🎯

Spot on. 👍

@@rightherethereeverywhere I do find it a bit odd that two men are discussing this without two women to debate........

I have an idea- "an adult human female" or a "female human adult" or "a human female adult". Perhaps the political class can pick one of those. It can't be too hard.

A woman has female body parts that are not created by drugs. Period. Women and men are not "the same." We are different but equal and all need rights and respect. Yes, complementary to each other! Thank you David!

David Morrison Good for you. As a woman who is both physically fit and able (a horsey gal) to carry, open doors, stand, etc. I think it is positively lovely to have a GENTLEMAN offer to assist with heavy packages, open doors or offer up their seat. It makes me as a woman feel special, not inadequate as that quality is within the individual's mindset.

The Women's Lib movement addressed many real inequalities in the name of fairness, no problem. The thing is, like Diversity & Inclusion, they'd have to give up their jobs if they couldn't find something wrong.

Well that's lovely but it's just the icing on the cake. The cake would be men not murdering their wives and girlfriends at the rate of 2-3 a week in the UK. The cake would be if the number one past time of men wasn't wanking to images of women and children being abused. Yes yes I know... not all men... but statistically it is most who view violent porn nowadays. And they wonder why we don't trust them! Imagine if it was the other way around.

You stand when a woman enters the room, but not when a man enters the room? You show excessive respect to women..ha why?? Instead of doing what your parents told you do; maybe think for yourself Considering man created this entire world that women enjoy; maybe they should stand for us

@@Michael020 Good manners. The weaker sex. They like it.

Years ago I was walking to a meeting with some male work colleagues and they let a door fall back into my face. I asked why and they explained that theybare scared to be polite to women because they get verbally attacked.

​@gillianredfearn8367 would they slam a door in a man's face. I doubt it

@@gillianredfearn8367 I have always practiced the "good manners" towards ladies and lesser abled people as I was taught, and to date have never had a negative response, but if I did, it would not change my attitude towards the majority of polite, normal people. I might possibly get a "free pass" to some degree due to the grey hair these days, which would not be the case in younger men.

As a woman, I hold a door open for anyone. It's only manners. Why is this being confused with women who don't have any.

​@@susanbishop5228 perhaps not. Mind you if all my mannered behaviour was thrown back in my face time after time I would do the same. Luckily my husband opens doors for anyone, & I thank him every time he does it for me. I don't take manners for granted in this modern world.

Who hates masculinity? Just because you are insecure does not mean that anyone hates you.

Who are you writing about?

@@Rose-jz6ix fools, who hate men and search for the negatives only, the blame culture, group think, when they should be seeing the individuals, not focussing on the worst examples they can find to push a point

@@simonclare100 blaming women or over the last bit of feminism & today's wokeness. If the latter I agree. I am no one's slave & no one is mine. Hubby & I are a partnership even though saying that grates on many people. We married young & grew up together. This I wouldn't advise better to be in the middle twenties.

@@Rose-jz6ix we agree, judging groups is at the heart of this, lazy thinking does real harm. Good partners compliment each other,care for each other, support each other, help each other grow, there need be no conflict. There will always be bad selfish people of both sexes, this is where the problem really lays

My son totally agrees with you. He gives feminist a wide birth. You just don't need feminist in Family Life.

@@anglosaxonbreed amen to that 🙏 ❤️ ✝️ 👍 xx

Blokes in dresses that rip their dicks off trying to say other men are toxic is just the epitome of mental illness at this point.

Keir Starmer is your only man. He will unequivocally define what a woman is in no uncertain terms.

Exactly. Each colour in the rainbow is distinct and unique. There are degrees of difference within human society.

It's sick is what it is

Can I watch ?

Amen to that.

Reprobates are far beyond realising that fact , hence being " Given over to a reprobate mind " , Romans one .

What's worse is if you disagree with it then you are labelled a hateful bigot.

Agree with everything you said, wholeheartedly! It will never end until we start to protect and defend our culture, religion and heritage.

100%. I'm so tired of media (and some people) telling us we should be "tolerant" of these beliefs otherwise we're racist. Why should I be tolerant of anyone who's genuinely asserting that I'm less of a human being than they are? I have no reason to tolerate that.

