President Trump

[ad_orientem]

As with so much of the Trumo presidency, this feels more like a plot frpm a tv show.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4v3ndg28jo

If anyone was ever in any doubt that we should no longer be sharing intelligence with the Americans, this should end it once and for all.

[Roses]

If anyone was ever in any doubt that we should no longer be sharing intelligence with the Americans, this should end it once and for all.

I agree whilst that crazy excuse for a human is president.

[Dicky Underpants]

If anyone was ever in any doubt that we should no longer be sharing intelligence with the Americans, this should end it once and for all.

Interesting to see how they've started to explain it away. Inevitably, they start by denigrating the journalist who was inadvertently admitted to the group. Totally irrelevant of course. Then they say that no classified material was leaked. I hate to think what is the scope of their 'unclassified' material then, because this sounded some pretty meaty stuff.

[SqueakyVoice]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/26/donald-trump-war-on-woke-science-diversity

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has described diversity initiatives as a “poison”.

These attacks are rooted in wilful distortions of what DEI is all about.

[Aruntraveller]

..

[Gordon]

The stuff coming out of the US government (from Vance the fuckwit) about there being a lack of 'free speech' in the UK seems deranged, with reports today that this has been an issue in trade negotiations.

It seems related to a case in England about someone not adhering to buffer laws around a medical provision centre - reading between the lines, it seems that by 'free speech' they'd like to see more noise arising from Christian organisations, and being taken seriously.

Perhaps the US government don't realise that here, and unlike in the US, abortion isn't such a politically hot potato.

[Nearly Sane]

I see the Tories line is that the 10% tariff is a Brexit benefit. Rather than speaking up on behalf of free trade, one of the aims of many of them, they make idiotic comments like that because they are scared to stand up for what they believe but would rather pusillanimously cheer that the big boy only thumped them once.

[Christine]

The stuff coming out of the US government (from Vance the fuckwit) about there being a lack of 'free speech' in the UK seems deranged, with reports today that this has been an issue in trade negotiations.

It seems related to a case in England about someone not adhering to buffer laws around a medical provision centre - reading between the lines, it seems that by 'free speech' they'd like to see more noise arising from Christian organisations, and being taken seriously.

Perhaps the US government don't realise that here, and unlike in the US, abortion isn't such a politically hot potato.

If you’re calling middle-aged women who want to talk about their experiences to each other fascists and threatening to punch them in the face, you’ve got free speech in the UK.

Not so much if you don’t toe the establishment line.

Just a few examples:

Sussex University fined £585,000 for suppressing free speech (took long enough and not before they'd driven Dr Stock out of her job)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9vr4vjzgqo

Prosecuted for social media posts - not guilty

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75zke1l7ylo

Rosie Kay lost her dance company for expressing reasonable views in private

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/freedom-of-speech-cancel-culture-the-arts-rosie-kay-choreographer-b1136290.html

Officers sent mob-handed to arrest parents in front of children for complaining about school

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo

[jeremyp]

I see the Tories line is that the 10% tariff is a Brexit benefit. Rather than speaking up on behalf of free trade, one of the aims of many of them, they make idiotic comments like that because they are scared to stand up for what they believe but would rather pusillanimously cheer that the big boy only thumped them once.

I'm confused now. I thought free trade with countries like the USA  was supposed to a Brexit benefit.

[Nearly Sane]

If you’re calling middle-aged women who want to talk about their experiences to each other fascists and threatening to punch them in the face, you’ve got free speech in the UK.

Not so much if you don’t toe the establishment line.

