Bit tired of "ooh bad journalists didn't cover the Post Office scandal". It's been covered for years: there have been two Panoramas, coverage of the court cases going back years, Radio 4 has done a series, Private Eye has been all over it, Computer Weekly has been on it for years
There's an excellent, deeply researched and detailed book by @nickwallis and the newspapers have been covering it off and on for years, and the police investigation has been running since 2020. I'm glad the TV drama has brought it to wider knowledgeable
@nickwallis knowledge, even (autocorrect 🙄), and I hope justice is now sped up. It's not fair to say "it hasn't been covered". It has. You just weren't paying attention. Here's @nickwallis book, btw, which is well worth your time amazon.co.uk/Great-Post-Off…
"Investigators say there is a clear link between illegal streaming services and fraud, scams and organised crime." Citation very fucking needed here, thank you.
"The crackdown comes with the support of major organisations like the Premier League and broadcasters such as Sky, BT Sport and Amazon." Erm, since when were the cops the copyright enforcement arm of the streaming services?
Spent all evening trying to work out why my laptop was suddenly locking really quickly and ignoring my power settings. Turns out it has a presence-sensing function that I couldn't access until I downloaded the consumer version of Lenovo Vantage
- mine has the commercial version.
For some reason the presence sensing had turned itself on after a reboot. It has *never* done this in the couple of years I've had this laptop. Never knew the lappy had this function. Found it by digging through forums.
The moral of this story is: whatever weird issue your laptop is throwing up, someone has had the problem before, solved it and posted the answer in a forum.
I really really wish broadcasting coverage of this fucking awful bill didn't rely so heavily on kneejerk reactions from pressure groups. There's no context to this at all; no discussion about why "legal but harmful" is such a hopeless and problematic concept.
We don't even really know what "harmful" means. Something that hurts someone's feelings? Whose feelings? A six-year-old? A 16-year-old? A 60-year old? Something that sends them down a disinformation rabbit hole? But who defines "misinformation"?
We don't have a taxonomy of harm, which means it's impossible to define what's "harmful". Anyway, fucking awful bill. And it would help if coverage spoke to policy people, not endless sodding pressure groups.