Can you imagine the uproar had she pulled away from his offer of a handshake,

Muslim groomer gangs

"faux paux"?? What is a "paux"? (* faux pas) Also, I would point out that even in our own Western society, men did not usually shake hands with women as recently as the pre-War period. Handshaking is a fundamentally masculine greeting. I can quite understand the muslim man's reluctance to do so, but this should have been foreseen (by both parties) beforehand, and the princess of Wales should not have offered to shake hands with him, but should have given a curt bow (a nod of the head), as indeed, the muslim man did.

what equal rights do women have?

That should read 'Just because women are different to men doesn't mean that they SHOULDN'T have equal rights'. Unfortunately those rights are being eroded by larpers and their supporters.

What amazes me is that we have the luxury to debate and invent all these lavish boutique rights and privileges. Meanwhile women are actively in danger in other countries. No one says or does anything. Their only answer is just to invite it all here.

My wife is something of a campaigner for these issues, so I agree with the need for women to have their own spaces and voices, and the danger of men who claim they are women.

Allowing women prison officers in men's prisons is possibly the stupidest idea ever.

That's usually the case when you have more men vs women in a building together.

at the top of the social hierarchy it is patriarchal, anyone below should be divided.. they disempower the men whilst empowering the women which makes the women think that most men are not good enough and think the men are trying to strip their rights if they try to assert themselves. men think differently to women because they have the ability to bring about real change and this mechanism is designed to keep us all down. A lot of these feminist types get into witchcraft too and this leads them to see evil and the demonic as more powerful and dominant than the man and a force that will look after and provide for them so men get disregarded and pushed aside.

So why don't women demand equality in areas where it dies not benefit them e.g. homelessness - men are 75% of the homeless mneless but women are 75% of those in social housing.

​@Jonah TWhale what a dumb question.. did you just pull that out of your arse...

@jonahtwhale1779 women demand no one is homeless .

Are women going to pay for it? Currently men pay 70% of taxes. Women do not even pay for themselves or their lifestyle! There are no rights, only trade offs. What are you willing to pay, from your resources, to achieve your aim? No the problem is that women are seldom prepared to pay the costs but happy for men to be forced to do so. Some examples - women wanted political power via the vote but forced men(only) to be conscripted to defend the political system. Women players in Wimbledon wanted equal prize money with the men. Not so keen on doing equal work for that money of course. The women still play matches of only 3 sets, the men have to best of 5 sets. The men do 140% of the work ( or more) of the women but get the same money! Or Maternity leave - women wanted equality in the workforce. Men have never had parental leave or flexible working. Were the women happy to accept that equality? Of course not, that is not a good option for women, they need both those benefits but men have to pick up most of the costs in lower pay.

So how do you propose women tell the difference prior to being assaulted or otherwise degraded? Maybe the nice ones could have smiley face badges?

@@LH-kr4od Ahh i see, so you would agree that when a woman kills her child, then ALL women must be potential child killers..right? Smiley face badge? Please don't be so stupid eh...

Who says men aren't entitled to masculine traits? I think all feminists want (any woman, actually) is that they're not raped, bashed, or subject to sexist behavior. And not expected to do all the housework.

I totally agree with you, Benny.

No all men, but you have a small point.

Quite happy for thousands of yours you say🤔. Does that include woman having to marry or be left destitute, or when woman became widows and marry again the money and property of said woman goes to the man or men were allowed to beat their wives and even most recently that rape wasn't a crime till 1987

It's not about happiness but other than that I think you're right. Life was simple but we've replaced so much with technology and it's made us lazy and completely out of touch with our nature. Evolution can't keep up with the pace of modern life and working a mundane job for money to buy things doesn't bring the same fulfillment that hunting food or building your own home does. We got too big for our boots and social media seems to be the final nail in the coffin, everyone's depressed or worse

Who lived happily? The abused women, not allowed any right to household finances, to protect their bodies or children certainly didn't feel so.

@@RandomRyan1911 People have been made consumerists especially the younger generations

@@OtiAdventureToller the men lived happily.

