Just read a bit of Livelsberger's last treatise...
This is not a terrorist attack, it's a wakeup call.
Yeah. I think this can be interpreted in the same way as "I don't want to talk to you about religion, I want to talk to you about Jesus."
And assuming that Livelsberger really was the MAGA fanatic he's being portrayed as, his choice of symbolism was poorly executed: destroying a car designed by Elon Musk in order to inflict, at the very least, horror upon patrons of a building named after Donald Trump is begging to be misunderstood.
(Which is not to say he's NOT a MAGA zealot, because he ticks a lotta the boxes, and non-literary types often blunder into incoherence when trying to utilize symbolism.)
So, Musk is now calling for King Charles to dissolve parliament over Starmer's alleged failure to deal with "grooming gangs". Basically, demanding a coup d'etat.
Elon needs to know that he can't always get his own way
Do you agree with Labour who have declined to have a national enquiry on the Grooming gangs issue?
There has already been an enquiry. It was done a couple of years ago but was not really acted on. Some may say that the Con government and the Con press didn’t like the result. Didn’t fit their anti immigration stance.
Do you agree with Labour who have declined to have a national enquiry on the Grooming gangs issue?
Are you aware that there has been a national enquiry?
Why do you think we need to pay for another one?
Because the right wing have latched onto this as a way of attacking Starmer.
Mostly they latch onto it periodically to keep their Islamophobia simmering, but they'll happily try and scald Starmer with it at the same time, and ignore that their beloved de Pfeffel thought investigating child abuse a waste of money.
Do you agree with Labour who have declined to have a national enquiry on the Grooming gangs issue?
Are you aware that there has been a national enquiry?
Why do you think we need to pay for another one?
Because the right wing have latched onto this as a way of attacking Starmer.
Mostly they latch onto it periodically to keep their Islamophobia simmering, but they'll happily try and scald Starmer with it at the same time, and ignore that their beloved de Pfeffel thought investigating child abuse a waste of money.
Describing it as 'spaffing money against the wall'.
So, Musk is now calling for King Charles to dissolve parliament over Starmer's alleged failure to deal with "grooming gangs". Basically, demanding a coup d'etat.
Elon needs to know that he can't always get his own way
Do you agree with Labour who have declined to have a national enquiry on the Grooming gangs issue?
There has already been an enquiry. It was done a couple of years ago but was not really acted on. Some may say that the Con government and the Con press didn’t like the result. Didn’t fit their anti immigration stance.
They're desperate for an inquiry that will blame lefty councils more concerned about keeping Muslims happy than investigating abuse.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse completed a couple of years back did include a report on networks of abusers, though it explicitly excluded the events in Rotherham and Rochdale - because these had already been the subject of earlier independent investigations, and repeating work already done would be a waste of resources and detract from the work of IICSA (which in turn would harm children if that means IICSA fails to have resources to investigate something important that hasn't already been investigated).
Going back to the beginning of this thread, Musk's attitude towards his own daughter doesn't really qualify him to pontificate on the treatment of young people...
It would be wise for Musk to stop interfering in the affairs of countries of which he has a very poor understanfing.
True.
I would open that up. It would be wise for Musk to stop interfering in any politics. He is trying to push the right wing agenda.
His option on immigration could harm farage and the reform party. If Reform do get money off him a good portion of their voter base could be upset.
It would be wise for Musk to stop interfering in the affairs of countries of which he has a very poor understanfing.
True.
I would open that up. It would be wise for Musk to stop interfering in any politics. He is trying to push the right wing agenda.
His option on immigration could harm farage and the reform party. If Reform do get money off him a good portion of their voter base could be upset.
It would be wise for Musk to stop interfering in the affairs of countries of which he has a very poor understanfing.
True.
I would open that up. It would be wise for Musk to stop interfering in any politics. He is trying to push the right wing agenda.
His option on immigration could harm farage and the reform party. If Reform do get money off him a good portion of their voter base could be upset.
So not all bad then?
Apparently, according to the Noos, some of the Reformites are indeed unhappy at the idea of Musk bankrolling their *party*.
Hard to believe what Musk said about Jess Phillips, a " rape genocide apologist", and said she should be in jail. I suppose the best thing to do is preserve a dignified silence. I suppose the far right will issue some nonsense about free speech.
If he wants to see more activity to protect children, maybe he should start closer to home and be calling for a Congressional Inquiry into why so many children are shot in schools and how to keep them safe.
Well, Musk seems keen on Tommy Robinson, who is unavoidably detained at His Majesty's Pleasure right now. And Farage not too keen on him, watch this space.
Are people still allowed to stand for Parliament from prison (remember Bobby Sands, the IRA hunger-striker?), but if elected (obviously) not fulfil their duties?
[tangent]
Actually he probably wouldn't have taken his seat anyway as he didn't recognise the sovereignty of Parliament.
[/tangent]
Are people still allowed to stand for Parliament from prison (remember Bobby Sands, the IRA hunger-striker?), but if elected (obviously) not fulfil their duties?
