It's really weird that when Freemasons are brought up on here people talk about loony conspiracy theories. The freemasons had (maybe still have) a known link to MET police corruption that was talked about in books like The Untouchables, and Inside the Brotherhood, there were top police speaking openly that Freemasonry needed to be ridded from the police because it was too powerful and aided corruption.
It's quite concerning the number of actual dodgy shit that gets mixed in with fake moon landings
Some might argue that that is the point of them (the loony conspiracy theories). Others might argue that that is a loony conspiracy theory in itself. Useful label really...
Tbh, the water has been muddied by the more loony conspiracy theories to the point where they're immediately what comes to mind when Freemasonry is discussed.
Police corruption and links to Masonry is a very real, documented thing.
Great book suggestions, btw. Would recommend both too. I'd also recommend the Untold podcast (and its book) because it ties in with the Met corruption and you'll recognise some names.
Complaint – Article published on Sunday 4 February
This is a complaint pursuant to your Editorial Code about an article published on Sunday 4 February on your website and in print on Monday 5 February. The article was headlined "Two Freemasons' Lodges Operating Secretly at Westminster" and Ian Cobain was credited with the byline. lt contained significant inaccuracies which created a substantially misleading article. The existence of the two lodges in question is not secret, they don't operate at Westminster and they don't have MPs or journalists in their respective memberships.
The article claimed that "Two Freemasons' lodges set up for members of parliament and political journalists are continuing to operate secretly at Westminster". This is inaccurate. The Lodges do not operate at Westminster and only meet in Camden at Freemasons' Hall.
The article stated "Exclusive: Lodges for MPs and journalists are so covert even lobby reporters do not know members". The Lodges in the article do not have any MPs or journalists as members.
The Lodges are not secret. Their meeting place is open to the public all year and their meeting dates are published in the United Grand Lodge of Englanddirectory of Lodges and Chapters available for the public to buy from most Masonic retailers. Details of the founding of the New Welcome Lodge were published in the press including in the Daily Telegraph. The New Welcome Lodge and Gallery Lodge are referred to in Hansard and have had Wikipedia pages for 12 years. Both Lodges feature in publicly available academic articles (on Researchgate, among other resources) and press. A detailed history of Gallery Lodge, together with its past and present members, was published in 1968. lt is wilfully misleading for the Guardian to state that the Lodges operate secretly or to imply that their existence is "secret" or "covert".
The article claimed that "The New Welcome Lodge has about 30 to 40 members ... only about four of the current members are MPs". This is fictitious, as anybody connected with the Lodge would know. New Welcome Lodge only has 22 members. There are no current MPs who are members of New Welcome Lodge.
We provided extensive information and quotes to Ian Cobain in answer to his questions about Freemasonry and he used this information in other contemporaneous articles about Freemasonry. He chose not to ask us about New Welcome Lodge and appears to have ignored all of the widely published and available information about it and Gallery Lodge. He did not provide us with any opportunity to correct the errors in his article. Instead, inaccurate information has been published to create a misleading impression of Freemasonry. The reader is deliberately left to infer that journalists and MPs meet in secret at Westminster as Freemasons, which is untrue and which the author must have known or suspected to be untrue. There is no evidence for, or truth in, these inferences in the article about Freemasonry.
By publishing inaccuracies which foster and promote popular prejudices against Freemasonry concerning corruption, power and control, the article damaged the reputation of the United Grand Lodge of England as a membership organisation and encouraged further discrimination against individual Freemasons.
We request that you publish a retraction of the article in an agreed form which confirms that journalists and MPs don't meet in secret at Westminster as Freemasons. We also request that you publish an apology to Freemasons for misleading the public about the nature of Freemasonry.
Dr David Staples,
For and on behalf of The United Grand Lodge of England"
Some women. But momentous all the same.
As monumentous as this event was its worth noting that 1918 also marks the moment when all men (over the age of 21) were given the vote, previously only men who paid a certain amount of rent or were landowners (about 60%) were entitled.
Also worth noting is that perhaps the real reason women were not granted to vote sooner is because, as they as much less likely to have a job, its not so easy to coerce them into voting one way or the other.
Really enjoying the little bits of history I never got taught at school, Like Sophie Duleep Singh, who was an Indian Princess (the daughter of the last Maharaja ) and a socialite in the UK amongst the fashionable upperclass.
After travelling back to India for a time and returning to the UK, she became a suffragette and critic of the empire, and in general just pissed off the establishment she'd been a pet figure in.
Yep. Pretty much. Yay, rich women could vote 1928 should be the year we celebrate the 100th anniversary from.
It's easy to justify this kind of thing when you make people think of illegal immigrants or benefit scroungers or health tourists - but to be clear, this doesn't apply to Europeans, or illegal immigrants or those who are visiting for a few months - it applies to those with residence visas - most of whom are already working full time, paying as much income tax and national insurance as everyone else does.
Add in that most migrants tend to be younger, and typically earn more than average (meaning higher tax / NI contributions) and this just amounts to another xenophobic policy that further shows the UK to be an insular and nasty country.
It's already hard to get migrants travelling here to work on farms, good luck getting any now that they might have to pay extra if they're hurt doing what is tough manual work.
