Dickwan

That's fascinating! I attended a few talks/seminars at work about ASD and the "settled science" consensus view was it's a genetic/hereditary condition. I was suspicious at the time as the research that reached this conclusion was sponsored and supported by the pharmaceutical industry. But what made me more suspicious was that during the post-presentation discussion anyone who dared mention vaccines as being possible contributing factors was harshly berated ("have we not just explained to you all that it's a matter of genetics!"). Just to be clear, I'm not doubting or questioning the success of itraconazole as outlined in the paper, just wondering how the vested pharma interests will deal with it as it conflicts with their dogmatic 'ASD is a genetic/hereditary condition' paradigm.

The poor old lad who was decapitated is talk of the town round my way (Leith area of Edinburgh). No one believes the 'bus theory', in fact it's openly derided and mocked. A number of factors are fuelling speculation (not saying I'm in agreement here, just what is being said): (1) the obviously absurd 'bus theory' put out by the police in itself is a red flag: no witnesses, no footage, and no bus; (2) lack of blood and relative lack of damage to the head and torso; (3) the police shut down the pubs and clubs in the area and were searching with sniffer dogs (presumably for a bus with knife blades for wheels hiding in the loos -?); (4) the requests - demands, even - not to 'speculate'; people generally don't like to be told not to think or talk; (5) the Cowgate is a busy narrow street which is thronging with pub/club goers in the evening; traffic is generally slow moving; there are no service bus routes that use the Cowgate (so it would have to be something like a private hire coach); most of the pubs/clubs (and there are several) will have CCTV on their doors. I know it's grisly and we're talking about a poor soul who lost his life, so don't mean to make light of it. The most startling aspect is the authorities in this post-covid world seem to think the public will believe anything they say, and not only that, demand we don't question them.

p.s. @Occulus5 if you're on Twitter/X then there's a good discussion about TV License heavy handedness. The replies to the main post should give you a bit of heart and confidence - you're not alone!

I had a look online - and I'm paraphrasing a bit here - but the common letter they send says something like "it is against the law to watch TV without a license". So the law says we need a license to watch TV, but you're not watching TV so (a) you don't need a license, and (b) you're not breaking the law. It's not against the law to ignore the TV License scum, however. They can only take you to court if they can prove you were watching TV without a license. To prove this they would need hard evidence. Their letters are threatening and designed to intimidate, but they send these very same letters out en masse to everyone who isn't a TV license holder. If it's sent to 'Current Occupant' then they don't even know your name, so they would have a hard job prosecuting you. It sounds like ignoring them isn't an option for you. If the online 'I don't need a license' declaration form isn't working for you, and you want to stop the letters, then you could send them an email: 'enquiries [at] tvlicensing [dot] co [dot] uk' and explain your situation. Hope you can stop those threatening letters

I don't know about the legal situation but I have been ignoring those letters for years. I don't even open them, just check the address on the back then put them through the shredder. The more demanding their letters become, the more like junk-mail they appear, so I feel justified in shredding them, unopened. After about 5 years they tailed off for a while, but they've come back with a vengeance recently. Again, a personal decision - and not one based on any particular legal knowledge - I refuse to tell them anything or engage with their processes as I don't feel obliged to. My stance is to not engage with them on any level, so no filling in a 'no license needed declaration' online for me. I don't watch television because I don't own/possess a television, therefore I want to place the onus on them; if they catch me watching TV then it's a fair cop, but this would be impossible.... as I don't have one. I don't answer my door unless I'm expecting someone, so they can knock until their knuckles are raw and bloody, it doesn't bother me. Hope this helps Occulus5, just one approach you could try. I'm sure other folk will have alternative suggestions.

It could just be election season pandering - throwing a bit of red meat to what the parliamentary party consider to be the Tory party faithful. Mind you, I'd imagine that demographic are more concerned about the illegal immigration situation (aren't they entitled to Universal Credit, thanks to Starmer?). One wonders if Labour would support the Tory benefit reforms - the shadow chancellor probably would. In Scotland PIP was (/is being) replaced by something else (think it's called Adult Disability Payment), so I wonder if these proposed PIP reforms would impact Scottish claimants.

I suppose so, but that applies to most of the threads on DIF - what's the big deal about anything posted on here? Why bother at all? I was personally just fascinated to watch the story being memory-holed in real time. Also, if it had been another religious group other than Jewish, then I suspect it would've made headline news in the corporate media.

Only other observations are: (a) there was an obvious concerted effort to stop the story gaining traction on Twitter, including attempts to derail the topic by posting completely unrelated posts; (b) whilst it was trending massively earlier, Twitter clearly took steps to prevent it from appearing on any lists of trending topics... as it seemed to just disappear; (c) getting back to finding reasonable (relatively speaking) reasons for the whole story, maybe they were just doomsday prepping - ie creating a safe space below ground in case of societal collapse; (d) seems odd that the police would allow the tunnels to be filled-in with concrete before doing an investigation; (e) there's still the question of what the baby high chair was used for...

I've seen some Jew-tunnel themed AI generated images, so had me wondering about the story of the stained mattresses. This isn't conclusive, by any means, but here's some footage of aforesaid mattresses (sorry, another twitter link) - it could be they were used for insulation. Or maybe I'm trying too hard to find reasonable explanations!

I heard it was trending heavily on twitter ('#jewtunnels') but then it seemed to disappear. Looks like it's being rapidly memory holed! The stained mattresses and kids chair aren't good optics. Why would some religious folk need such items in their secret tunnel system anyway...? Genuinely puzzled over this one. p.s. just noticed this one, seems really odd:

As nauseating as this tweet is, the comments/replies are hilarious - a veritable pile-on of ridicule and condemnation! I think you might need an account to view them though (?). https://twitter.com/NHSEngland/status/1733771087316467947 I'm not really a twitter user as such, but I gather the 'ratio' is deemed important (the ratio of likes to comments) in the twitter-sphere: 1.2 million views but only 181 likes, and over 3k comments (and all of them seem to be negative).

I wondered this myself - perhaps on the pretext that the entire banking system was "hacked" (and blame Russia/China/NK etc) ....so we all have to start afresh with CBDCs.

Note: My apologies, not 'Mandy' but 'Miranda'. Back in Sir Tony's wild days when he was cross-dressing and cottaging (and being arrested, charged, and fined under the name of 'Charles Lynton'). Aficionados of vile political scumbags will know all this already, but I like to bring it up whenever I can

I've heard it said that Tony was known as 'Mandy' when he wore a frock... (back in his barrister days)

Just on the topic of Edinburgh and its 'Festival', I gather it was featured in a recent 'The Simpsons' episode (S35E08). Don't watch that garbage myself (gave up on it somewhere around season 12/13), but the episode has been discussed in the media and from that I got the broad gist. It's a bit of a tangent on the OP, granted, but my initial reaction was something along the lines of: 'what a surprise, cult tv show features cult festival' (and by "cult", I don't mean in the cultural sense of devoted fandom, rather I'm looking in the direction of Matt Groening and his fancy apron). Maybe 'occult' would be more fitting.