Comments by "robs2020" (@sbor2020) on "GBNews"
channel.
-
3
-
@Solus94 It’s more complex than just blaming one leader or party. This also ignores the context of recent events like the Southport tragedy, where people were imprisoned not for “hurty words” but for inciting violence, including calls for deaths, after far-right groups spread false claims about the crime. This misinformation led to riots, with courts sentencing dozens for their roles in the unrest. The Labour government plans to strengthen online hate laws to combat such incitement. Protecting public safety from extremist exploitation isn’t authoritarian – it’s necessary.
Although I am no fan of Starmer, yet your comment that he is protecting grapist , is ridiculous. During his time as DPP, Starmer oversaw significant changes in the handling of CSE cases. Under his leadership, the CPS introduced reforms that prioritised the prosecution of perpetrators and improved the support for victims, particularly in high-profile cases like Rochdale and Rotherham. Starmer also acknowledged systemic failures in how authorities had previously handled such cases and pushed for more robust approaches to ensure justice for victims. The claim that Starmer’s priority was to protect criminals is factually incorrect. His record as DPP shows he focused on addressing institutional shortcomings and holding offenders accountable, helping to bring many to justice.
The government can't keep ordering new inquiries without acting on the recommendations from previous ones. Another inquiry could take years, and by then, a new government could come in and fail to act on that one too. It's not about more reports, it's about the political will to implement the changes already identified. The real issue is accountability – why hadn't the previous Tory government taken action on the findings from the last inquiry to protect children? The focus should be on immediate, tangible change rather than more delay.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ChristineRead-ck1uq Firstly, is this a case against climate change? First you were basically saying that climate change is nonsense, now you are saying that climate change is real and that trees can off-set the effects. Yes indeed, trees are amazing, but as I said, there was 36 billion tonnes of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere last year, so that would mean 1.44 trillion mature trees just to absorb last year’s emissions. And indeed the forests are in areas of the world in countries with the highest carbon emissions. However, deforestation is also a massive problem: leading to flooding, soil erosion, contributing to further natural disasters. The guest, Christina Anderson of the AfD last year voted against Deforestation Regulation in the European Parliament. Parties like Reform UK are funded by fossil fuel investors, and deforestation is not a priority when they seek to profit from the lifting environmental protection.
With profit being the motive for deforestation, it becomes relentless. In the Amazon, 17% has already been deforested. This tipping point for climate change is 25%. Also Kent is called the “garden of England” but the River Medway has high levels of water pollution caused by untreated sewage and agriculture waste, but Southern Water is a private company and profit is the imperative.
My point would be that trees alone cannot prevent global climate change, especially when trees are seen as a raw material to extract profit . I live near on the edge of a forest, and I see the beautiful living things, whereas a capitalist operating the profit system sees forests are a source of wealth. I can see what Marx called “use value”, the capitalist sees only “exchange value”. What drives the destruction of the environment, and the lifting of environmental protections is the quest for profit in a capitalist system. Those who profit from this will also promote misinformation in order to protect their financial interests. You only have to observe GB News platforming climate science denial and attacks on net zero. This is the result of funding from fossil fuel investor, billionaire Jeremy Hosking, and having an owner – Sir Paul Marshall – that also has $2.2 billion investment in fossil fuels.
Look for more objective perspectives on the global environment rather than from those who benefit from disaster capitalism.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bwilliams572 It’s true that farmers across Europe and globally face challenges, but these issues often stem from different causes depending on the region. Protests in France, the Netherlands, and other EU countries have largely been about strict environmental regulations, land use changes, and climate policies, not the loss of market access or subsidies like in the UK after Brexit. As for Bill Gates owning farmland, it raises concerns about corporate influence, but that’s a separate issue tied to investment trends and land ownership – not directly related to trade, labour shortages, or rising input costs affecting UK farmers.
The point isn’t to ignore global farming challenges but to recognise that Brexit introduced specific, avoidable problems for British farmers. These are systemic and structural, linked to policy decisions that left them at a disadvantage compared to their EU counterparts. It’s not about being "on an EU soapbox"; it’s about addressing the realities UK farmers now face while understanding the broader global context. Critical thinking involves examining all factors at play, including how Brexit uniquely impacted the UK’s agricultural sector.
2