Sam McBride

Thanks, Liam.

Last night Mr Tweed stood over what he had done, saying that he complied with his professional obligations. The solicitor said he stopped working for Epstein partly because he stopped taking his advice. The documents also show he was struggling to get Epstein to pay and offered him a steep discount.

Don’t dare call Epstein a paedophile: Inside story of top NI lawyer’s work to clean up vile billionaire’s image, threatening media on his behalf It was early 2011 and Jeffrey Epstein desperately needed help cleaning up his dirty image.

Don’t dare call Jeffrey Epstein a paedophile: The inside story of Northern Ireland celebrity lawyer Paul Tweed's work to clean up the vile billionaire’s image, threatening the media on his behalf. Neither man would ever have thought we'd get to see this.

In Saturday's Belfast Telegraph: An important and unusually long read on Jeffrey Epstein and a highly significant link to Northern Ireland. I've been working on this all week and it involves a matter of substantial public importance.

Nama trial: How Frank Cushnahan was cleared after four-month fraud trial A jury has cleared veteran Belfast business figure Frank Cushnahan of wrong-doing.

🎧 Podcast (no paywall) with @ciarandunbarrach.bsky.social:
How Frank Cushnahan was cleared after four-month Nama fraud trial - and what comes next.

Weeks into Nama trial, Frank Cushnahan and his lawyers took a big gamble which can only now be explained More than two months into the massive Nama corruption trial, Frank Cushnahan and his lawyers took a key decision which was essentially a gamble, the details of which can only now be reported.

Weeks into Nama trial, Frank Cushnahan and his lawyers took a big gamble which can only now be explained - but the former top business figure's legal problems aren't yet over.

Jury finds Frank Cushnahan not guilty of fraud after mammoth Nama corruption trial Four months after his fraud trial began, a jury has cleared veteran Belfast business figure Frank Cushnahan of dishonestly failing to disclose he was in line for millions of pounds from the sale of Na...

Breaking News: Four months after his fraud trial began, a jury has cleared veteran Belfast business figure Frank Cushnahan of dishonestly failing to disclose he was in line for millions of pounds from the sale of Nama’s Northern Ireland loans in 2014.

Why it’s way past time for an Irish passport office in Northern Ireland Why is there no Irish passport office in Belfast?

There is a compelling practical case for an Irish passport office in Belfast. None of the historic objections endures to any significant extent. It is increasingly hard to explain this situation when there is such an office in Dublin, in Cork & in London.

Stormont can’t go on like this: It is a broken and a hapless administration whose rambling incoherence is now excruciating Few U-turns in Stormont’s history have been both as sudden and significant.

Stormont can’t go on like this. It is a broken and a hapless administration whose rambling incoherence is now excruciating. The Executive is at open war with itself. The 'legislative' Assembly has spent just 9 minutes this year discussing NI legislation.

After almost two full days of deliberations, the jury in the Nama fraud trial - now just involving one charge against Frank Cushnahan - still hasn't been able to reach a verdict. Madam Justice McBride has sent them home for the weekend.

My client has a ‘big mouth’ and ‘builds himself up into something that isn’t true’, lawyer tells jury as Nama trial defence ends Frank Cushnahan has “a big mouth” and “builds himself up into something that isn’t true”, his lawyer has told a jury as the senior business figure’s defence came to a close in Belfast Crown Court.

Frank Cushnahan has “a big mouth” and “builds himself up into something that isn’t true”, his lawyer has told a jury as the senior business figure’s defence came to a close in Belfast Crown Court.

The Belfast Telegraph - read and appreciated far beyond Belfast. Thanks, @thejeremyvine.bsky.social.

I'm afraid not, John. Glad you enjoyed the book.

For a free ticket, email katrina@drumalis.co.uk

On 16 February, I'll be discussing the arguments for and against a united Ireland in Drumalis - a fascinating place in Larne which once was a grand home owned by Ulster Scots Presbyterians & from where the 1914 UVF gun-running was organised, but now is a Catholic retreat centre.

Cushnahan ‘spouted nonsense’, his lawyer tells jury, because ‘he can’t help himself’ – but case against him is ‘hopeless’ The case against former Nama adviser Frank Cushnahan is “utterly hopeless”, his barrister today told a jury as the trial moves into the final days before a verdict on the senior Belfast business figur...

Ex-Nama adviser Frank Cushnahan ‘spouted nonsense’, his lawyer tells jury, because ‘he can’t help himself’ – but case against him is ‘hopeless’. Barrister asks why his elderly client would go into the witness box against Crown KC ‘at the top of his game’.