Women suit lots of different roles, but human biology dictates that 'mother' is one of them, and a hugely important one at that.

@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559 Motherhood is certainly an extremely important role but if a woman chooses not to be a mother that is her right and it does not make her any less a woman.

nope

Sorry for your loss.

'Partners' sounds like a business arrangement. That word makes me shudder when my husband and I are referred to as 'partners'.

Feminism is of the devil as the world tells you now .

Women have NEVER had it so good here in the west, women in other countries can't believe how women here are so toxic about every TINY detail xx

@@shevy7197 Because they're feminists / borderline reprobates .

@@shevy7197 I'm speaking for women around the world, apologies if I didn't make that clear

@@ellie698 it wasn't clear ? X

These days, probably the majority of non-working mothers who stay home all day every day are single ones in receipt of benefits. Generally speaking, do they educate their children so they are most often top of their classes? Do they cook them healthy home cooked meals and teach them to be responsible so they are the least likely to commit criminal offences?

​@@amandamorton-king2112 i pay.900 in child care a month

Jesus!

@@sutty85 ...and if you're not living with your children and your partner is, what is the problem?

@@sutty85 I'm really very sorry to hear that; what a strain for you. The only consolation I can offer is that a very comprehensive psychology report has recently shown one of the most significant indicators of a child being successful in later life is having a working mother! Certainly my 4 children are all professionals (surgeon, pilot, etc) and I worked from their being 6 weeks old so it worked for me.

seems so

@@dragonfox2.058 So far. Few seem to know what feminism actually is, including David Starkey. It's not about claiming that women and men are the same, or that one gender should have more rights than the other. Or that being of a particular gender is inherently bad (toxic masculinity refers to learned behaviors that are destructive to both men and women).

@@seaofghosts the suffragettes and the 2ndwave were the ones to watch since then women decided to include men and it all went south. Men twisted it all up like they usually do

@@dragonfox2.058 I think many people twisted it (or added to it) to suit an agenda or a particular ideology. And then add defensiveness (from men) or displaced sympathy or internalized misogyny (from women) to the mix. There was anger there too. But you also see it in other minority groups who, while nominally having equal rights, still face discrimination. ie racism. I do wish all this wasn't conflated with what feminism is really about. What makes me sad is when I see young women (who enjoy all the benefits of the feminist movement without having gone through the struggle themselves) declare themselves not to be feminists but humanists, ignorant to the fact that you can't be a humanist without also being a feminist.

@@seaofghosts I think all the minority rights movements have been hijacked including the gay. It seems that whoever is behind all this has their aim of removing EVERYONE'S rights and all middle class prosperity. One thing I've noticed is that laws don't make people good. NO matter what they do, human nature stays pretty much the same. Interesting times at least whut?

Exactly what I have said for some time now. They have tripped over their tongues and created even more issues.... Much like that old Knight chasing windmills believing that it was dragons....

no...we didn't that was you (limited as usual) understanding...men are simple creatures, just smart enough to be dangerous to all life on Earth

@@dragonfox2.058 A very misandrist statement. Funny how men built the world around you. Yes feminist created the problem now they can fix it.

You can't keep using women's rights and don't want say what a woman is and instead praise a man in a dress.🙃

years ago women got paid less for doing exactly the same job as a man and in some jobs they had to resign when they got married. Things are now going too far the other way.

The right to declare himself a woman, even if they are a rapist, then demand to be put in a women's prison giving him a smorgasbord of victims.

@@lynnebarnes3840 Women also have that right though 🤣

​​@@charlieweaver6322 wrong, girls who want to be men, can't demand to go into prisons with weaker victims. Are you being stupid on purpose ?

​@@gillianredfearn8367men are stronger so in the past it made sense for different pay

Men are physically stronger and better with objects. Women are better at caring and non strenuous-physical work. Like barrister or cleaner, driver.

Lucy.. equality not quota is a good start. I don’t think you could find a man on earth that could tolerate child birth, so women tend to underrate their capability of hard labour. There is no real reason a woman can’t be a construction worker, car mechanic, ships engineer, drain-layer. Pre Industrial Revolution both sexes did the hard graft on the farm unless they were in late gestation, injured, or too old. Then they had other closer to home tasks. Nail polish and high heels changed that balance.