Just a few examples:

Sussex University fined £585,000 for suppressing free speech (took long enough and not before they'd driven Dr Stock out of her job)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9vr4vjzgqo

Prosecuted for social media posts - not guilty

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75zke1l7ylo

Rosie Kay lost her dance company for expressing reasonable views in private

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/freedom-of-speech-cancel-culture-the-arts-rosie-kay-choreographer-b1136290.html

Officers sent mob-handed to arrest parents in front of children for complaining about school

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo

The US doesn't really care about it other than a wedge issue and one irrelevant to tariffs


Meanwhile

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-academic-denied-entry-united-states-donald-trump-personal-opinion-messages/

[Christine]

The US doesn't really care about it other than a wedge issue and one irrelevant to tariffs


Meanwhile

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-academic-denied-entry-united-states-donald-trump-personal-opinion-messages/

I had to ask Grok, as Duck Duck Go gave me pages of headlines about Donald Trump rather than answer my question.
Tariffs applied by the UK to US goods:

Cars: The UK applies a 10% tariff on imported cars from the US. This applies to passenger vehicles and is a significant point of discussion in trade negotiations, especially given the US's recent reciprocal tariff actions.

Steel: Tariffs on steel imports from the US can reach up to 25%, depending on the specific type and form of steel. This rate reflects protective measures for the UK steel industry, though it has been subject to adjustments and quotas in the past to manage trade flows.

Agricultural Products: Tariffs on US agricultural goods vary widely. For example, apples face a 0% tariff, while other products like beef or dairy can see higher rates, often ranging from 10% to over 50%, depending on the product and whether it falls under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs). TRQs allow a certain volume of goods to enter at a reduced or zero rate, with higher tariffs applied beyond that limit.

Alcohol: The UK imposes excise duties on alcoholic beverages, which apply to both domestic and imported products, but imports from the US also face additional customs duties. For instance, beer might not face a high tariff (often 0% under UKGT), but spirits like whiskey could see tariffs around 0-4%, plus VAT and excise duties applied at the point of sale.

So tariffs aren't bad per se?

Re the French academic - it's up to the US who they let into their country. Same in the UK:

UK Border Force  "has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good." (Home Office)

I don't think it's a good thing to restrict entry because someone said something you disagree with, but then, I don't know what the French academic said. I don't believe, as I have explained, that free speech encompases incitement to violence or threats to individuals.

Governments do things I disagree with all the time. Hypocrisy is rife (not just in governments either).

[ad_orientem]

Even the penguins aren't exempt from Trump's tariffs.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/03/donald-trump-tariffs-antarctica-uninhabited-heard-mcdonald-islands

[Nearly Sane]

I had to ask Grok, as Duck Duck Go gave me pages of headlines about Donald Trump rather than answer my question.
Tariffs applied by the UK to US goods:

Cars: The UK applies a 10% tariff on imported cars from the US. This applies to passenger vehicles and is a significant point of discussion in trade negotiations, especially given the US's recent reciprocal tariff actions.

Steel: Tariffs on steel imports from the US can reach up to 25%, depending on the specific type and form of steel. This rate reflects protective measures for the UK steel industry, though it has been subject to adjustments and quotas in the past to manage trade flows.

Agricultural Products: Tariffs on US agricultural goods vary widely. For example, apples face a 0% tariff, while other products like beef or dairy can see higher rates, often ranging from 10% to over 50%, depending on the product and whether it falls under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs). TRQs allow a certain volume of goods to enter at a reduced or zero rate, with higher tariffs applied beyond that limit.

Alcohol: The UK imposes excise duties on alcoholic beverages, which apply to both domestic and imported products, but imports from the US also face additional customs duties. For instance, beer might not face a high tariff (often 0% under UKGT), but spirits like whiskey could see tariffs around 0-4%, plus VAT and excise duties applied at the point of sale.

So tariffs aren't bad per se?

Re the French academic - it's up to the US who they let into their country. Same in the UK:

UK Border Force  "has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good." (Home Office)

I don't think it's a good thing to restrict entry because someone said something you disagree with, but then, I don't know what the French academic said. I don't believe, as I have explained, that free speech encompases incitement to violence or threats to individuals.

Governments do things I disagree with all the time. Hypocrisy is rife (not just in governments either).

