[mandmandam]

These researchers are using logic and reason to fight against a bill that seeks to amass power and control.

And while I appreciate the level tone... I do wish they'd at least wink at the real reasons this is being put forward. I get why they don't, to maintain respectability and deniability etc.

But look at the sheer hypocrisy on display here. I kinda wish they'd take the gloves off and say, hey - Look at Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter, and God Knows how many others.

Look at how those horrifying scumbags walked around free, for decades, as if authorities didn't know full fine well what they were doing. Look at how they were not just ignored, but protected by the establishment that now wants a backdoor on every private communication.

[pjc50]

It's very difficult trying to do rational opposition to policy in the UK these days because .. that's simply not how it works any more. At best you have to work the kremlinology of different factions to get an idea killed or promoted. But you have to remember that it's a closed news ecosystem, you simply can't get a word in unless you're already part of that media/party group of people.

The plan to bring back "Imperial" measurements still isn't dead, for example.

Liz Truss, worst and shortest PM in living memory, is back after a few months as if nothing had happened. Why? It's not because she has any good ideas; it's because she's a vessel for a particular faction of bad ideas.

[version_five]

I think it's inflammatory and unfair to put Prince Andrew in your list, with a sex trafficker and two serial child abusers. He may have had an inappropriate relationship with a girl at a party, hold him to account for whatever there is in that it, but it's nowhere near on the scale as the others and it's the kind of hyperbole that dismisses the magnitude of major crimes.

[mandmandam]

> hold him to account

Exactly.

He wasn't held to account for "an inappropriate relationship" (which is a fucked up way to describe multiple statutory rape allegations).

Instead, he was protected; given interviews where he practically hanged himself with ridiculous claims ("I don't sweat", "no recollection" of photographic evidence, etc); and still hasn't been investigated, even after refusing to cooperate with investigations.

And, you're dramatically underplaying his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell, which goes back to 1999 and includes weddings, Royal parties, topless Thai festivities, international visits, etc; even after Epstein's conviction: [0], [1]

It's not hyperbole to put him in this list; not at all. His inclusion illustrates the extent of power getting away with crimes in Britain. He was never arrested - but the protester who heckled him was. That says a lot.

0 - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49411215 details the absolute bare minimum extent of it.

1 - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/07/prince-andre...

[pjc50]

The only reason Prince Andrew met Giuffre in the first place was that she had been "procured" by the Epstein/Maxwell ring!

[CatWChainsaw]

UK law apparently makes it really easy to sue someone into oblivion for anything that even looks like libel. So the party with more money automatically wins, and the prize is an iron wall of silence.