Peter Berry
@thrawcheld.bsky.social
Tax the rich – abolish billionaires
Reposted by Peter Berry
American social media platforms are banned in Russia. Have you noticed Donald isn't sanctioning anyone over that?
December 24, 2025 at 10:46 AM
American social media platforms are banned in Russia. Have you noticed Donald isn't sanctioning anyone over that?
I don't like this question, or how it's being interpreted. Wanting grandchildren is a primal need, it's not correlated with hate. Moreover being angry is a very different response from being disappointed and disappointment says nothing at all about acceptance.
We really are a nation that loves animals and hates children. These figures are so shameful (via @natacha.bsky.social).
December 24, 2025 at 1:06 PM
I don't like this question, or how it's being interpreted. Wanting grandchildren is a primal need, it's not correlated with hate. Moreover being angry is a very different response from being disappointed and disappointment says nothing at all about acceptance.
Reposted by Peter Berry
Yes, it’s illegal. Like changing it to Department of War, like ten thousand other things. Part of the Trump strategy is to break the law and convey “the rule of law is weak and feminine and laughable and should be overridden by Our Guy.” Trump is fundamentally anti-law.
/1
/1
NEWS: They're adding Trump's name to the Kennedy Center building right now. www.washingtonpost.com/entertainmen...
Kennedy Center adds Trump’s name to building
The signage change follows a vote by the board of trustees to rename the performing arts complex the Trump Kennedy Center.
www.washingtonpost.com
December 19, 2025 at 5:04 PM
Yes, it’s illegal. Like changing it to Department of War, like ten thousand other things. Part of the Trump strategy is to break the law and convey “the rule of law is weak and feminine and laughable and should be overridden by Our Guy.” Trump is fundamentally anti-law.
/1
/1
Reposted by Peter Berry
I think that may mistake creating systemic change for cementing the existing status quo in extreme ways.
December 20, 2025 at 10:42 AM
I think that may mistake creating systemic change for cementing the existing status quo in extreme ways.
Reposted by Peter Berry
Reposted by Peter Berry
We live in a really weird time, don't we. Our conservatives want to subsidise a non-competitive and failing economic sector to prop up a voting base, while our left-wingers want to achieve a common European market for foodstuffs to lower the cost of living. Reverse 1980s.
I feel increasingly cynical about all "conservatives". They seem to have all given up completely on actually having any sort of principles, and constantly act with insane dishonesty. Their real ideology seems to be a mix of authoritarianism and simple a "I want this so screw you".
December 20, 2025 at 12:37 PM
We live in a really weird time, don't we. Our conservatives want to subsidise a non-competitive and failing economic sector to prop up a voting base, while our left-wingers want to achieve a common European market for foodstuffs to lower the cost of living. Reverse 1980s.
Reposted by Peter Berry
Polanskis message is division between the 99% and the 1%. Farages message is division between skin colour and place of birth.
To try and say these are the same thing is idiotic.
To try and say these are the same thing is idiotic.
We face huge challenges. A burning planet, war in Europe, an affordability crisis that most people think they will live with *for the rest of their lives*.
And what do Farage and Polanski offer? Division. Migrants vs. non-migrants. Businesses vs. workers.
And what do Farage and Polanski offer? Division. Migrants vs. non-migrants. Businesses vs. workers.
December 20, 2025 at 12:06 PM
Polanskis message is division between the 99% and the 1%. Farages message is division between skin colour and place of birth.
To try and say these are the same thing is idiotic.
To try and say these are the same thing is idiotic.
There can be no clearer illustration of the absurdity of this party calling itself Labour than this post demonstrating their inability to understand that the interests of workers and business are not opposed.
Happy workers are productive workers. That's good for business!
Happy workers are productive workers. That's good for business!
We face huge challenges. A burning planet, war in Europe, an affordability crisis that most people think they will live with *for the rest of their lives*.
And what do Farage and Polanski offer? Division. Migrants vs. non-migrants. Businesses vs. workers.
And what do Farage and Polanski offer? Division. Migrants vs. non-migrants. Businesses vs. workers.
December 20, 2025 at 4:57 PM
There can be no clearer illustration of the absurdity of this party calling itself Labour than this post demonstrating their inability to understand that the interests of workers and business are not opposed.
Happy workers are productive workers. That's good for business!
Happy workers are productive workers. That's good for business!
Reposted by Peter Berry
Is calling someone a "spammer" interfering with their ability to access aid? No.
Warning about OFAC? No also.
Is deliberately acting to have accounts deleted so that they cannot access the aid being provided to them, interfering with their ability to access aid? Yes. Yes it absolutely obviously is
Warning about OFAC? No also.
Is deliberately acting to have accounts deleted so that they cannot access the aid being provided to them, interfering with their ability to access aid? Yes. Yes it absolutely obviously is
May 29, 2025 at 3:08 PM
Is calling someone a "spammer" interfering with their ability to access aid? No.
Warning about OFAC? No also.