@@barefootonasandybeach638 I'm talking about heavy lifting. Not pain tolerance. Men can lift much. heavier weights. And they do generally prefer objects to people. Where as we prefer people to objects. I can tell you are a woman by what you've wrote.

Lucy… take some time to look at some old artwork. You will see men and women sharing the load during harvest, sharing the load in factories. Rita the Riveter would be horrified at todays attempts for what we now call equality. If we were to discard the myths about gender capability then we could, perhaps, move along together.

Harry.. not so.

Well we do have laws and a police system that try to let you do that but sadly criminals ignore the laws. And let's not forget that men are the victims of violence to a greater degree than women so statistically women are safer than men.

I would like to do that too.

Men are more likely to be attacked walking down the street, so I want the same.

@@trevorcook3129 would you like to have obscene things shouted at you by passing vans? Sometimes things are thrown at us as well. Men who get attacked in the street are being attached by fellow men, women don't get attacked by other women. The common denominator is men.

@@atomicsnowflake so by your logic because some predators are male, as am I, that my safety is of less importance? Last time I was attacked on the streets was by a female. Drunk. I’m not allowed to fight back as that’s assault against women. Double standard

If those 'mainly occupied by women' are so badly paid then why don't women simply use their freedom of choice to do different jobs. Nobody is forcing women to choose the jobs they choose.

@@edenbreckhouse Can you answer the actual query though...why are fairly pointless jobs occupied mainly by men renumerated better than vital jobs done mainly by women? (For clarity I am not referring to the many vital jobs done by mainly men for which I have absolute respect and appreciation....and which society all too often are poorly paid compared to value to society as well. e.g refuse collection and sewer maintenance for which we should all be extremely appreciative as public health absolutely depends on these services).

VERY big shoes to fill but I have to agree.

This is a conversation between two men about womens rights with no women actually participating in it!!! 😫😫 please.

wtf was going on 😭💀

Who's Joave?

Yes how dare men speak about women (they are actually talking about men and women).

Of course men know everything. !!! Women are not worthy of inclusion. A pair of sanctimonious morons.

@@susanbishop5228 why do so many females have such a chip on their shoulders? It's sooooo tiresome lol

David Starkey is a very clever man and knows what he's talking about honey 👍

@@cornishjollyboy4524 demanding equality of opportunity is reasonable. I'm sure you agree.

no. It's because we're smarter and work harder always have with no recognition

Oh no how awful. You work alongside women Dont be afraid.

@@dragonfox2.058 statistically that's not the case but don't let reality interfere with your gender war.

@@susanbishop5228 given how a man can easily be #MeToo'd I'd be wary of working alongside women.

@@edenbreckhouse won't be a problem if you dont' act like a🍆

I appreciated the diversity. Why shouldn’t men talk about women considering men love women, including Starkey. Would women have added anything to this? The women who are complaining in this thread are coming out with wanting to be equal but better rather than equal. That’s not the equality I want to hear about. A lot of women want to be equal but have extra rights on top. The only structural inequality we have in the uk is for women who are able and do have children to take time off work on full pay for 6 months and half pay for months as many times as they like. I can’t do that - no infertile woman can do that, and men can’t do that. Yet women still want to complain. I would love to take a year off work and still get paid. I would love that. But I can’t. Let’s talk about this structural inequality that discriminated against infertile women like myself, gay women like myself and men. Why not let us all have two lots of a year out getting paid? And end this discrimination against gay women, infertile women and men? It’s hurtful and it’s wrong. I would love women to have this conversation but no woman wants to. Straight women with children get abusive whenever I raise the topic. So women do want more rights than men (and gay and infertile women).

Start by taking girls out of Boy Scouts and use it to teach boys to be men again? Just a thought. Male only spaces are gone so they don’t learn male behaviour anymore.

@@trevorcook3129 girls went into boy scouts to save them from bankruptcy over the pedoughfile scandals. why do men just look at the surface of things? and then pontificate?

