@BurdensomeCount's banner p

BurdensomeCount

Misinformation superspreader

6 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:37:04 UTC

The neighborhood of Hampstead is just at present exercised with a series of events which seem to run on lines parallel to those of what was known to the writers of headlines and "The Kensington Horror," or "The Stabbing Woman," or "The Woman in Black." During the past two or three days several cases have occurred of young children straying from home or neglecting to return from their playing on the Heath. In all these cases the children were too young to give any properly intelligible account of themselves, but the consensus of their excuses is that they had been with a "bloofer lady." It has always been late in the evening when they have been missed, and on two occasions the children have not been found until early in the following morning. It is generally supposed in the neighborhood that, as the first child missed gave as his reason for being away that a "bloofer lady" had asked him to come for a walk, the others had picked up the phrase and used it as occasion served. This is the more natural as the favorite game of the little ones at present is luring each other away by wiles. A correspondent writes us that to see some of the tiny tots pretending to be the"bloofer lady" is supremely funny. Some of our caricaturists might, he says, take a lesson in the irony of grotesque by comparing the reality and the picture. It is only in accordance with general principles of human nature that the "bloofer lady" should be the popular role at these al fresco performances.


				
User ID: 628


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
BurdensomeCount


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Misinformation superspreader

				
				
				

				

					6 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 16:37:04 UTC
				


				
					

					
The neighborhood of Hampstead is just at present exercised with a series of events which seem to run on lines parallel to those of what was known to the writers of headlines and "The Kensington Horror," or "The Stabbing Woman," or "The Woman in Black." During the past two or three days several cases have occurred of young children straying from home or neglecting to return from their playing on the Heath. In all these cases the children were too young to give any properly intelligible account of themselves, but the consensus of their excuses is that they had been with a "bloofer lady." It has always been late in the evening when they have been missed, and on two occasions the children have not been found until early in the following morning. It is generally supposed in the neighborhood that, as the first child missed gave as his reason for being away that a "bloofer lady" had asked him to come for a walk, the others had picked up the phrase and used it as occasion served. This is the more natural as the favorite game of the little ones at present is luring each other away by wiles. A correspondent writes us that to see some of the tiny tots pretending to be the"bloofer lady" is supremely funny. Some of our caricaturists might, he says, take a lesson in the irony of grotesque by comparing the reality and the picture. It is only in accordance with general principles of human nature that the "bloofer lady" should be the popular role at these al fresco performances.



				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 628


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I meant in the sense that I'm neither a lower class Indonesian or a lower class white British man so I don't have a direct dog in the race. No reason why Amelia in the UK who has a job making and serving mediocre coffee should get paid any more than Mehmet making and serving mediocre coffee in Ankara.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The 80% need to realize the boot on their necks imposed by the 19% (or 19.99%, although I suspect in reality it's just the 19.9%) is a good thing. Get rid of it to the point where the lower classes take charge and you'll find yourself in a very bad economic recession and once you get out of it it'll become very apparent that the position of countries like the UK on the new totem pole is one where Indonesia et. al. are now going to bully you instead of the other way around. That, I suspect, will be what truly ends up breaking the lower class western mind, and I look forward to seeing the day; of course, as a neutral third party there's no reason for a lower class Indonesian to be getting paid any less than a lower class Brit, the emergence of a more just world order will lead to squeals from westerners just like the squeals of the upper class westerners back in the 18th-19th centuries when their privileges were taken away.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Fair enough, I agree "don't admit to your UK lawyer that you're guilty if you expect them to argue for your innocence" is a more accurate reading than what I said the lesson was. Merely lying to your lawyer and it coming out during the trial that you lied to your lawyer is actually (perhaps surprisingly) significantly less bad than the earlier situation because technically your barrister can still argue that the prosecution has not discharged the burden of proving your guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", however of course if you tell your lawyer that you're guilty you suddenly tie their hands significantly in what they can say to the court without breaching their professional duties.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, everything you say is correct. There's the high minded theory and then there's what happens in practice. In reality what happens a lot in Criminal cases specifically is that due to our split profession the barrister tries to minimize contact with the defendant and instead deals with the solicitor handling the case as much as possible and then the solicitor (who usually isn't present at the trial) makes sure the defense barrister is only told the minimum needed to run the clients case as favourably to them as possible so this whole professional embarassment issue never even props up because it's not a breach of the rules to lie to the court when you don't know what you're saying is a lie.


Of course a lot of the time this goes totally lopsided because the client runs their mouth off during cross examination and gets utterly caught out by the prosecution and it transpires that the story which had been told to Counsel has next to no relation to what actually happened, but handling situations like these gracefully is part and parcel of the job of a defense barrister and doesn't leave you facing regulatory sanctions, after all, you believed and ran with what you were told by your instructing solicitor.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Massive difference here between the UK and the US. Here in the UK if your client confesses to you that he is guilty you don't have to explicitly say that to the court but if he then tries to even imply during the trial that he isn't guilty you are professionally obligated to withdraw immediately (it's called being professionally embarrassed), otherwise you risk getting struck off. You don't have to explain that you're withdrawing because of the client lying but if you don't provide a different (truthful reason) the court judge, who is likely a former barrister themselves, will immediately put 2 and 2 together and your client's credibility will be utterly shot, at which point the case is as good as over.