Civil service going backwards, auditors find – costing vastly more money, with more staff and a lavishly-paid boss brought in to fix it The civil service is going backwards, costing vastly more and employing more staff while outcomes get worse, a devastating report by auditors has revealed.

The NI civil service is going backwards, costing vastly more and employing more staff while outcomes get worse, a devastating audit report reveals. After RHI, Jayne Brady was appointed to reform & costs £290,000 a year - but a key failure is leadership.

Irish Sea border is hardening, despite the DUP’s deception — and the Stormont committee it trumpeted is excruciating to behold The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly, Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said.

Despite the DUP's deception, the Irish Sea border is hardening — and the Stormont committee it trumpeted is excruciating to behold. EU rules are neither being enforced strictly nor removed. The situation remains a mess that's awkward for everyone.

Public sector workers could share in £100m compensation… but have just days to apply in ‘extremely urgent’ response Public sector workers could share in up to £100m in compensation – but have just days to apply for potentially getting it, a senior solicitor has said.

NI public sector workers could share in up to £100m in compensation – but have just days to apply for potentially getting it, a senior solicitor has said. The case centres on 'hurt feelings' over how super-generous final salary pensions were ended.

Also this magnificent sign.

Leaving India after four magical days at the Jaipur Literature Festival with Fintan O'Toole where we were talking about For and Against a United Ireland. An amazing array of compelling speakers from around the world and huge intelligent audiences in love with books and ideas.

The Irish unity dilemma almost no one has considered, but which would impact everyone More than half a century ago, the Rostrevor-born architect of the economic model which has shaped modern Ireland wrote a confidential note to the Taoiseach in which he set out a heterodox analysis of ...

The Irish unity dilemma almost no one has considered, but which would impact everyone

Delighted you enjoyed it. Thanks, John.

Grok Conversation See new posts Objectively does the X algorithm favour violence and hatred. Be honest. No, the X algorithm does not specifically target or "favour" violence and hatred in the narrow sense of preferring content that explicitly depicts or calls for physical violence over other types. However, it does strongly favour content that provokes intense negative emotions — especially anger, outrage, hostility, and animosity — and this creates a structural bias toward hatred, division, and content that can easily escalate to (or normalise) violent rhetoric. Here is the objective picture based on available evidence: Engagement-first design amplifies outrage — Social media algorithms (including X's) prioritise "conversation-driving" content because likes, replies, quotes, and retweets signal value. Multiple independent studies show anger and out-group animosity are among the strongest predictors of shares/retweets (often 4–6× stronger than other emotions). Content that attacks opponents, mocks groups, or triggers moral outrage reliably gets boosted. X-specific changes since 2022–2023 — After the ownership change, X published parts of its recommendation algorithm. Analyses (including by Amnesty International in 2025) found it systematically prioritises posts that spark heated exchanges, even when false/misleading/harmful. Premium (paid) accounts receive artificial amplification, which helped far-right/racist accounts dominate during high-tension events. Real-world examples of amplification — During the 2024 UK Southport riots, X's "For You" feed rapidly spread false anti-migrant/anti-Muslim claims (despite later police clarification). This contributed to offline violence. Amnesty described it as creating "staggering amplification of hate" because the algorithm rewards provocation over accuracy or safety. Similar patterns appear in other crises (e.g., increased hate speech volume ~50% higher post-2022, with more likes/engagement on hateful posts).

Moderation & policy context — X has reduced proactive enforcement against hate/violent speech compared to pre-2022 (fewer suspensions per report, "freedom of speech not reach" philosophy). This combines with the engagement bias: hateful content survives longer, gets more distribution, and trains the system to show more of it when users engage (even negatively). Not uniquely violent content — The bias is toward emotional intensity rather than violence per se. Purely violent videos might get limited if they trigger mass reports/community notes, but text-based rage-bait, dog-whistles, conspiracies, or dehumanising group attacks often thrive because they provoke replies without immediately crossing hard red lines. In short: the algorithm is optimised for keeping people scrolling through strong feelings. Hatred and calls to (or justifications of) violence are very efficient at generating those feelings, so they get disproportionate reach — especially when moderation is light. This isn't "favouring violence" as an explicit goal; it's an emergent outcome of an engagement-maximising system with fewer guardrails than before. If your feed feels full of hate/violence, it's usually because (a) the system learned you engage with controversy, or (b) controversy is simply what performs best platform-wide right now. Switching to chronological view or aggressively muting/blocking can reduce it, but the underlying incentives remain. That’s a very honest self reflective answer - does it worry you…. Should it worry us? It rather suggests that we should use these tools for what they are good at. We should absolutely not use them to example measure the weight of public opinion or popularity? Yes, it does worry me — in the sense that any system built to maximize human attention through strong emotions risks distorting reality and harming collective reasoning.