I don't really like this idea of raising fees again for set groups. Especially ones which contribute to infrastructure and economy of the country.
Plus, are there any figures to support that migrants are making a huge impact on the NHS? Or is this just a policy to keep people happy as the NHS crumbles on anyway.
It's meant to tackle "health tourism". But it doesn't. This affects people who plan on living here. Literally the opposite of tourists.
Except if they're already here, working and paying as much tax as anybody else, they're already paying for it - so why are we charging them again because "you is a forriner innit"?
Or students that are bringing £20k a year in tuition alone into the country, not to mention all the money they spend while they're here - and then might get a decently paid job at the end of their studies and pay their fair share of tax that way?
This self-employed malarky has to end. It's so dishonest it's ridiculous
Not only that, they're paid per parcel. Deliver more parcels = earn more money. There's only so much time in a day, so this incentivises you to drive with less care. You end up with delivery drivers racing around breaking speed limits, gambling amber lights, pulling up on the pavement, sometimes not even ringing the bell before deciding that there's no-one home and racing onto the next location.
They're so obviously employed and not self-employed, it's painful.
Because he was never allowed days off to see a doc who'd tell him he couldn't drive anymore.
Lane had collapsed twice, including once into a diabetic coma while at the wheel of his DPD van during deliveries
Gotta wonder why he was allowed to continue driving.
How could the public realistically take action to block Brexit? Write to our MPs? Demonstrate outside Westminster? It seems like a lost cause at this point.
I wrote to my MP and his letter indicated to me that he is committed to the long term success of his political career and a reputation of, toeing-the-line.
No, now is the time the government does its fucking job and acts in the best interest of the people of this country and saves them from themselves. Otherwise public debate in this country will be forever broken
Mine is the Labour chief whip. His constituents voted overwhelmingly to Remain. When I emailed to demand he voted with his constituents wishes I had a half arsed "will of the people" email.
The will of the people who elected you was to remain!
I noticed Rees-mogg was accusing the civil service of releasing incorrect information about how screwed we are economically after brexit.
Because they're not saying it's going to be all sunshine and unicorns then they MUST be wrong.
He didn't offer any alternative figures or research. He said it entirely to make sure it got into the news so anyone who was doubting the brexit cult would be swiftly reassured.
These are trump level tactics.
It took ten years at least for Germany to reach full scale nazism. Warnings of even vague similarities to 1930's Germany are valid and damned well worth pointing out.
Luckily we know no party like the Nazis could ever arise here. The English mindset is above the simple nationalism that can be sold to Germans. The English race can't be sold on racism the way the lesser races can.
He claims the results were politically motivated and used that as an excuse to set up his own politically motivated hard brexit group, claiming it to be independent since it comes up with the results he wants.
I can believe it.
When I went hospital for something Dr said what do you do for a living. I replied printer. He then asked he how much for a poster like that (A3 size). I said about £5 he said he was charged £75 for it.
Seems that because it's the NHS they can charge any price they like.
We send the EU £350m a week. Let's fund our 233,333 pots of moisturiser instead.
Yay for the "internal market", amirite guys?
We really need to make a government department that buys all the supplies for all state rub services,
UK citizens could soon have to use their passport VPN to access porn
This is utterly unenforceable. Given how dynamic things are online a workaround would be found within days if not hours.
It is just silly box ticking. Even if there is a genuine problem with porn (and the evidence is mixed) this will do absolutely nothing eitherway.
They'll do what people do to get around the Pirate Bay block.
They'll simply visit the sites which aren't blocked.
Y'know... the unregulated ones. The ones which don't respond to law enforcement requests. Y'know... the ones which host actual genuine rape porn instead of the fantasy stuff put out by professionals. The ones which host actual child porn alongside regular porn.
Yeah, those are the sites that British children and adults will be visiting in the future to get their porn.
It's intentional. A few steps down the road the plan will be to ban VPNs, because 'think of the children'.
"3 million homes which already have access to high speed internet, get even higher speeds, while those who really need it get fuck all"
Is that what "Ultrafast" is now? I can't even remember when I last had a speed around that. I think Virgin killed their 20Mbps service in favour of 30Mbps back in 2011?
Ultrafast is 100mbps. "superfast" is 24.
The article agrees with you though.
But that was driven by the government's order to make "superfast" broadband - a modest 24 megabits a second
24Mbps is what we already have. The article is about rolling out FTTP which will be capable of gigabit speeds, although it's not clear when those speeds will actually be offered.
It would extremely stupid and highly irresponsible to continue given the information available.
WILL OF THE PEOPLE! TRAITOR! SOVEREIGNTY! GET RID OF THE DAMN DARKIES! FORGET THAT LAST ONE!The Daily Mail to reasonable people who point this out any day now, probably.
May doesn't give two shits about the country. All she cares about is keeping the Tories in power because that's better for her wallet.
If she (and Cameron) actually cared, we'd have never had the moronic referendum and certainly wouldn't be pursing maximum Brexit like we are.
She's not a quitter though. She can see the iceberg but is maintaining course as necessary. It seems being the PM who got us out of the EU is more important than being the PM who averted disaster.