Lesson: Don't lie to your lawyer in the UK, you may be paying them, but their primary duty is to the court, not to you (applies to both civil and criminal cases). I'd argue it works better than the US and is a good middle ground between them and China, which doesn't even have proper legal professional privilege.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Great video, I second watching all of it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Here in the UK at least defense counsel would breach their own professional duties to the court if they were challenged on the existence of such documents and ended up giving the impression (in any way whatsoever) that such documents didn't exist when defense counsel knew they existed. They don't have to volunteer over the fact that they exist but once identified must respond in a fully truthful manner. It's a good thing that keeps parties honest overall I think.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Also, this is a priesthood ruling that entities who are not ordained priests are not allowed to function as priests. Zero surprise there.




The UK bar does something very similar. If you're a company being sued in the high court it's a criminal offense + contempt of court if you don't hire a barrister to represent you, regardless of your size or financial position. Fortunately you can recover costs if you win, but they are rarely 100% of the actual costs (more like 60-70%).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Agreed. LLM conversations should not be admissible for the same reason that a schedule of events that you make on Google Sheets to help you track the events of your case and save on Google Drive isn't admissible, even though it's a conversation with a third party. The US discovery process is absolutely cooked if you ask me, no sensible person would come up with what they have if starting from scratch.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Don'y you have something like Litigation Privilege in the US where general communications made for the primary purpose of assistance with ongoing or reasonably contemplated (a wide net) litigation is protected regardless of who the parties in the conversation are? That would solve the whole problem.


Alternatively: use an open source local model. They are getting good enough these days for litigation tasks.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, this whole "waitresses are supposed to be hot" is an American "Hooters"-esque derived observation that doesn't carry over to the UK at least. Here waitresses (and secretaries for that matter) aren't judged on their looks at all. Some of the biggest and most prestigious UK companies I've visited will have a woman very visibly in her 50s manning the front desk. The only time I see things where it explicitly looks like the person was selected for their looks for a front desk job is when I visit the offices of a US firm, it's very very obvious and stands out: yet another sign we aren't like them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


One of the criteria for who to lay off was "enthusiasm for AI".




In the UK this can genuinely be argued to be indirect age discrimination as older people are naturally going be less enthusiastic over a new technology, meaning the burden now falls on the company to justify their actions as being a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, which is hard to do here in front of a tribunal of law, or else they get done in for discrimination. Finally something good coming out of the UK's regulatory system!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't normally watch anything related to the superbowl. I've now seen this "display". It is so bad it should be a crime against good taste. That's the reason to be against it, not any "evil globohomo wants to send eleventy gorillion migrants to our country". It's not like there aren't any good Latin dances either, some proper Tango and Cha would have been much more dignified.


To be honest I don't have any higher expectations for the Trump 250 Years of the US celebration coming up. It'll likely be just as gaudy, just from the other side of the aisle.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Agreed. AI is amazing if you ask me. AI can write code extremely well right now but its "research taste" still leaves a lot to be desired. I should have a few more years of a secure job in me at least, and by then hopefully I should have enough money that I don't need to work and can focus on what I genuinely want to do myself, for which AI is a massive force multiplier. I'm not one of those people who competes with others based on the size of my bank account, to me money is what I use to ensure I can have and keep my time for myself doing what I want.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, if I've worked hard for a £250k bonus all year and I genuinely expect to get it and then I get stiffed with £100k I will be so so so pissed off (new job time basically).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If you're expecting to gain £10,000 but then you gain £10 instead that very much feels like a loss, it's like getting a bad bonus for the year, nobody is happy even if they're still making money they didn't have yesterday.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't know: "Trump settles legal claim for 1/50,000th of the amount he said it was worth" sounds like a pretty big loss to me, much like how if I'm bringing a claim that I think is worth £2mn but then I win £2000 at trial or through settlement that looks very much like a loss even though I may technically have won.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
And this is where the UK would kill this litigation stone dead. If he's very unlikely to get more than $120k here in the UK what would happen very soon after the suit was filed is that the IRS would make a Part 36 Offer of say $200k + admitting to the leak in return for the suit being ended, with the consequence that if Trump didn't publicly accept this offer in 21 days (far cry between $200k and  $10bn, the acceptance itself would lead to massive egg on his face) then if things went to trial and Trump won less than the $200k the IRS had offered earlier he would be liable for all the reasonable legal costs of the IRS from the date the offer expired.


