Joel Pierce

Because blind spots, like his on the British Empire, lead to bad scholarship, which then can lead to people defending bad politics when their colleagues reject their scholarship. Which is probably a lesson to all of us who have our own blind spots.

And I'm quite happy to take Biggar to task, as you'll see if you want to read the last chapter of my book which excoriates what has come to be Biggar's views on migration now. The article of his I critique is poorly argued and misrepresents the historical figure he engaged with.

And as a data point a former colleague of mine who essentially does liberation theology of undocumented people (among other things) found Nigel to be some who supported his career when he was working in that topic then.

Because, in academia, as opposed to colonial conquest, a lot of what being a decent person in that role is is actually defined by not being a jerk to colleagues and students, even if you disagree with them strongly.

I suppose if Rhodes had spent the first two thirds of his career doing decent and responsible work, fostering colleagues across the ideological spectrum as an academic, before taking a weird right turn into right wing intellectual circles, that would be a relevant comparison.

If it were steel works we would have a government bailout plan, yet losing thousands of jobs at unis is met with a shrug. & unlike steelworks universities were profitable when they had foreign students.
You are killing the golden goose… one of our best exports…

HOW IS THIS HELPING GROWTH?!

I think as long as you're not talking about one of his bugbears, Nigel is actually very kind and thoughtful (at least that's what I've heard from folks). He's just got this weird blind spot about the British Empire and sadly has allowed that to become the defining feature of his career.

Remind me again how this is growing the economy? That's what Labour is all about right? Growth?

BP to scrap paid rest breaks and most bank holiday bonuses for forecourt staff Exclusive: Plans to offset increase in minimum ‘fair pay’ set by Living Wage Foundation will affect 5,400 employees

BP made a profit north $2,200,000,000 in the last quarter alone, but can't seem to afford a modest pay increase for their lowest paid workers. Hmmm...

When people ask me why, as a Christian, I'm not automatically happy that positions of power are occupied by other Christians, this Supreme Court is exhibit A, B, and C.

That this hermeneutical approach has led to continual fractures within the Protestant world would, one would think, be a reason for caution, but evidently not.

It's completely within the realms of possibility that they overturn the lower court on this, despite the untold misery it would cause.

There's a deep irony that it's a Catholic majority which keeps applying this standard, because the notion that you can dispense with tradition and hop back into the heads of the original authors of a document to determine its one and only meaning is the most Protestant stance ever.

Supreme Court Agrees to Review Trump Order Restricting Birthright Citizenship

The real truth is that Originalism is more accurately called Humpty Dumptyism, where the careful consideration embodied in over a century of case law can be thrown out because for Roberts et al words mean only and exactly what they decide they mean.

Maybe we could just acknowledge that even if such a power were within our abilities (I really hope it's not), we don't need to develop them? Or can we never say no to new tech, no matter how ethically awful it is?

At some point they're going to have to reckon with the problem that the only way to create an AI with moral standing is through acts of manipulation, cutting, and controlling its mental development that any moral philosopher would agree are gross violations of an agent's moral autonomy.

Perhaps they're deluding themselves about what their tech can really do (I hope so). And it's beyond me why anyone would want to create a sentient AI except to see if it can be done (a famously unproblematic motivation in scientific history 🙄), but...

Doctors who turned on and off portions of others' human brains on a whim (or for commercial advantage), would be seen as monsters. If Anthropic really thinks they've got a path to sentience, then they are heading into a space where they're going to look a lot like those doctors.

A little part of my inner Kantian dies every time I hear an AI enthusiast say something along the lines of, 'Wouldn't it be cool if we could create a sentient rational agent except we get to make all the decisions about what emotions and dispositions it can and can't have?'

#bbcqt please can someone correct the speaker who says people who are on a visa claim benefits and social housing? It's stamped on the permit that we can't.

It's only ever allowed in extreme cases

Screenshot of the New York Times article cover image for “Opinion: How to Prepare Your Kids for the AI Revolution”

My general feeling is that if something is called a “Revolution”, but there is no mention of the people and/or cultures destroyed in the process, it’s either not a revolution or it’s violences are being intentionally obscured

Hark! The stories of our favorite Christmas carols Bonus: Advent Scripture Reflections for Hark Listeners Sign up to receive Scripture reflections (normally only available for America subscribers)

Look my favourite podcast is back for Advent! Part history, party music theory, and 100% worth your time.

Opinion | How to Prepare Your Kids for the A.I. Revolution

Fifty years ago, this column would be:

'I am creating hyper-addictive tobacco products, but I'm confident these three parenting tricks will create a world where my son will smoke recreationally and never get hooked.'

I'm so tired of tech folks' solution to their bad products being my parenting.

Looks like I've reached the age where once the endorphins have worn off, my whole body is going to let me know how much it doesn't think running is a good idea. Just going to creak through the rest of the day...

BBC tells staff they cannot quote Trump line removed from Reith lecture Journalists not allowed to repeat Rutger Bregman’s corruption claims against US president in coverage of edit

Okay, this is just silly. Is the next step to bar BBC staff from reporting on anything Democrats say, since it won't be fawning approval of Trump and therefore even the reporting of it could be construed as somehow defamatory? Trump is a spoiled child and should not be indulged.

Trump says Haiti no longer meets requirements for TPS. Haitians have to leave The Department of Homeland Security said TPS for Haiti ends Feb. 3, 2026, affecting over half a million people who may face return to gang-controlled Port-au-Prince.

Exhibit A in why it's a bad idea for Labour to remove the ability of refugees to normalise their status. In the US the TPS status relied on people with power not being monsters to refugees, not demanding they return to violent and chaotic situations. Well, we live in the age of monsters.

Green Card Interviews End in Handcuffs for Spouses of U.S. Citizens

“They had submitted extensive paperwork and paid fees. The foreign spouses had been fingerprinted and passed medical exams. None had criminal records. None had entered the country illegally. They had already been granted employment authorization.”

Illegal. Immoral.
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/26/u...

‘Unavoidably unfair’: the secret courts system hearing part of Palestine Action case The CMP system means Huda Ammori will not be allowed to know what allegations were made against her

Let's say worst case scenario for PA and they've been implicated in some serious criminality. I doubt it would come near to approaching anything an organised crime racket would do, and yet they're able to be tried in a normal courtroom. This whole system is farcical and antidemocratic.

Seen any of these lately in our politics?

I'm in a village pantomime! So if you're in NE Scotland and are looking for some silliness to kick off your holiday season, come along and see me... and some other people with actual talent :)

Mahmood/government should say explain *objective* of increasing time to settlement for 15 years for care workers who arrived 2022-24

Is it

A) to get them to leave? Why?
B) to save money? Then why not just restrict benefits?
C) to "encourage integration"? How? Will do opposite.