@@dragonfox2.058 why do you continue to lump all men into the one pigeonhole? Rather sexist isn’t it? Again you miss the point. Until we stop medicating and disciplining natural male behaviour out of boys, shaming them for natural male behaviour, these boys grow up not knowing how to be men. This leads to self hatred. It leads to dropping out of school. It leads to boredom. Bored men are dangerous members of society. Boys need male spaces to learn and grow. The opposite of what they’re getting right now

@@trevorcook3129 because I cant' tell which one is the problem so it's safer. just look at the news...all of a sudden he flips out and kills his girlfriend/family/strangers/ school kids he has a crush on. and it's almost always a young man. Do you guys think women are blind? now you say you want us to push out even more kids who aren't gonna get the resources they need to grow up let alone thrive. You guys are crazy

@@trevorcook3129 and maybe you shoudl pay attention toe all the man-made chemicals being put into the environment that are disrupting the endocrine system of everybody. Once again a man-made problem is being laid at women's door to fix and we can't do it neither can you but you can stop blaming US

I agree with much of what you say about technology invading our lives & continually surveilling us these days. Which is why I have opted for a de-Googled Android mobile phone that does not require me to log into Google first, so Google can track me. Apple's iPhones track people everywhere they go - even when you turn off the phone, Apple is still tracking you. The only solution there, being to put the phone into a Faraday bag when it's not in use. Apple also wants to scan all their customers' iPhones & cameras for any possible illegal material so they can then report their customers to the authorities. That's why I will never use an iPhone. Apple obviously assumes all their customers are guilty until proven innocent, by Apple not finding any illegal material on their iPhones. In a real life situation though, the authorities would need to actually obtain a search warrant if they wanted to actually search your house & its contents, including your mobile phone. And in order to obtain that search warrant in the first place, they have to be able to prove to a judge that they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is engaged in illegal activities. But Apple wants to search all their customers' iPhones without any search warrant whatsoever - just because they can do it using their technology. It's really quite an invasion of privacy that iPhone users have no say in whatsoever.

@@janburn007 I don't know about the veracity of what you wrote - especially the specific description of Apple as an entity. I do know my experiences and that of others and that leads to my sense that the notion of a single entity or sector of tech corporates alone being the problem with regard to civil liberties is to say the least convenient. I think that what should happen, and is fully justified, is to begin a public debate with the following question - namely, if you accept the UK has tens of millions as a population and tens of millions using smartphones and computers daily that are vital to their jobs and home life and re recreational and financial wellbeing, then why is it that with such a new necessity in modern day life, is the functioning of such a device and access and experience online generally, not a public news issue as opposed to the sort of crap recycled on various news outlets be that LG T or women being too prominent or anything but real issues that are corrosive to many millions of people in varying ways, be that their time or money or stress in navigating wholly unecessary monitoring and obstacles in seeking to achieve a very primitive task online? The answer is I think part of a wider gap in news coverage and political prioritisation over the masses - that is to say, I think my current assessment of the state of affairs today, is to advocate to anyone willing to listen to my perspective in considering to actively withdraw from voting. I believe if enough people did so, then the political and media elites would be unable to gloss over their utter contempt for meaningful, everyday issues that their constituents perpetually contend with that are disregarded in favour of strawman constructs designed to distract people from where real harm is occurring. Why is it for example the organisation Liberty - once fairly prominent - at a time like now, is not front and centre of every news outlet articulating such points as we are discussing, which GB News and others wilfully ignore? Why is it that solely Toby Young and the Free Speech Union are occasionally tolerated to participate in the media - albeit on trivial matters pertaining to identity - less the digitalisation of our lives - monitoring excessively - interence via obscurity and utilising technology to distort a great many things? Just consider the theft and digital crimes pertaining to illegally obtained photos and videos and further, circulation of once private personal data. You can then start to consider the impact for example of the current crimes which I describe versus the current laws that appear to be utterly dated and frankly all things once sacred like openess and juriprudence are now replaced with zero safeguards for people as far as I can ascertain. My point is best summarised in that, if you accept technology has advanced all of us, to varyimg degree and opened up previously shut off opportunities - then, it has by equal measure corroded and distorted the once vital safeguards to individuality - personal privacy and effectively, everything that once seperated the UK - EUROPE and USA from the dictatorships. That has now gone and the idea we fight wars to provide democracy and human rights to others is quite sickening - we need to first identify precisely how it is that our own democracy and people are treated before using other wholly unknown spheres and tribes in lands far away as some sort of testing ground to practice weaponary and further cause division. We might very well wish to retain the benefits of technology and even advance further - thats fine, but why does that apparently come with an inbuilt prerequiste to destroy our civil liberties? It need not be that way at all - to say it is Apple or any other big corporates fault is I'm afraid - far too abstract and plainly false and absurd. There needs to be a public debate over the pace of technological advances and frankly - what harm (from where we are today in 2023) would be caused from a public enquiry where fellow citizens share experiences? None - yet it is not even proposed as the consoiracy theories begin to replace what could easily be an accurate analysis of safeguards and efficiencies and so on. This country is fast becoming indistiguishable from what reportedly takes place in China and other such spheres. I think that will have profound consequences over time and I think what I describe is the antithesis of everything the USA was built upon - namely, the ideas of emancipation and opportunity and expression and this notion of prosperity through enterprise - all of that has gone and mass manipulation - perpetual conflict and authority has taken over. I believe that is destined for failure and I believe over time people will very definately make that clear.

