as the whole top of the BBC is now filled with Conservative Party apparatchiks.
Perhaps it would be better if the management of the country's biggest media operator was appointed by the country's biggest opposition party instead of the ruling party.
As for the BBC... the difficulty is that in order to be independent they need independent funding, and I quite like them not being beholden to advertisers and being able to do (say) lower-viewer educational content because they're not reliant on selling ad slots. So we could pass a law that says the BBC can set the Licence Fee in perpetuity and isn't subject to the 10-year charter renewal cycle,
Well, there's always Ofcom. They're gaining more power to regulate the Bbc, so complaints could go to Ofcom instead of the Bbc's Complaints Department, which is of course in Room 101 of Broadcasting House. The licence fee should be scrapped entirely and the Bbc certainly shouldn't be in control of that. It constantly whines about how it's been making millions in savings, yet always demands more money. Government could just grant a licence for 1 free-to-air channel with a mandatory amount of news, much as it does with ITV and C4.. Which is another option, merge the Bbc and C4 and call it good.
Exactly. Punishment. I can see the Daily Fail headline now: EU PUNISHES Britain.
I mean, they need us more than we need them[1].
You missed off the four freedoms[2] and ECJ oversight. As soon as we get those there are lots of layers of EU agreements that become available, and we could have our own EEA-type agreement. The EU did a cracking job of stitching up the UK because BJ and Frosty the No man couldn't give a toss about the contents of the Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the Withdrawal Agreement. Their approach was to simply ignore them. Cunts.
The EU have now tied up the loose ends, and the UK can now fuck off until it grows up and comes back wanting an adult conversation. This 2025 reassessment everyone keeps talking about is purely technical. It's just tinkering at the edges. It will not lead to any big changes, despite what Starmer suggests. Until the UK changes its attitude to the EU and acts like a big boy, they can sleep in their own turds (or is that swim in them :-).
Grow up UK. Tell the racist pensioners they can get stuffed and then we'll talk.
[1] With the slight caveat that we need them more than they need us -- opps!.
[2] Well we are really only talking about one of them, the one that some of our racist pig-ignorant pensioners think is super important.
Neil Oliver was there at the start when Scots people had to include the word 'worrrld' as often as possible. As in, 'Scotland leads the world in pie manufacture' or some such. Note the rolled rrr.
Love the Scots, and we live somewhere that used to be in Scotland many years ago until one of the many arguments about where the border should be moved it north, but now we seem to get worrrld worrrld worrrld all the time.
He has no interest in actually doing any work and has spent much of his life 'griefing' the real world.
He was an MEP for quite a long time, took all the money but almost never turned up - and all of those were entirely griefing. His final speech was purely to insult the entire EU Parliament, and he literally asked who they all were - he'd have known if he'd ever bothered to turn up.
For a few years his official role there was the UK representative to the fisheries committee. He never turned up, thus screwing over a large part of the UK's fishing industry.
BTW, he is still receiving a pension from the EU and has German citizenship via his wife. The 'divorce payment' the UK paid was partially to pay for Farage's pension. He didn't turn it down.
So the video is on form. The unbelievable part is that he'd have any idea what Minecraft is.
For a few years his official role there was the UK representative to the fisheries committee. He never turned up, thus screwing over a large part of the UK's fishing industry.
The EU did that bigger, faster, louder. See current protests from the EU and of course threats of sanctions over restrictiing access to our sand eel fisheries. The UK now has some control over our territorial waters. But fishing is another touchy area given Russian counter-sanctions have shut EU, UK and US fishermen out of Russia's territorial waters.
The 'divorce payment' the UK paid was partially to pay for Farage's pension. He didn't turn it down.
Neither did the Kinnocks. They supped deep from the trough. But also a part of the EU malaise. Farage spent most of his time pointing out how pointless MEPs actually were when most of the power and money goes to paying for slightly used politicians like the Kinnocks in council or commission roles.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Guardian has this: "Tory government ‘worst in postwar era’, claims expert study"
In comparison to the earlier four periods of one-party dominance post-1945, it is hard to see the years since 2010 as anything but disappointing. By 2024, Britain’s standing in the world was lower, the union was less strong, the country less equal, the population less well protected, growth more sluggish with the outlook poor, public services underperforming and largely unreformed, while respect for the institutions of the British state, including the civil service, judiciary and the police, was lower, as it was for external bodies, including the universities and the BBC, repeatedly attacked not least by government, ministers and right-wing commentators.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jun/19/uk-general-election-2024-live-updates-latest-today-rishi-sunak-tories-labour-reform-ipsos-poll?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-6672c9538f086ad5ae684dd9#block-6672c9538f086ad5ae684dd9
However much I may enjoy my personal assessment / prejudices being confirmed, it is wholly appalling that someone with genuine knowledge and understanding of politics is so damning of the last 14 years of Tory rule.
(See about 14:00 .)
That's because since Cameron the Tories have simply aped Tony Blair, Cameron even styled himself as the "heir to Blair". It never seemed to occur to them that if the voters rejected Blair, it perhaps wasn't a good idea to offer an alternative that was just a watered-down rehash of New Labour with a bit of a spin.
When people vote Conservative it isn't because they just want the country run by the Conservative party, they want it run by Conservative policies, and the Tories haven't offered that for 30 years. This is why those voters are picking Reform, not because they expect, or want, Farage & co to win any seats but simply to give the Tories a kicking and get them back to moderate right wing Conservative policies, instead of Sunak's high tax, high spend, big state social democrat stance, which hardly differs from Starmer.
Looks like they're going to get that kicking, and Tory HQ has noone to blame but themselves.
....I'd have more respect for the utter assholes that we have to choose from if they DID actually blow each others Minecraft houses up. I guess they'll all be pleading they are all to poor to afford Minecraft whilst trying to prove they understand "the common person" by drinking beer from a wine glass.
Don't give the PRC ideas.
Not the PRC we need to worry about. Don't we already have a Minister for 'Levelling Up'? Sneak a budget request for a large magazine subscription & partner with the Minister of Defence to fill it. Much levelling could ensue! The gamification of politics is almost complete!
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and ex-Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman have been crowned the UK's sexiest politicians.
According to a poll by IllicitEncounters.com, the leading dating site for married individuals, the Tories outshone Labour as the overall sexiest party.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/uks-sexist-politicians-revealed-brits-33053417
Surely, this is fake news.
Wuuutttt?? Wasn't he just the handsomest of reality celebrity politicians in that high-quality entertainment "get me out of here", a feast for the senses, gorging on kangaroo testicles and camel penises, washed down with cockroach cocktails! Made me just about forget his slimeball UKIP Breaking Point antics ... way to wag the dog! </barf>
Thought Fartage was too busy selling crap gin to his munters who live of his/trumps every word?
Seems incredible that people still give this gob on a stick airtime, after he gets his Brexit, then goes on TV telling people how brilliant the French Healthcare system is, because it will likely pour money into his and his mate Aarons coffers.
The UK Will get exactly the Government it deserves, because voters don't seem to realise that politicians aren't there to make things better for those who elected them.
Upvote/downvote, don't give a shit. The UK needs an enema and the hosepipe needs to start in Wastemonster.
As much as I hate Fartage, he is on the page with regards putting PR on the table. In fact this may be a deliberate ploy to try and prevent PR gaining traction (no mainstream party can be seen to agree with Fartage, can it?!)
Just as Fartage was a deliberate ploy to split the Labour vote (and is now splitting the Tories as well).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