[tangent]
Actually he probably wouldn't have taken his seat anyway as he didn't recognise the sovereignty of Parliament.
[/tangent]
Someone serving a prison sentence in excess of 1y is disqualified from standing for Parliament. But, if their sentence is served or their sentence was less then a year then they are able to stand.
He is now calling on the US Government to 'liberate' the UK from its 'tyrannical government'. George III lives, evidently, even if he was never, in historical fact, a tyrant. Its the mega millionaire, not the king, who is off his chump.
He is now calling on the US Government to 'liberate' the UK from its 'tyrannical government'. George III lives, evidently, even if he was never, in historical fact, a tyrant. Its the mega millionaire, not the king, who is off his chump.
Indeed he is.
Poor George III was not so much mad (as in insane), but ill - possibly due to porphyria, which was not fully understood during the king's lifetime.
Does Musk have some underlying illness which may explain his erratic and inflammatory utterances?
He is now calling on the US Government to 'liberate' the UK from its 'tyrannical government'. George III lives, evidently, even if he was never, in historical fact, a tyrant. Its the mega millionaire, not the king, who is off his chump.
Indeed he is.
Poor George III was not so much mad (as in insane), but ill - possibly due to porphyria, which was not fully understood during the king's lifetime.
Does Musk have some underlying illness which may explain his erratic and inflammatory utterances?
Some have speculated that habitual use of *ahem* "Special K" may be the culprit.
He is now calling on the US Government to 'liberate' the UK from its 'tyrannical government'. George III lives, evidently, even if he was never, in historical fact, a tyrant. Its the mega millionaire, not the king, who is off his chump.
Indeed he is.
Poor George III was not so much mad (as in insane), but ill - possibly due to porphyria, which was not fully understood during the king's lifetime.
Does Musk have some underlying illness which may explain his erratic and inflammatory utterances?
Some have speculated that habitual use of *ahem* "Special K" may be the culprit.
Ah. I assume you are not referring to a certain nutritious breakfast cereal...
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse completed a couple of years back did include a report on networks of abusers, though it explicitly excluded the events in Rotherham and Rochdale - because these had already been the subject of earlier independent investigations, and repeating work already done would be a waste of resources and detract from the work of IICSA (which in turn would harm children if that means IICSA fails to have resources to investigate something important that hasn't already been investigated).
This is an interesting statement, and seems on the face of it to be foolish. It would not, of course, be cost-effective to just repeat the same work again, look at the same evidence again, and so on: assuming that the first inquiry had done it's job right, you'd draw all the same conclusions. It does, however, strike me that if you have had an inquiry in to specific incidents A and B, and now you're having an inquiry in to general class of incidents X, of which A and B are members, then you would want to incorporate the results of the A and B inquiries in to your analysis so as to be able to draw the most general conclusions about class X.
There are two sets of questions here. The first is the specific set of questions associated with any individual incident - were there failings in this specific incident that made the response sub-par, were there holes in the processes in this specific incident that allowed vulnerable people to slip through the cracks, and so on. The second is a general set of questions about all incidents of class X: are there patterns of failures nationwide, are there general weaknesses in systems, is there new legislation required to address gaps and so on. Surely to answer this second set of questions, you would want to include the conclusions of all relevant prior work in your analysis?
As I understand it Rochdale and Rotherham were excluded from the original Inquiry because there were still ongoing legal cases. And the brief of the Inquiry did not include anything to do with inaction perhaps being linked to local politics, specifically to the Labour Party, because those were especially prevalent in the two areas where there were still untried cases pending.
As for Musk, the man is a wart. That Trump is mad enough to want to have him in a government post beggars belief, and some credit should be given to Mr Farage that he isn't so stupid.
I admit I haven't read the IICSA reports (there were quite a few of them), not even just the executive summaries. But, the decision not to take further evidence on events which had already been subject to prior independent enquiries was clearly stated in the executive summary of the report on organisations when I skimmed that. Which isn't the same as not considering the conclusions and recommendations of those earlier reports - I didn't notice an explicit statement to the effect that those reports had been considered, but I skimmed several pages of an executive summary in a couple of minutes looking for support for my recollection that IICSA didn't take new evidence on these because they considered the previous enquiries to have done that job for them.
Of course, in addition to the time and expense for the investigation panel not putting the victims through the process of giving evidence a second time is a very good reason to not hold another enquiry.
He is now calling on the US Government to 'liberate' the UK from its 'tyrannical government'.
Is he advocating detachments of US Marines storming the Palace of Westminster, Whitehall and Downing Street to enforce a regime change in the UK?
It would make an interesting film...
Seriously, though, it worries me that so much attention is paid to Musk in the Meeja. He's dangerous enough, without giving him so much free publicity.
