Ah oops, I meant to say “in the headline”. I agree, his tweets were disgusting and I think they should’ve been highlighted more from the get-go. I just dislike that the headline as it is makes it seem as if the SNP possibly overreacted or reacted in a pro-Israel way. Feels like it’s misleading by omission.

Would’ve been nice if they added the little tidbit in the headline that said Gaza posts were specifically denying what is happening in Gaza is genocide.

John Mason stripped of SNP party whip after ‘unacceptable’ posts claiming events in Gaza ‘not genocide’

Maybe remove the unacceptable quote if that’s too long. And suddenly some might not go in with the idea that maybe it was because he made a pro-Palestine post.

I mean if you know John Mason you probably wouldn’t assume that, but I think it’s healthier for journalists to presume you don’t know all the MPs and MSPs.

*: edited to add that the info should’ve been added in the headline

I’ve also said this before and I’ll say it again: names of suspects and even convicted criminals should not be shared unless necessary*. That just makes no sense for rehabilitation as it opens people up for judgement in a court of opinion. Justice is the job of the justice systems and should not generally involve the wider public.

Could there be issues with the judgement or other events where the only way to achieve justice is via the press? Sure, probably, but I don’t think the default should be that if I google the name of someone I can find if they or someone with a similar name (and god forbid, appearance) were involved in a crime.

*: unless necessary here can cover cases like trying to find an individual on the run, or when their previous crime is meant to exclude them from specific lines of work, although even that should be on a need-to-know basis imo, not public info.

Labour, LibDem, Green together also would have a majority, and hopefully people would vote tactically for Labour if all the right wing votes would go to one party as well, though you never know. So I’m not sure I agree with that part of the analysis.

Otherwise: yeah, it’s at least as, probably more, accurate to say Tories lost, as it is to say Labour won.

By the way the votes fell, 38% seem to have voted Tory or Reform. Ignoring how people would vote differently if the system were to change, that to me implies proportional voting would still see the right wing lose. Not nearly as much as they did now, but perhaps more securely.

I just hope Labour will think of this similarly and actually do something to make sure we get a system where that 38% doesn’t overcome the rest and leads to a Tory or even Reform government.

Yeah, I don’t think that coalition situation is likely to happen. Under FPTP, it’s too risky for the voters to try manufacture.

That said, if their popularity massively tanks and polls show they’d lose big, I could see Labour introducing it just before the next election. It would be a huge boost to their popularity.

Can’t say much about the game/DLC personally as I haven’t played it yet, but what you’re looking at seems the be the premium bundle, which is a separate listing. The normal DLC listing is at 63%, mixed.

A common negative review complaint also seems to be performance issues, so it’s not really just the difficulty.

Man, Veilguard is being covered a lot.

Honestly, this sounds potentially good or even great.

Two things though:

• They should have shown it in the gameplay trailer, instead of making claims in articles.
• Not in a mainline Dragon Age game.

Maybe it could’ve been a good combat-focused fantasy game with linear missions instead of being forced to include some lame dialogue wheel and pretending it’ll appeal to Dragon Age fans.

Ok, I might be misunderstanding here, but since committing changes is allowed for everyone, doesn’t this mean fixing bugs is something you could do? You’d just be stuck with all the other rights as well until someone else makes a change.