Is deliberately acting to have accounts deleted so that they cannot access the aid being provided to them, interfering with their ability to access aid? Yes. Yes it absolutely obviously is
Warning about OFAC? No also.
Is deliberately acting to have accounts deleted so that they cannot access the aid being provided to them, interfering with their ability to access aid? Yes. Yes it absolutely obviously is
Quantify "cannot afford". What is the alternative?
How would €90bn fail to make a difference?
How can something that's obstructive also be irrelevant?
How would €90bn fail to make a difference?
How can something that's obstructive also be irrelevant?
Can there be a better demonstration of the EU's performative irrelevance? They spent weeks negotiating with each other the issuance of 90bn euro debt which the EU cannot afford that will do nothing to win the War and much to obstruct Peace. www.ft.com/content/e569...
EU agrees €90bn loan to Ukraine after frozen Russian asset plan fails
Money to be borrowed against bloc’s budget after leaders fail to agree on proposal using Moscow’s funds
www.ft.com
December 19, 2025 at 12:23 PM
Quantify "cannot afford". What is the alternative?
How would €90bn fail to make a difference?
How can something that's obstructive also be irrelevant?
How would €90bn fail to make a difference?
How can something that's obstructive also be irrelevant?
Reposted by Peter Berry
I don’t give a toss about his voter base, and neither should his opponents. They’re a lost cause. This is about galvanising opposition to him, mobilising the ‘neutral’ and focussing minds.
December 18, 2025 at 9:35 AM
I don’t give a toss about his voter base, and neither should his opponents. They’re a lost cause. This is about galvanising opposition to him, mobilising the ‘neutral’ and focussing minds.
How to avoid a coup: just bribe the soldiers
In a nationwide address that major US TV networks are carrying live, President Trump announces 1,450,000 military members will receive a "warrior dividend" of $1776 before Christmas.
December 18, 2025 at 3:06 AM
How to avoid a coup: just bribe the soldiers
Reposted by Peter Berry
Very embarrassing that any “realists” support appeasement. Realist theory says: kill the bastards.
open.substack.com/pub/deadcarl...
open.substack.com/pub/deadcarl...
The Cold-Blooded Case for American Support for Ukraine
The Realist case for arming Ukraine
open.substack.com
December 17, 2025 at 3:11 AM
Very embarrassing that any “realists” support appeasement. Realist theory says: kill the bastards.
open.substack.com/pub/deadcarl...
open.substack.com/pub/deadcarl...
Reposted by Peter Berry
As a dev who's mostly done web and mobile, I'm constantly struck by how many careful and thoughtful standards for UX and accessibility have been rigorously applied to everything digital, and how all of those standards are instantly 100% discarded when ads become a factor.
It’s so cool that every website is just Like This now. We used to send guys to the chair for putting pop-up ads on their sites. Now if I want to read something I have to read single lines between autoplaying video ads that use so much RAM they force the browser to reload every 5 seconds.
December 15, 2025 at 7:09 AM
As a dev who's mostly done web and mobile, I'm constantly struck by how many careful and thoughtful standards for UX and accessibility have been rigorously applied to everything digital, and how all of those standards are instantly 100% discarded when ads become a factor.
I think the Spectator genuinely doesn't understand why someone would want to help others. Why else would they use "humanist" as an insult?
The Spectator have not yet had a full on right wing melt down.
They're very close, though!
Join.greenparty.org.uk
They're very close, though!
Join.greenparty.org.uk
December 15, 2025 at 12:02 PM
I think the Spectator genuinely doesn't understand why someone would want to help others. Why else would they use "humanist" as an insult?
Reposted by Peter Berry
Unlike Clarkson, or Sugar, Andrew Neil actually fronted BBC politics programmes, at the same time was the publisher of a right-wing Conservative magazine and freely expressed his very right wing opinions on Twitter.
Not once did he come under pressure to step down
Not once did he come under pressure to step down
December 13, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Unlike Clarkson, or Sugar, Andrew Neil actually fronted BBC politics programmes, at the same time was the publisher of a right-wing Conservative magazine and freely expressed his very right wing opinions on Twitter.
Not once did he come under pressure to step down
Not once did he come under pressure to step down
Reposted by Peter Berry
Jeremy Clarkson regularly wrote political columns backing the Conservatives and conservative views, was personal friends with David Cameron and called the then Labour Prime Minister a "one-eyed idiot" on air.
Again, not a problem.
Again, not a problem.
December 13, 2025 at 4:47 PM
Jeremy Clarkson regularly wrote political columns backing the Conservatives and conservative views, was personal friends with David Cameron and called the then Labour Prime Minister a "one-eyed idiot" on air.
Again, not a problem.
Again, not a problem.
Reposted by Peter Berry
A reminder that when Gary Lineker was under fire a couple of years back for criticising the Conservatives while a BBC presenter, the channel said, by contrast, it was fine for Lord Sugar to repeatedly endorse the Tories because he was "free to say, as a business person, what he wants to say."
