Thread by @CyrusBales: (web.archive.org)

/1
Our Home secretary was previously fired for endangering UK national security through rogue meetings with a foreign power and lying to the Prime Minister about it.

/2
Our foreign secretary didn't realize the significance of Dover-Calais on trade.

/3
Our education secretary is a homophobe who opposes LGBTQ rights, so that'll please the assholes trying to remove LGBTQ acceptance from schools.

/4
Our chancellor wants to actively crash the economy via no deal.

/5
Our justice minister has voted against human rights and equality, against same sex marriage, and voted to reduce access to legal aid.

/6
Our environment secretary supports fracking and has continuously voted against measures to address climate change.

/7
Our business secretary lied on their CV about their qualifications and uses offshore accounting to avoid tax.

/8
Our culture secretary hates the arts and wants less of it in schools.

/9
Our international trade secretary lied/didn't read about a key report from EY, and wants to sell of public assets like the NHS.

/10

Our secretary of state for international development (who is my MP), is the man who first introduced Johnson to the wanted Russian agent Mifsud, which then set up meeting between Jonhson and famous white supremacist Bannon.

/11
Our secretary of state for women and equalities has opposed measures to tackle domestic violence and is against feminism.

/12
Our work & pensions secretary wants to compile a list of foreign workers & "shame" companies for employing them, oversaw the deportation of UK citizens (Windrush scandal), & is on record saying she wants more "teeth" to hunt down migrants and boasted of her "ruthlessness".

/13
Our defence secretary opposes human rights and equality and has consistently voted against them.

/14
Our transport secretary is the one who was involved in the bullying scandal that saw a young man take his own life.

/15
Our top adviser to the PM that he appointed is a man who oversaw the biggest electoral fraud in UK history and was found in contempt of parliament.

/16
Our northern Ireland secretary is a man who wanted everyone involved with the Edward Snowden story to be prosecuted.

/17
Our housing, communities and local government secretary thinks productivity is the most important economic issue and falsely thinks inequality has never been lower than it is now.

/18
Our leader of the commons is a man who wanted to prorogue parliament to push through what they want without any parliamentary scrutiny.

/19
And our Prime Minister?

He's openly racist, homophobic, sexist, arranged the assault of a journalist, lead the campaign that committed the biggest electoral fraud in UK history, caused an innocent British woman to be incarcerated for longer...

I could go on.

A lot.

A Century Ago We Killed The Radio Commons; Don't Let The EU Do That To The Internet by Mike Masnick (Techdirt.)
The very structure of Article 13 makes this clear. The demand that everything must be "licensed" on internet platforms makes no sense. Do you "license" content in order to communicate with your friends? Do you license a song to sing? Do you license it when you quote from a book? Licensing is not necessary for communication -- it is only necessary for "broadcast." This is the core problem that the legacy gatekeepers have with the internet. It's a communications medium, and they come from the broadcast era. Their entire structure is built off of licensing to broadcasters. And rather than recognize that everything has changed, their only play is to try to shove the internet into a similar broadcast structure.
Men at Arms (Discworld, #15; City Watch #2) by Terry PratchettTerry Pratchett
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

In recent months, museums in France, the United Kingdom, and Germany have begun to address the fact that large portions of their collections are, well, not theirs — and were stolen from other countries during the colonial era.

But there’s no consensus on how to deal with the issue. And as the Washington Post reports, some museums are proposing “loaning” the artifacts back to their countries of origin for limited periods of time — rather than actually returning them.

The whole thing stinks in my view. These items should be returned to the countries they were taken from. Not “loaned” – returned.

via European museums may “loan” stolen artifacts back to African countries – Vox

Twin 1: What are you eating?
Me: Cheesecake.
Twin 2: Does it have peanuts in it?
Me: No.
Twin 1: Does it have chocolate in it?
Me: Yes.
Twin 1: Can I try some?
Twin 2: Can I try some?
Me: No.
Me: This is my reward for putting up with your crazy behaviour today. So no.