@@danieldecides7894 I see Apple, with Google as the runner-up, being 2 of the main offenders when it comes to on-line privacy - mainly because all commercially available mobile phones are either iPhones, or Google Android phones. Both phones require a user's unique user ID & password to log in, before one is able to use the phone & all of its features. iPhones require the user's Apple ID details & Android phones require the user to log in using their Google ID & password. From that point on, whenever the user does something on their phone, it can be tracked by Apple/Google who are able to identify the user from the log-in details they used. As most people these days use commercially available mobile phones, it's hard to avoid the long arm of Apple & Google tracking - & mobile phones have many more facilities/options/ways to track people than standard computers. So using a computer to do something, instead of a mobile phone, is usually a much better & safer choice, if one does not wish Apple or Google to be tracking all one's activities. But there are also many people for whom their smartphone has in effect, replaced their computer as well. There are of course, other "big tech" & on-line companies that are not in the mobile phone business like Apple/Google - but I generally refer to all of them as MAGAFT - Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter. They are all in the business of personal data gathering to a certain extent, & some have a better capability for it than others. While many of the younger generation are happy to provide all their personal information & life stories to these organisations, obviously there are many older people, who would prefer to retain a degree of privacy. Apple itself has admitted that its iPhones will continue to track people even when turned off (the iPhones then act like an airtag). Apple has also admitted that it has the technology to perform "client side scanning" on all of its customers' iPhones, to search for illegal material. It was actually proposing to do this at one stage, but has put the idea on hold for the time being, due to concerns expressed about privacy. But it still retains the technology to do this. Google is not quite as far advanced in this area as Apple - at least, not that it has made public.