December 13, 2025 at 4:40 PM
A reminder that when Gary Lineker was under fire a couple of years back for criticising the Conservatives while a BBC presenter, the channel said, by contrast, it was fine for Lord Sugar to repeatedly endorse the Tories because he was "free to say, as a business person, what he wants to say."
Reposted by Peter Berry
The fact is no presenter has ever had to leave the BBC for expressing conservative views, or even explicitly endorsing a right-wing party.
Was never a problem for Jeremy Clarkson. Was never a problem for Andrew Neil. Was never a problem for Alan Sugar
Was never a problem for Jeremy Clarkson. Was never a problem for Andrew Neil. Was never a problem for Alan Sugar
Robin Ince reveals to last night’s audience at a recording of Infinite Monkey Cage that the BBC has forced him to resign over his support of trans people
December 13, 2025 at 4:36 PM
The fact is no presenter has ever had to leave the BBC for expressing conservative views, or even explicitly endorsing a right-wing party.
Was never a problem for Jeremy Clarkson. Was never a problem for Andrew Neil. Was never a problem for Alan Sugar
Was never a problem for Jeremy Clarkson. Was never a problem for Andrew Neil. Was never a problem for Alan Sugar
Reposted by Peter Berry
I think that's what they call "hitting a nerve"
That Banksy piece behind the Royal Courts of Justice (1) when first done. (2) Hastily covered and guarded. (3) Half-scrubbed away. (4) Now with its own shed and front door (padlocked).
December 13, 2025 at 11:01 AM
I think that's what they call "hitting a nerve"
This article goes to great lengths not to speak ill of the dead.
Three guesses what he was doing up that lamppost ...
Well-known Bristol football fan died in tragic fall from lamppost
City fan Paul Lumber was a published author of books about the days of football casuals in the 1980s
www.bristolpost.co.uk
December 12, 2025 at 12:42 PM
This article goes to great lengths not to speak ill of the dead.
"Human rights show the floor beneath which we must never sink, the line that should hold firm when pressure builds. Weakening that line, especially today, would not be pragmatism. It would be moral retreat."
“It is the Brexit playbook:…
It did not work then and it will not work now. Because once you agree that rights are the real obstacle, you have already handed victory to those who want rid of them altogether.”
Important read on blaming the ECHR for govt failure.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
It did not work then and it will not work now. Because once you agree that rights are the real obstacle, you have already handed victory to those who want rid of them altogether.”
Important read on blaming the ECHR for govt failure.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
Starmer is lobbying Europe to join him in watering down the ECHR. This illiberalism will harm us all | Steve Valdez-Symonds
The prime minister and his counterpart in Denmark want a concerted effort to weaken human rights across Europe. This isn’t pragmatism – it’s cruelty, says Steve Valdez-Symonds, refugee and migrant rig...
www.theguardian.com
December 11, 2025 at 12:51 PM
"Human rights show the floor beneath which we must never sink, the line that should hold firm when pressure builds. Weakening that line, especially today, would not be pragmatism. It would be moral retreat."
Reposted by Peter Berry
It's weird how it's never the legitimate concerns of people who want publicly owned utilities and for the poor not to be punished for the mistakes of the wealthy, isn't it?
Always the racists getting pandered to.
Always the racists getting pandered to.
December 9, 2025 at 8:22 PM
It's weird how it's never the legitimate concerns of people who want publicly owned utilities and for the poor not to be punished for the mistakes of the wealthy, isn't it?
Always the racists getting pandered to.
Always the racists getting pandered to.
Reposted by Peter Berry
The ECHR was set up after WWII to ensure that fascism never again arose in Europe. Why do the right want to curb/limit/leave/abolish the ECHR? Because it does what it was intended to do, that's why...
How many times do we need to point this out?
By appeasing the far right, you do not weaken it. You strengthen it.
While weakening your own position.
There's a vast amount of academic research showing this.
But Labour will not listen.
www.theguardian.com/law/2025/dec...
By appeasing the far right, you do not weaken it. You strengthen it.
While weakening your own position.
There's a vast amount of academic research showing this.
But Labour will not listen.
www.theguardian.com/law/2025/dec...
Starmer urges Europe’s leaders to curb ECHR to halt rise of far right
Exclusive: PM calls for members of European convention on human rights to allow tougher action to protect borders
www.theguardian.com
December 10, 2025 at 11:42 AM
The ECHR was set up after WWII to ensure that fascism never again arose in Europe. Why do the right want to curb/limit/leave/abolish the ECHR? Because it does what it was intended to do, that's why...
Reposted by Peter Berry
All of global politics is really just to distract us from this horrible fact
This is obscene.
That others in politics can’t or won’t say that this is obscene hits at the heart of the problems we face.
We are the 99.999%.
Tax the super rich.
Join.greenparty.org.uk
That others in politics can’t or won’t say that this is obscene hits at the heart of the problems we face.
We are the 99.999%.
Tax the super rich.
Join.greenparty.org.uk
December 10, 2025 at 11:27 AM
All of global politics is really just to distract us from this horrible fact