It would put Trump in a proper bind: either take egg on his face from settling a $10bn suit (or so he says) for $200k or proceed to trial, win $120k and then have to shell out $15m for the IRS's legal costs in defending the claim, which leads to even more egg on his face. Final result: No $10bn suit ever gets launched because all pathways end with Trump getting egg on his face. Instead given that both parties are well aware that the true value of this suit is somewhere around $120k a private secret settlement is quickly achieved without the need to resort to public litigation.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's why the recoverable costs are based on what's "reasonable" (decided by a judge at an early stage of the proceedings) rather than everything. What usually happens for serious cases is that you have a CCMC (Costs and Case Management Conference) before a High Court Master (like a judge but specializes in costs law) where both sides argue for how much each stage of the litigation is likely to cost them and what would be a reasonable spend and you get a chance to challenge what the other side says is reasonable. After that is done the total amount recoverable from the losing side is limited by this number for each of the stages (unless one party acts absolutely egregiously during the case in which case indemnity costs are available). Not to mention that for small claims under £100k in value we now have Fixed Recoverable Costs following the Jackson reforms meaning you can right now go online and find the table which would in 15 minutes allow you to calculate what your costs budget would be for e.g. if someone decided to sue you over £75k.


There's plenty of case law around these CMCs for what's been accepted in other similar cases so while you can run up the lawyer tab all you want the actual amount recovered if you win will still be sensible (usually this corresponds to around 70-80% of the costs incurred in a typical case, 100% recovery is actually quite rare, and of course if you start spending your money on frivolous legal things not covered by the budget there's no recovery for you even if you win, no Costs Master is going to allocate any spending for "gummy bears" and if he did it would be an easy appeal on the grounds of perversity). However this 70-80% recovery is still enough to discourage claim values which are out of all proportion to the total amount of harm the claimant has suffered because 70-80% of a nine figure sum is still massive.


How, pray tell, does Trump intend to demonstrate that the leak of his tax returns has caused him $10 billion worth of damage when his net worth is nowhere near that amount? He might have had a better loss of a chance claim had he lost the election but given that he won it that means in the UK I'd be very surprised if he was able to win more than a few hundred thousand pounds for this claim, even if everything is as he says it is. In the UK making such unfounded statements is itself seen as unreasonable behavior and no barrister would even be willing to make the argument that he suffered an eleven figure loss because it would go against their professional duties to the court.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Fair enough, but that's why you have things like After The Event (ATE) insurance. If you have a perfectly winnable claim it shouldn't be that hard to get ATE insurance covering you if you lose in return for them taking like 10% of your winnings if you win. Plus even if you lose the judge retains discretion to not award costs or award reduced costs if it's not just and equitable to force you to pay (as often happens for many immigration cases when the claimant loses their claim for Judicial Review because they didn't like their visa getting denied etc. but the judge didn't agree with them).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sry, my bad, I got it the wrong way around. Rest of my comment only makes sense if you take it to mean the right way around. Busy day...


Winning side paying the costs of the losing side would be a recipe for disaster as it would allow people to harass others via lawfare for free, as opposed to having to pay their own legal costs as they have to do right now in the US at least.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


in his personal capacity, filed a lawsuit for $10 billion in damages related to the leak of his tax returns




This here is more American retardation on display for the rest of the world to see. Here in the UK we have the English rules on costs, meaning that the losing side in a dispute has to pay the reasonable legal costs of the winning side, where reasonable strongly depends on the size of the dispute. If you're going to file a $10bn claim a proportionate costs budget itself ends up in the nine figures range, meaning you need to put your money where your mouth is on the dispute being one where you're willing to take it to trial and win a substantial proportion of the amount claimed.


If you're just using lawfare to harass others based on flimsy claims worth nowhere near the claimed amount then you get hit with an early Part 36 offer forcing you to either publicly admit that your claim doesn't have anywhere near the amount of value you're saying and then withdraw the claim, or alternatively if you're stubborn I hope you like that public nine figure costs bill for the other side coming your way and costing you orders of magnitude more than the money you won at trial.


A proper costs regime keeps people honest, which is something sorely lacking in the American legal world right now.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is where my obsessive buying silver rounds and sitting on them pays off in spades, were I the sort of person who sells things once I've bought them...


Alas my collection is going to keep sitting in my closet for me to sporadically enjoy looking at. I'm actually pretty pissed off by the price jumps because it means everyday silver objects I'd have liked to buy for daily use are now so expensive that even I am passing them over (a standard silver spoon is now over £100...). Plus I have a list of gold jewelry pieces I wanted to commission but put off over the last few years that are now looking like they aren't gonna happen. Honestly this sucks and I hope the precious metal retail investors driving these prices up to stupid levels lose their shirts.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The US needs to realize that if it wants to act like the global hegemon it needs to pay the cost for doing so. That includes sending largesse and payments to smaller allies at a higher level than what you do to your own people per capita to ensure they stick with you rather than go over to the other side (see Scotland in the UK, or Greenland in Denmark). You can't both want subordination from your "allies" while also getting them to pay and spend more.


At this point for the rest of the world the question we ask the US is simple: Are you willing to pay us more than China etc. is for our loyalty and support? How much more are you willing to spend to avoid getting globally humiliated as your allies desert you en masse? The door is that way if we don't like your answer.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Juries are capital S Stupid in the 21st century. Place like Singapore abolished them long ago without any problems.


Is it really reasonable for 12 randos with an average IQ of 100 to be deciding on whether a certain pharmaceutical company invention made by a team of Chemistry PhDs is infringing on this patent developed by that other team of Chemistry PhDs? There is a correct answer here, and it is No.