BTW, I see that the King of Denmark has changed the country's royal arms, to reflect his desire to keep Greenland and the Faroe Islands within the Danish commonwealth. AIUI, Greenland would like to be independent, so they're not entirely happy, but one feels that they're better off remaining Danish for the time being, and out of the greedy grasp of Trump and Musk.
Comments
Yeah. I think this can be interpreted in the same way as "I don't want to talk to you about religion, I want to talk to you about Jesus."
And assuming that Livelsberger really was the MAGA fanatic he's being portrayed as, his choice of symbolism was poorly executed: destroying a car designed by Elon Musk in order to inflict, at the very least, horror upon patrons of a building named after Donald Trump is begging to be misunderstood.
(Which is not to say he's NOT a MAGA zealot, because he ticks a lotta the boxes, and non-literary types often blunder into incoherence when trying to utilize symbolism.)
Why do you think we need to pay for another one?
Because the right wing have latched onto this as a way of attacking Starmer.
There has already been an enquiry. It was done a couple of years ago but was not really acted on. Some may say that the Con government and the Con press didn’t like the result. Didn’t fit their anti immigration stance.
Mostly they latch onto it periodically to keep their Islamophobia simmering, but they'll happily try and scald Starmer with it at the same time, and ignore that their beloved de Pfeffel thought investigating child abuse a waste of money.
Describing it as 'spaffing money against the wall'.
They're desperate for an inquiry that will blame lefty councils more concerned about keeping Muslims happy than investigating abuse.
There has not been one specifically on this subject. Apart from some of those directly responsible nobody has been bought to book for their inaction.
However, if nobody else think that the serious abuse of young girls is important, I will shut up.
Doublethink, Admin
You will start such discussions, worded appropriately, in Ephiphanies or not at all.
-- chrisstiles, Hell Host
True.
I would open that up. It would be wise for Musk to stop interfering in any politics. He is trying to push the right wing agenda.
His option on immigration could harm farage and the reform party. If Reform do get money off him a good portion of their voter base could be upset.
So not all bad then?
Apparently, according to the Noos, some of the Reformites are indeed unhappy at the idea of Musk bankrolling their *party*.
Musk just tweeted that Farage doesn't have what it takes and Reform needs a new leader.
🤣
I wonder who could possibly replace the unlovable Farage? The mind boggles at the thought of how awful that person would have to be...
Theme song
Are people still allowed to stand for Parliament from prison (remember Bobby Sands, the IRA hunger-striker?), but if elected (obviously) not fulfil their duties?
[tangent]
Actually he probably wouldn't have taken his seat anyway as he didn't recognise the sovereignty of Parliament.
[/tangent]
Indeed.
Here's a piece from today's Guardian, summarising Musk's Mischief-Making in Germany, but also touching on his efforts to influence US and UK politics:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/05/dont-feed-the-troll-german-chancellor-responds-to-elon-musk-comments
Given the amount of shit both talk that's distinction without a difference territory.
Not everything one has a legal right to do is wise.
Indeed he is.
Poor George III was not so much mad (as in insane), but ill - possibly due to porphyria, which was not fully understood during the king's lifetime.
Does Musk have some underlying illness which may explain his erratic and inflammatory utterances?
No doubt...
Some have speculated that habitual use of *ahem* "Special K" may be the culprit.
Ah. I assume you are not referring to a certain nutritious breakfast cereal...
This is an interesting statement, and seems on the face of it to be foolish. It would not, of course, be cost-effective to just repeat the same work again, look at the same evidence again, and so on: assuming that the first inquiry had done it's job right, you'd draw all the same conclusions. It does, however, strike me that if you have had an inquiry in to specific incidents A and B, and now you're having an inquiry in to general class of incidents X, of which A and B are members, then you would want to incorporate the results of the A and B inquiries in to your analysis so as to be able to draw the most general conclusions about class X.
There are two sets of questions here. The first is the specific set of questions associated with any individual incident - were there failings in this specific incident that made the response sub-par, were there holes in the processes in this specific incident that allowed vulnerable people to slip through the cracks, and so on. The second is a general set of questions about all incidents of class X: are there patterns of failures nationwide, are there general weaknesses in systems, is there new legislation required to address gaps and so on. Surely to answer this second set of questions, you would want to include the conclusions of all relevant prior work in your analysis?
As for Musk, the man is a wart. That Trump is mad enough to want to have him in a government post beggars belief, and some credit should be given to Mr Farage that he isn't so stupid.
Of course, in addition to the time and expense for the investigation panel not putting the victims through the process of giving evidence a second time is a very good reason to not hold another enquiry.
It would make an interesting film...
Seriously, though, it worries me that so much attention is paid to Musk in the Meeja. He's dangerous enough, without giving him so much free publicity.
BTW, I see that the King of Denmark has changed the country's royal arms, to reflect his desire to keep Greenland and the Faroe Islands within the Danish commonwealth. AIUI, Greenland would like to be independent, so they're not entirely happy, but one feels that they're better off remaining Danish for the time being, and out of the greedy grasp of Trump and Musk.