@@janburn007 Thank you for your very insightful and interesting reply. Can you now replace the proponents from big tech to arms of the state and see where your thoughts take you? Why is everything assumed to be solely the preserve of entities that exist to make money as opposed to entities who exist in order to carry on existing - primarily through exerting power? I reject the premise that a bunch of geeks who got really rich quickly are effectively the architects of a systematic power grab? The focus needs to be on confronting the facts I outlined. At present, we are barely returning to day to day life pre-pandemic. You have zero implementation of a single credible entity in public life (the media or politics) that advocates that the state and its institutions wield too much power over its citizens. You have zero national debate over targeting of groups and individuals with data theft - not least women and digital voyeurism and perversions of varying kind facilitated by technological advances. You have an essential institution like the police that is both overwhelmed by increased demand of the population and far worse, a tiny segment within or associated to that essential institution that is reportedly unproffesional and best not empowered by being part of the personnel. The reason why I have strong views on this matter is both personal to my experiences and the damage that is possible from a void existing (as I have earlier attempted to articulate to you) and being replaced with conspiracy theories that are baseless and whip up tensions etc. In a democratic, healthy and open society, it is expected, necessary and essential to practice pluralism with regard to freedom of thought - expression and competition of views and narratives. Where is the evidence of any of that in our national or local politics and media? It is a total one dimensional philosophical arrangement with perimeters predefined that set limits on speech and when you do that, you limit everything the English and British are in essence. I am personally unable to compute in my brain, how an organisation solely concerned with instituting safeguards to citizens and promoting openess and shared experiences and transparency and whistle blowers inside institutions is entirely absent from public life at this present juncture post COVID? That sentiment is to my sense widely shared by my kinship, my fellow citizens and supports my thesis that over time, such a sentiment will manifest itself most clearly. It is too abstract to bash the big tech corporates. The state makes up a massive segment of the economy and it alone has the power to address imbalances - but why should it when it believes it has nothing to gain from disolving powers and reach that far outweigh justification? It has been proven in recent times (Brexit and the parties headed by Farage) that pressure groups and a public voice can effect change and I think tens of millions of people are entitled to not feel/think that any complaint they make needs to be withdrawn or not made at all because otherwise they start to coincedentally find further infringements and targeting upon them - this is known against journalists and former state employees and again, you confine all your remarks to that well known menace to humanity the very placid Zuckerberg and co. They are rightfully to be criticised for many things - none of which pertain to the harm and injustices and unecessary turmoil of citizens undergoing a power grab by the state that is resistant and vexious towards any notion of openess and transparency and debate frankly over their intolerance to excessive data extraction from citizens and plainly - questions in parliament and election campaigns and scrutiny to their perpetual failure to have individuals accounts recorded in a public enquiry to ascertain if people are safe and not unduly restricted by stipulations from various institutions. How can it be credible to have a plethora of news outlets and both local and national politics devoid of anything remotely close to individual freedoms and this sense as I say of the thought police and limits on speech and expression and mass monitoring and inteference via technological advances that facilitate extraordinary powers to be enacted - via a political party or debate or raising the subject? Finally, just consider this old thing of probable versus possible. You have a society that has everything inside and outside their homes and work and recreational spaces with gadgets of varying kind. They are cameras - audio - you have utilities now regulated by remote and smart meters and you have moved in short order from paper and pens to smartphones that determine access to essential services. You have an online country that is by definition reliant (in order to function) on people possessing a smartphone or a gadget that has inbuilt within it - the capability to distort - manipulate - monitor and steal data and privacy from the citizen each and every day. Now, suppose that this occurs even intermittently - what sort of society with such a development can credibly claim to be civilised and democratic and open if vital safeguards are not publicly and openly debated on preventing such profiling and managing over masses of once formerly free people? You don't even have the basic ability to navigate the bizarre menu functions on a phone - nobody actually seems to understand precisely why it is deemed necessary to have staggering buttons and god knows what on a phone and just simplify the device and why not permit phones to be entirely camera and audio and data gathering free by some means? This to me is not an industry alone issue - the EU stipulated GDPR data rules - these are utterly meaningless when it suits and used when it doesn't. For example - you apply for a job or credit. Where does all the data you feel necessary, if uncomfortable in relinquishing go and how safe is that data and your privacy thereafter? Conversely, you could try to access information via a public freedom request or carry out research or practice your journalism and be prevented by GDPR being flagged as reason to deny you. It is also worth considering why it is deemed advanced to now order the same takeaway you did years ago retaining your privacy to having to be forced now to divolge your name and address and bank details and so on. These are all part of the same lack of safeguards to individuals that facilitate states and their institutions from using our data to then wield power and influence over us that is without scrutiny from any meaningful entity. If you call that advanced and democratic from just a few short years ago - then I disagree and I reject your notion of an old versus young value on the issue also. I think you might be surprised at what all people - including young people have to say on the issue - if only permitted the opportunity. These are perfectly reasonable issues to be discussed openly in society and they are not - that alone reveals precisely what sort of harm is being inflicted because people have zero opportunity to speak out without reprisals and further surveillance and distortions enacted upon them. We don't need posturing over some pathetic parliamentary introspection over Facebook and online bullying with school kids - as important as that is, it is dressage and the fundamental issues I raise are wilfully ignored by those lining their pockets from theft of citizens rights and protections by the puppets in the media and parliament reading their scripts from their paymasters. This country once had eccentrics - thoughtful and genius writers - journalists who were emancipated to investigate - protests backed up with political formulations and a vibrant ecclectic of variance within one population. That has been replaced with authority - obscurity and mass monitoring and distorting words and phrases and the thought police and this sense of enforced limits and imposed restrictions unless it means shopping and consumerism - the imbalance has corroded a once enhanced country. In others ways - we have greatly advanced - but why at the cost of our civil liberties and freedoms that took years to become ours to experience?

