Unbelieveble treachery needs countering.

It's been a long time since I posted on a blog, but what I am seeing in our country is deeply disturbing.

This latest shitshow concerning X and the threat of Starmer's crew having it banned is mind boggling.

The mainstream media are broadcasting a biased spin seemingly in favor. It is reported (announced by No 10) that Starmer has been in discussion with Australia and Canada to garner strength to ban X in those countries.

Apparently, this is for our own good. We're being exposed to sexualised images and child porn (so the narrative goes) and it must be stopped.

There is an AI engine (for want of a better description) where users can create AI generated images. Here's one I did the other day.

There are safeguards in place to prevent abuse, just like on the X text platform (and others), to prevent misuse. The bots and algorithms used do sometimes, make mistakes. For example, the word faggots, relating (in the UK at least) to meatballs made from offal. However in other countries, the word is used as a derogatory term for homosexuals. Also, relates to a bundle of wood kindling.

I've been on X and it's predecessor for quite few years and I've fallen foul of the nanny bots more then once, receiving a suspension of my account for anything from 24 hours to 7 days

One time, a sentence containing the words "hang your heads" was mistonstrued as hate speech and I received a ban. Had I included "in shame", I reckon this would not have happened.

Of course, all platforms are open to misuse from those with misuse on their minds.

That brings me to my first point. Why is the Labour government gunning just for X? There are many AI engines that produce images on request. From my experience, I find them to be rather prudish. One time I uploaded a shirtless image of myself with some instuction or other and the engine complied by adding clothes to the finished picture. Others have indicated my image was not complant with their family friendly rules. There is therefore, something in place to prevent misuse, but it can in some instances be overcome.

X is as most people know, owned by Elon Musk a very rich and powerful man who is pals with another rich and powerful man, Donald J Trump. Both have voiced disapproval at some of the behavior of the Labour government.

X has 20 million users in the UK who work well within the platform's rules. though I suspect to Mr. Starmer's chagrin, does not exclude criticism of governments, politicians and their acts.

I am firmly of the belief, that the proposed plans to ban X on the premise of protecting women and children, is a paper thin disguise, to remove a platform that allows people to speak out, uncover subterfuge and quite often talk utter bollocks.

It's this speaking to each other on a (almost) open forum, that appears to have got right up Starmer's duck run.

I've seen a similar thing 45 years ago. I was a much younger and more energetic chap who was part of the lobby group to bring about the legalisation of Citizens Band in the UK.

I will say before continuing, had I spent as much time trying to earn a living as I donated to a cause which I am embarrassed to talk about, I'd be quite well off now. CB became nothing more than a child's toy and a fad that faded like Tamagotchi and pet rocks.

At the outset of our campaign in 79 or 80, the Home Office who regulate raidio use in the UK, stated categorically there was no available bandwidth for a new service in any way, shape or form.

Our job was to dispel that claim. Prince Phillip was on board somewhat, he wanted a radio telephone in one of the royal cars and was told similar. The Royal Navy stepped in and gave him a communication device working on their allocated bandwidth.

The Royal Air Force paid the cause attention and relinquished 220 MHz a frequency last used in WWII by Lancaster bombers. It was unsuitable for short range personal communication, but the point was made that the Home Office speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government was talking piffle.

Our lobbying continued, I went on the radio a few times, even met the Home Secretary of the time which involved my being vetted to make sure I wasn't one of those "radical submersives" out to get at him.

I recall at the time an MP standing up in the house of commons (and I am paraphrasing), We have to sonsider the implications of a vast army of people who can talk to each other. His name I don't recall, it was 45 year ago, but his remarks will be recorded in Hansard. We responded sarcastically, raising his awareness to the existence of telephones and Royal Mail which also allows a vast army to communicate.

I'm not an activist, especially at my age and poor state of health. I am no fan of Starmer or his government and neither am I of the Tories or any other crew until I see action where people voted into a position of power, use that power for the good of the people and country as a whole.

The modern form of dissent on social media seems to be to post memes to poke the bear so to speak. From a lobbying point of view this actually does nothing to forward a cause or a counter to one. Rub people up the wrong way and they dig in even further.

You can employ intelligent tactics. I'll stay on the subject of the proposed X ban, because it is too easy to veer off citing other things wrong with the government, the country etc.

MPs are elected to represent the people. Carry a voice to parliament. If you watch PMQs on a Wednesday, you'll be forgiven for believing this is not the case.

Also, even the brightest MP is not an expert in all the subjects they are exposed to and are often called to vote on in the House of Commons. This is why early this moning, I used an online tool to identify my local MP who happens to be Labour.

I e mailed her. Objectively and politely many of the points contained in thie blog post. I mentioned the point of my message was to possibly educate her on some of the technicalities that the media and possibly her advisors fail to provide, so she too can form an objective opinion before acting upon something.

I also took the trouble to inform her that I was not a fan of Labour, a former party member who will never vote Labour again. It is easy to register disapproval and take op a contradcting stance without personally attacking an MP or their party. As the old sayiing does, you can go further with a few kind words...

Even though I have never been employed as a journalist, I have written content for magazines and newwspapers back in the days when you used a telephone and a library to verify the points you want to put over.

Unfortunately these days, people tend to adopt the behaviour used by turtles, snapping at anything that crosses their field of vision. Gobbing off an uneducated point of view.

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and everyone thinks the other guy's stinks. So when countering behaviour such as the subject of this post, stick to the facts.

For example, the X debacle has caused outrage everywhere and now threatens its existence in the UK. The government stance is to protect women and children.

Begs the question as to what is being done to protect them where the organised grooming gangs are concerned?

Peadophiles... I was alerted to this website https://labour25.com which makes for interesting reading and of course further verification. I have read that Labour are trying to shut this site down.

If the stories are true and facts established, then why?

Hopefully, this post might help people clarify their trains of thought before offering an opinion based on poor input from a biased media.

Maybe, it will be a call to action. I've got better things to do than engage with politicians, but I see this country going bad ways and the possibility of losing X is not my only worry.

Whether I regularly post on the subject depends on the engagement. I am happy to advise on how people might best engage with local politicians and media.