"David Lammy under pressure as two more prisoners mistakenly freed"
I'm somewhat puzzled about the way this is being reported, allowing serial conman Nigel Farage to make out this is just about criminal asylum seekers being released by accident.
1/🧵 theguardian.com/society/2025/n…
As this report makes clear, hundreds of prisoners, are accidentally released.
I remember many such cases being reported over the years, often involving mixing people up with similar names. I'm not exactly sure how many times it happens, or the causes of it, only that it has been happening for a long time.
4/
However, what is important, is that it didn't just start with 2 criminal asylum seekers. Therefore, for the media and opportunist, far right politicians, to make this about asylum seekers, is grossly dishonest, as most accidental releases aren't asylum seekers, or recent.
5/
Of grave concern is this cherry-picking logical fallacy, is being used by the right wing media, for dog whistle racism, where they over-report crimes committed by non-white offenders, to give the false impression, that most crimes are committed by non-whites.
6/
Again, and again, statistics prove that the majority of offenders are white, which is not surprising in a country with a white majority. It is just that the right wing media make a bigger fuss, about offences, committed by non-whites, to reinforce false stereotypes.
7/
The problem is much deeper. The national press, can only report a tiny proportion of criminal cases, even serious ones. Therefore, it is very easy for the media to mislead the public, by selectively cherry-picking certain types of cases, to promote political agendas.
8/
This has been going on for a very long time, on so many different levels. It is not always clear what the agenda is, but there is clear selectivity in the type of cases reported, which is often strongly correlated with right wing political agendas/campaigns.
9/
It is impossible to prove anything, in specific cases, because of the way, what cases are reported by the media, and which are not, is very arbitrary, and highly selective. So it is possible to pretend it is just coincidence.
10/
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Once again @grok is spread disinformation and smears, by falsely labelling people who are moderately left wing, as far left. I am just going to give a brief history lesson, to this artificial unintelligence. Of how the left actually is, not how the extreme right, typifies it. 1/
Firstly, I am not ideological, and I regard all ideology of any direction of ideology, as misconstrued i.e. this is not defensiveness on my part.
The left represents a very broad spectrum of political viewpoints.
2/
What are properly typified as far left, and I say this in a very neutral way, are revolutionary Marxists, communists etc. They don't believe in Western democracy, and believe that the system needs to be overthrown by revolution. Most are quite open and honest about this.
3/
The issue of economic growth is far more complex, than being for or against it. It is a vague ill-defined concept, which is not properly understood, by those who advocate it.
1/🧵
Advocates of the pursuit of economic growth, as if it's more important than everything else, usually have a very poor, to non-existent grasp, of how economic growth is achieved, and that our economy is entirely reliant on the natural systems, it is systematically destroying.
2/
Economic growth, is maintained by systematically destroying the natural systems, that maintain both the human economy, and humanity in general. You can't have infinite growth in a finite system, and it be sustained.
3/
With the increase in the use of AI, EVs etc, it is clear that the increase in renewables is only going to cover the increase in energy use, not to replace fossil fuels.
As I and many other have pointed out, only a pro-active attempt to phase our fossil fuels, will work.
2/
Yet governments refuse to consider this, because they are focused on trying to increase economic growth, to the exclusion of everything else, including a habitable Earth. They just don't care.
3/
What I was trying to do with this thread, is to illustrate, how all those who deny the existential threat to our civilization, from the climate and ecological crisis, are in some form of ideologically motivated denial.
1/🧵
As I point out, ALL, not some, who attack environmentalists and climate activists as alarmists, because there is no scientific evidence, for the threat to our civilization by the climate crisis, are being intellectually dishonest.
2/
There's no scientific evidence, for the very obvious reason, that there has never been any scientific study of the risk of civilian collapse, being induced by climate and ecological impacts. If critics of this were honest, they would acknowledge this.
I want to write a few threads about civilization collapse, and the danger of it, because so few to any understand it. Although it will probably be a waste of time, because I seemed to be having my threads hidden. But I just want to get it down.
1/🧵
I'm not a doom-monger, saying civilization is going to happen come what may. All my commenting is to stop that happening, because it is entirely possible to avoid this, if, and only if we massively change our system, and start cooperating, and stop competing.
2/
It's like this, there are many patterns of life, bad habits, ignoring illness, which will lead to your death, if you carry on as you are, and ignore the consequences of this. Our societies are ignoring existential threats to our civilization, as if they don't exist.
3/