Slashdot Mirror
British Politicians Delete Negative Wikipedia Descriptions Before Election
EwanPalmer writes: The Wikipedia pages of dozens of UK politicians had references to sex scandals, fraud and opposition to same sex marriage removed in the run up to the UK general election. Dozens of MPs had negative aspects of their online biographies removed or altered prior to the election in a bid to make them more electable. The changes include several instances of MPs' expense claim scandals being removed, as well as details of arrests and the use of 'chauffeur-driven cars.' The edits were made using computers with IP addresses registered from inside Parliament.
You assholes re-elected the torie menace David Cameron, and he is going to COMPLETELY destroy your country.
I've noticed in the past that most of those white-washing edits, especially when they're done by anonymous IPs, tend to get reverted by registered editors, so that the white-washing isn't that much of an issue.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Access to information is the greatest threat to rule of crooks and despots, which is why it is frowned upon in so many closed counties.
In the West? Chances are very few people will be reseacrhing online inside the voting booth. Do your homework before election day.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
'There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,' he said. 'Repeat it, if you please.'
'"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,"' repeated Winston obediently.
Note: The general people in the UK don't vote for the Prime Minister - they vote for their local Member of Parliament (MP).
The MPs collectively vote for the Prime Minister.
So 'You assholes' is presumably only referring to the 650 (minus the Sinn Fein folk) MPs?
The alternative being a weak Labour government with its balls firmly in the Nats hands.
If there was ever an election that was a choice of the lesser evil, the 2015 UK general election was it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The root of the problem is people using Wikipedia as a research resource in its own right. It's very helpful for uncontroversial facts but horrible for anything even slightly politically charged. Wikipedia is filled with power hungry POV pushing scum in denial. The solution isn't to fix Wikipedia, it's far beyond fixing. The solution is to take anything you read on Wikipedia with a whole shaker of salt. Do real research.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
The US voters have had the dilemma of having to pick the lesser of two evils for awhile now. It's all downhill from here. May God have mercy on you.
I'm not convinced we got the lesser evil though.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
First of all, I'm not British, so I only meant this as an outside observation. I'm Canadian, so certainly well versed in the realities of Westminster politics.
Second of all, as much as Cameron may be far from ideal, I don't think he's any kind of Palpatine. As much as anything, he's been delivered the fruits of the Labour meltdown in Scotland which began in 2010 and now appears to be permanent.
I do think that the specter of a Labour government reliant on the SNP disturbed a good many English, and I think there are reasonable grounds to argue that, for England, the idea of a Devo-maxed Scotland still able to push English MPs around on matters of largely English concern demonstrates fundamental inequities. And before we all forget, it is Labour, as much as anyone, who created this dilemma by dealing with the Scottish question, and going out of its way not to deal with English question.
At any rate, British voters had their chance to pick a new electoral system that would have made the ability of any party to form government with less than even a 40% share of the popular vote far less likely. They rejected that. Coupled with what looks to be a permanent break with Labour in Scotland, and the phenomena of UKIP actually stealing more Labour votes than Conservative votes in the North, the Tories probably have a good chance of repeating the 2015 election again, providing they don't go completely off the rails. And that will moderate them as much as anything. Their first majority in 23 years is not something they're going to be keen to throw away on a pack of Thatcheresque exploits.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No, in the UK you vote for a candidate, not a party, and the candidate may be independent of parties.
A party candidate may choose to leave his party after the election and this does not trigger a by-election, he retains his seat.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
If you think that a choice between Dems, who have shown themselves to be centrist, fiscally responsible and more likely to support the working class than not, and the gop, which has become a raft of radical nutjobs who want to waste the country's money on foreign wars while reducing taxes on the wealthy effectively bleeding the middle class to death... is the lesser of two evils, then you are just plain silly
Keep in mind, who put the right wingers on the Supreme Court which upheld corporate money as 'free speech' - The GOP
Who put us into two foreign wars with no long range plan resulting in trillions in debt and thousands of dead Americans - The GOP
Who left our guard down while ignoring repeated warnings and allowing the 9/11 attacks on their watch - The GOP
Who deregulated markets and created a boom/bust scenario resulting in the largest recession in 80 years - the GOP
Who reduced taxes on the wealthy resulting in deficits and long term problems like a rotting infrastructure - the GOP
And just to balance the scale, who recovered from the last two Bush-driven recessions - The Dems
If you think that is the choice between two evils, then you are drinking the gop cool-aid and need to wake the fuck up
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Don't just put me down, provide a logical counter argument
Wherever You Go, There You Are