OV9

This should probably go in a politics thread, but it is bigger than any one of the ones we've got.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002m ... are-mobile

If the link doesn't work it is the first of this year's Reith lectures, and it is thought provoking, illuminating, and cutting. He doesn't mince his words, although sadly, the BBC decided to illustrate one of his points by their actions.

https://bsky.app/profile/rutgerbregman. ... gzjfgg2k2b

Worth an hour of your time (30m if you cut the Q&A).

I listened to part of the News Agents podcast talking about this last night and my immediate thought was that I wouldn’t broadcast that line either. I believe it is probably true but I’d be wary of fighting in court an argument that Nixon was more corrupt, for instance. I don’t know enough American history to be aware if there are other presidents who may have been corrupt.

DeskJockey wrote: Tue Nov 25, 2025 11:13 pm This should probably go in a politics thread, but it is bigger than any one of the ones we've got.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002m ... are-mobile

Yeah it doesn't deserve to be in this thread - (I haven't listened to the Q&A, but) thought provoking indeed Will need to listen to the full series.

Several comments reminded me of an old boss I had - who didn't come from money, but lectured in the evenings on philosophy at a local college. He said many interesting things, but more than once scraped the surface of our current society construct and the behaviours it (intentionally or inadvertently) encourages.

edit: he also mused that the current construct means the ability to truly act according to your moral compass / values / beliefs is a luxury afforded only to those with sufficient financial independance : for whom the impact of losing their job/career due to taking a stance would not be ruinous. The irony that people holding this privilege - with the greatest potential to drive societal change - are invariably those who have benefited most from the current construct. He took an allowance in lieu of a company car and drove an old rep-mobile. Lived in a small house, and ploughed every spare penny into paying off his and his mum's mortgage - recognising that removing the potential of being left homeless would remove significant choice constraints.

mik wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 8:39 am edit: he also mused that the current construct means the ability to truly act according to your moral compass / values / beliefs is a luxury afforded only to those with sufficient financial independance : for whom the impact of losing their job/career due to taking a stance would not be ruinous. The irony that people holding this privilege - with the greatest potential to drive societal change - are invariably those who have benefited most from the current construct. He took an allowance in lieu of a company car and drove an old rep-mobile. Lived in a small house, and ploughed every spare penny into paying off his and his mum's mortgage - recognising that removing the potential of being left homeless would remove significant choice constraints.

Very interesting and very true...

It's why I often have a hard time with celebrities and film stars get behind certain causes as they are often cocooned away from both the cause itself and the potential fallout that might arise from support

I’m the other way tbh, it’s why I think stuff like “champagne socialist” is daft.

People with the money and visibility to stand up for issues with less fear of backlash should. Otherwise it’s just the poor people who have to choose between principles and eating that will.

Same principle that would have me standing in the way of a thug and a victim tbh. I can take a punch to the face so might as well use that gift for good

It's rare that anyone in that bracket ever really, truly "puts their money where their mouth is" though - Michael Sheen is the only one I can think of and fair fucking play to him for the way he lives IMO. Absolute legend for it.

It would be great if more people were like Michael Sheen sure, but even talking about issues is better than nothing.

It’s hardly surprising that people don’t want to stick their heads over the parapet.

Billie Eilish donated like $12mil of tour revenue to charity and was roasted because she also told billionaires to do better.

Also it doesn’t matter what charity/cause you decide to support someone will moan about it.

True that...

But shouldn't we be forcing the celebrities to do more than just talk. Perhaps a significant one off tax on their earnings because they have the broadest shoulders and lets be honest, "they don't need all that money"

Now you’re talking my language Dinny, voluntary philanthropy is a shite way to improve society.

Something like "If you're going to front a Charity Campaign, you must donate 40% of your annual earnings to said Charity"

Lets see how many movie stars we see then...

dinny_g wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 11:47 am Something like "If you're going to front a Charity Campaign, you must donate 40% of your annual earnings to said Charity"

Lets see how many movie stars we see then...

It'd be just like the body positivity campaigners up to the point of fat jabs being made easily available. They'd vanish somewhere around the "you must donate..."

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 10:31 am Also it doesn’t matter what charity/cause you decide to support someone will moan about it.

Elon Musk gives a lot of money to charity. And then gets it back for his projects. Sadly we don't see enough moaning about this blatant tax dodge. But if you force people to do something like this, inevitably plenty will do an Elon.

Is RogerTVR down on his luck?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/elystan-s ... 5HjdNWW_2/

(to save a click, given it's LBC and the only interesting part is the headline)

"Shocking moment £200 worth of langoustines stolen from swanky restaurant - as seafood thief still at large"

wtf?

That's got to be fake. The gen2 Cayenne isn't the same structure as the gen3 so the bits wouldn't just bolt on and the proportions wouldn't look the same if you got parts to fit.

ETA: watched it again and maybe it is real - the video is too close to see the whole car and notice how it looks wrong.

I watched it a few times. Look at the seat bases/switches in the before and after videos...

A bit more on this youtube short. I too thought "fake" initially, but this vid show the unpainted panels in place - you can see they've had to cut the shell at the rear though, so it's not a super-simple job.

I'm not entirely sure why anyone would do this though - to impress the neighbours? Or to try and sell an old car as a new car?