@@danieldecides7894 I believe that with the advent of modern technology & various on-line forums, mainly provided by big tech style companies, there has been a genuine power shift away from government & the state, to these privately owned big tech companies. And because they are private companies, many people say there is no right to freedom of speech & free debate in their on-line forums - they can ban/cancel/block whomever they wish, along with perceived "unwanted opinions/views" or support for the wrong political parties. They can essentially control the debate & opinion & express a very one-sided view if they wish - all apparently perfectly okay & legal because they are privately owned organisations & can do as they please - as claimed by many people. One only has to look at the way former US President Donald Trump was effectively cancelled from the internet because some people did not like his views & his politics. Most of these large on-line forum providers have simply fallen for the rhetoric of the "woke" & "cancel culture" people who do not believe in free speech & will readily seek to "cancel" anyone they disagree with. I believe that the woke & cancel culture people are actually in the minority - but they have been given a very large media platform/s on which to operate, so they have quickly become highly invasive - wanting to punish people for having the wrong opinion, even though they have done nothing illegal. So the woke & cancel culture people have become vigilantes, wanting to mete out their own punishments on people with the "wrong thinking", because the legal system may not be able to punish them, if they have not done anything illegal. I do think it's time the "silent majority" stood up to make their views known - but it can be a very difficult thing to do when the social media system works against & cancels anyone with different views. Contrary to the commonly accepted belief that private companies can just do as they wish because they are privately owned, I do think that governments could probably step in/step up & not allow social media to block/cancel users, unless they have actually done something illegal (eg libel/slander/inciting & encouraging others to commit physical acts of violence etc). Governments could also start issuing licences for people & companies to operate things like social media sites & on-line forums & rescind those licences if they try to ban people for expressing different opinions. yet not doing anything illegal. This would be similar to the way governments issue licences for TV & radio stations etc. But there's also a risk here that the power of the big tech companies even extends to their power over governments, because many governments also use the services of these big tech companies - for things like hosting their own web sites, on-line services for the public & their own internal computer services. Many governments use extensively the likes of Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook etc. So if these big tech companies did not like what the government was doing, they could simply threaten to withdraw all their services from the government, which would probably place the government in a lot of difficulty. If they could do it to Donald Trump, then they could also do it to any country's government. Those governments would then need to start from scratch & try to build all their own customised digital infrastructures, if that were possible - though it would take a lot of time. Most true freedom of speech for the ordinary man is now restricted to street preaching, or in other public areas specifically designed for such things - such as Speaker's Corner in London. But even that is getting a bit dubious now - because there have been violent assaults on people at Speaker's Corner, when some people did not like what they were saying. We also have people being arrested by the police for "silently praying in their heads" in a public place. There have also been instances of police visiting people in their homes, wanting to make sure "their thinking is correct", after they responded in writing to someone else's on-line post. We have the police being called in when a young schoolboy drops a copy of the Quran. Unless one is a member of the woke or cancel culture brigades & shares their opinions, it can certainly be very difficult for people to have their voices & opinions heard. I once complained to my local Member of Parliament about a group of non-Christian religious people seeking to impose their views on all of the local community, but the MP made it clear that he certainly did not support my view. So at the next election, I made a point of voting for his opponent. Even if one does not vote at all, I don't believe it will bring about the necessary changes that the majority of people wish to see.

The bigoted right wing NIMBY tinfoil hatters will never accept UBI.

A right to defend our country I'm sure you'll agree.