Linking tariffs to free speech particularly when you don't allow it yourself is as you note hypocrisy, and stimuli hypocrisy. Gordon was right to point out the vacuousness of Vance, and Trumo's, position

[ProfessorDavey]

Linking tariffs to free speech particularly when you don't allow it yourself is as you note hypocrisy, and stimuli hypocrisy. Gordon was right to point out the vacuousness of Vance, and Trumo's, position

I don't think Trump and Vance's position on free speech has anything to do with actually supporting ... err ... free speech. Seems to me this is driven primarily to protect the major tech companies from having to police the content on their social media and to have a level of responsibility for what is posted (i.e. that they publish).

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think Trump and Vance's position on free speech has anything to do with actually supporting ... err ... free speech. Seems to me this is driven primarily to protect the major tech companies from having to police the content on their social media and to have a level of responsibility for what is posted (i.e. that they publish).

I think that it's just a wedge issue that they use generically. There's nothing the UK govr is doing in terms of social media forms responsibility of any effect.

[jeremyp]

I had to ask Grok,

Grok is Elon Musk's AI. You shouldn't touch it.

So tariffs aren't bad per se?

In broad terms, yes they are. The fact that the UK imposes tariffs does not make them good.

Re the French academic - it's up to the US who they let into their country.

Yes, but if you are barring people simply for being critical of your government, it's a huge red flag.

I don't think it's a good thing to restrict entry because someone said something you disagree with, but then, I don't know what the French academic said. I don't believe, as I have explained, that free speech encompases incitement to violence or threats to individuals.

The French academic was critical of the Tr*mp administration's science policy i.e. cutting funds for doing scientific research.  There was no incitement to violence or anything remotely like it.

[Christine]

Grok is Elon Musk's AI. You shouldn't touch it.

In broad terms, yes they are. The fact that the UK imposes tariffs does not make them good.
Yes, but if you are barring people simply for being critical of your government, it's a huge red flag.
The French academic was critical of the Tr*mp administration's science policy i.e. cutting funds for doing scientific research.  There was no incitement to violence or anything remotely like it.

I know what Grok is, Jeremy, thank you. Is the information it provided me wrong? Do you have a link to the correct information? And thank you for your advice, I won't be following it.

If what you say is true about what the academic said then I disagree with the decision to bar him from the US. Do you have a link? The sources I found said the contentious messages had not been published.

I'm not in the business of defending hypocrisy. It's been enlightening seeing what the US government has been funding around the world until now. I'm against the US government interfering covertly in other countries' affairs, pushing agendas that are not evident to most voters, including US voters. I'm quite surprised that "the left" now seem outraged that the US government is exposing and putting a stop to the interference.

I think the reason Vance focused on the abortion thing is because it plays well with his own base. It doesn't alter the fact that freedom of expression and association is currently under threat in the UK and EU. I'll not bother providing links to the news stories, since you seem to expect me to take your word for whatever, you can take mine.

[ad_orientem]

I know what Grok is, Jeremy, thank you. Is the information it provided me wrong? Do you have a link to the correct information? And thank you for your advice, I won't be following it.

If what you say is true about what the academic said then I disagree with the decision to bar him from the US. Do you have a link? The sources I found said the contentious messages had not been published.

I'm not in the business of defending hypocrisy. It's been enlightening seeing what the US government has been funding around the world until now. I'm against the US government interfering covertly in other countries' affairs, pushing agendas that are not evident to most voters, including US voters. I'm quite surprised that "the left" now seem outraged that the US government is exposing and putting a stop to the interference.

I think the reason Vance focused on the abortion thing is because it plays well with his own base. It doesn't alter the fact that freedom of expression and association is currently under threat in the UK and EU. I'll not bother providing links to the news stories, since you seem to expect me to take your word for whatever, you can take mine.

The defunding of USAID means that American soft power has also gone. That has repercussions in the US, whether Americans understand that or not. The US left, and now russia and China enters. Two hostile nations, again, whether Americans understand that or not.