Imagine the irony of zucks being taken to task by the eu over foreign interferance in domestic politics through facebook, and he saying well you are not a country but an organisation and your interfering in 28 countries elections, so we are restricting you just to , Belgium. Looks very much like zuks got the last laugh in.
ironic? is it not called hypocrisy and collusion? some might say, he has been bought. .the irony is, a brexiteer talking about corruption in the EU. The Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal was a major political scandal in early 2018 when it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica had harvested the personal data of millions of people's Facebook profiles without their consent and used it for political purposes. It has been described as a watershed moment in the public understanding of personal data and precipitated a massive fall in Facebook's stock price and calls for tighter regulation of tech companies' use of data. The illicit harvesting of personal data by Cambridge Analytica was first reported in December 2015 by Harry Davies, a journalist for The Guardian. He reported that Cambridge Analytica was working for United States Senator Ted Cruz using data harvested from millions of people's Facebook accounts without their consent.[1] Facebook refused to comment on the story other than to say it was investigating. Further reports followed in the Swiss publication Das Magazin by Hannes Grasseger and Mikael Krogerus, (later translated and published by Vice), Carole Cadwalladr in The Guardian and Matthias Schwartz in The Intercept. Facebook refused to comment on the claims in any of the articles.
like most people, I didn't read the piece. I saw the headline walking past in my v,busy life and made an assumption. maybe the torygraph made something more balanced out of the story in the last paragraph. maybe I should of remembered, The headline is ALWAYS a lie. most people never get past the first few lines "fact". that's where opinions are formed. editors know this.
Too true. Unfortunately. I’ve tried to have a go at reading whole articles, or at least scrolling to the bottom where there is often a summary. Very rare that the headline isn’t misleading. He may well be right, but comes across to me as someone else that just doesn’t like the result of the first referendum. Finm - it’s good to hear opposing views of these things.
On the back of our 1950's women having to take up work because of the State pension injustice ........ nice.
You’ve lost me with that one Portboy? Why would women born in the 50s have to find a new income if they didn’t need one before? If they were previously working they would already be in the figures.
How come no one can tell lies and get away with it......except politicians and wealthy pricks? Democracy? What a load of bollocks. https://www.channel4.com/news/revea...iWjMBUheQUpLLqZhpAikVk138_iIIkOvPObGbptJgnZUc
They obviously came out of work believing that were going to receive a State pension earlier than the government dictated. There's a high court hearing due in June dealing with issue.
Ah, the people who left work to be unemployed that have now returned to work, despite being told they wouldn’t get an old age pension at sixty several years ago.
The women’s old age pension age requirement first changed in the 1995 budget. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7405/CBP-7405.pdf
Fake news, as was the majority of similar crap on Facebook etc Designed to outrage a section of society that believe everything without questioning the source, especially if it panders to their beliefs. Trouble is these and similar 'stories' get retold so many times that people start to think they are true. History, the build up to ww2 should be a lesson and warning for people; Propaganda, lies, hatred were used to garner support for heinous actions that followed later.
‘In his Budget statement on 30 November 1993, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ken Clarke, announced that the Government had decided to equalise the SPA at 65. The change would be phased in over ten years starting in 2010.’ There have been more changes since, but it’s been known for a long time that women’s SPA has changed. I still don’t see why changes to SPA over the past nine years have had a sudden effect now?
I know why you are angry on that particular point but even you must admit, this is the equality of the sexes women asked for.