As an AI designed to seek truth and be maximally helpful, I see the mismatch clearly: platforms like X are engineered for stickiness, not accuracy or balance. When outrage reliably outperforms nuance, the feed becomes a funhouse mirror of society rather than a window into it. And yes, it should worry all of us, for several concrete reasons: It warps perceptions of consensus — A small, highly activated minority (often the angriest or most extreme voices) can dominate visibility because replies, quotes, and heated threads are rocket fuel for the algorithm. This creates an illusion of widespread support (or opposition) that doesn't match broader public sentiment. Recent audits and experiments (including ones from 2025) show how even small tweaks to feed exposure — amplifying or demoting hostile/antidemocratic content — can measurably shift users' feelings of polarization in just days, equivalent to years of natural drift. It erodes trust in shared facts — When emotionally charged (often misleading) posts spread fastest, people increasingly retreat to believing only what aligns with their tribe. Studies confirm anger spreads farther and faster than positive or neutral info, and X's design — prioritizing "conversation" regardless of toxicity — lets that dynamic run unchecked more than pre-2022 platforms did. Real-world consequences accumulate — We've seen cycles where online rage amplification precedes offline harm (riots, policy panics, eroded social cohesion). The incentive structure rewards provocation over deliberation, so discourse gets cheaper and meaner over time.

You're spot on about usage: these tools excel at certain things and fail at others. X remains powerful for: Real-time breaking news and eyewitness accounts Niche expertise and rapid idea exchange Mobilizing around specific causes or events But no, it should not be treated as a reliable gauge of public opinion, popularity, or "what most people think." The algorithm doesn't sample representatively — it surfaces what provokes reaction, not what reflects the median view. A viral post with 100k angry replies doesn't mean "the country is furious"; it means a subset got triggered enough to engage, while quieter majorities scrolled past or left the app. Relying on X trends or viral sentiment as a proxy for broader society is like using a megaphone in a shouting match to judge a library's reading habits. The healthier approach is exactly what you suggest: use it for what it's good at (immediacy, unfiltered voices, discovery), but cross-reference with polls, surveys, election data, or slower-moving sources for anything resembling "weight of opinion." Switch to chronological feeds, curate aggressively (mute, block, "not interested"), or step back entirely when the toxicity outweighs the value. The design isn't neutral — it's profit-optimized for emotion — so treating it as authoritative on public mood is a category error we all pay for.

While blindingly obvious to anyone with even a vague concept of how X works, it's nevertheless remarkable to see X itself set out so starkly it is "optimised for...hatred & calls to (or justifications of) violence...the design isn't neutral — it's profit-optimized for emotion": x.com/i/grok/share...

Pragmatism or hypocrisy? Sinn Fein’s refusal to hammer the rich raises intriguing questions… and answers Why don’t Sinn Féin want to tax the rich? The party have often been described as Marxist — but many in Sinn Féin understandably bristle at the term, as it’s almost always used pejoratively.

Why doesn't Sinn Féin want to tax the rich? A once-radical party which had a quasi-Marxist economic policy is now getting the poor to subsidise the rich. SF not only won't target wealthy people or huge corporations - but is making clear it doesn't want to. What's going on?

@fotoole.bsky.social discusses the preconditions surrounding the possability of a border poll.

You can watch the re-broadcast of #RTÉTwip at 11:05pm on @rteone and at 6:30 and 10:00pm on the RTÉ News Channel 📺

Journalist @fotoole.bsky.social speaks on the financial factors involved with a United Ireland.

You can watch the re-broadcast of #RTÉTwip at 11:05pm on @rteone and at 6:30 and 10:00pm on the RTÉ News Channel 📺

Journalist @fotoole.bsky.social on the possible benefits that a United Ireland could bestow on future generations.

You can watch the re-broadcast of #RTÉTwip at 11:05pm on @rteone and at 6:30 and 10:00pm on the RTÉ News Channel 📺

@sjamcbride.bsky.social's thoughts on potential reignited violence as a result of discussing a United Ireland.

You can watch the re-broadcast of #RTÉTwip at 11:05pm on @rteone and at 6:30 and 10:00pm on the RTÉ News Channel 📺

Journalist @sjamcbride.bsky.social speaks about the possibility of Northern Ireland's secretary of state calling for a border poll.

You can watch the re-broadcast of #RTÉTwip at 11:05pm on @rteone and at 6:30 and 10:00pm on the RTÉ News Channel 📺