Tom (he/him)
@tompowell01.bsky.social
Coming over from TwiX. If I follow you here it's because I follow you on there & learn a lot from you (or you're in a starter pack I like the look of)
Opposing the arms trade and all complicity in the occupation of Palestine. Action is necessary
Opposing the arms trade and all complicity in the occupation of Palestine. Action is necessary
Honestly, even a halfway decent LLM shows you how much of law is pattern-recognition, applying standards, and reasoning from precedent.
Obviously AI shouldn’t decide cases - that would be a non-starter politically and ethically - but the point stands
Obviously AI shouldn’t decide cases - that would be a non-starter politically and ethically - but the point stands
November 26, 2025 at 5:45 PM
Honestly, even a halfway decent LLM shows you how much of law is pattern-recognition, applying standards, and reasoning from precedent.
Obviously AI shouldn’t decide cases - that would be a non-starter politically and ethically - but the point stands
Obviously AI shouldn’t decide cases - that would be a non-starter politically and ethically - but the point stands
We already use mixed tribunals, judges, lay magistrates, specialist courts, and appeals panels. The idea that the only safeguard is 12 random people with no legal training, facing incredibly complex evidence, feels more like tradition than principle.
November 26, 2025 at 5:41 PM
We already use mixed tribunals, judges, lay magistrates, specialist courts, and appeals panels. The idea that the only safeguard is 12 random people with no legal training, facing incredibly complex evidence, feels more like tradition than principle.
Yes. I’m saying the binary of jury = good, anything else = tyranny is nonsense. All I’m questioning is whether 12 random people with no legal expertise are the best way to decide complex cases.
November 26, 2025 at 5:35 PM
Yes. I’m saying the binary of jury = good, anything else = tyranny is nonsense. All I’m questioning is whether 12 random people with no legal expertise are the best way to decide complex cases.
I didn’t say replace juries with one old man. That’s your leap, not my argument.
Juries aren’t magically perfect. Complex legal cases decided by untrained laypeople raise real fairness issues. A system with proper funding and mixed panels of legally-trained decision-makers is hardly dystopian.
Juries aren’t magically perfect. Complex legal cases decided by untrained laypeople raise real fairness issues. A system with proper funding and mixed panels of legally-trained decision-makers is hardly dystopian.
November 26, 2025 at 5:34 PM
I didn’t say replace juries with one old man. That’s your leap, not my argument.
Juries aren’t magically perfect. Complex legal cases decided by untrained laypeople raise real fairness issues. A system with proper funding and mixed panels of legally-trained decision-makers is hardly dystopian.
Juries aren’t magically perfect. Complex legal cases decided by untrained laypeople raise real fairness issues. A system with proper funding and mixed panels of legally-trained decision-makers is hardly dystopian.
Why is it so important? I don't think that 12 randos with no legal experitse, making decisions on really complex points of law based on not much more than "feels" is a particularly good thing.
November 25, 2025 at 9:13 PM
Why is it so important? I don't think that 12 randos with no legal experitse, making decisions on really complex points of law based on not much more than "feels" is a particularly good thing.
It's irrelevant. It was the request of the Sun hack. He agreed to do it, specifically said he didn't want to be paid for it. It's so funny to me that this is the only thing you folks have got to attack Zack on.
November 23, 2025 at 6:14 PM
It's irrelevant. It was the request of the Sun hack. He agreed to do it, specifically said he didn't want to be paid for it. It's so funny to me that this is the only thing you folks have got to attack Zack on.
😂 😱
You're really voting Reform! That's hysterical.
You're really voting Reform! That's hysterical.
November 23, 2025 at 4:42 PM
😂 😱
You're really voting Reform! That's hysterical.
You're really voting Reform! That's hysterical.
It was 2013, he wasn’t even a politician. It’s a bit weird to retroactively frame a tabloid sting on a private citizen as a politician chasing self-publicity.
Anyway, it's a non-story. I'm sure the enlightened crowd at Reform have your vote. 😅
Anyway, it's a non-story. I'm sure the enlightened crowd at Reform have your vote. 😅
November 23, 2025 at 4:33 PM
It was 2013, he wasn’t even a politician. It’s a bit weird to retroactively frame a tabloid sting on a private citizen as a politician chasing self-publicity.
Anyway, it's a non-story. I'm sure the enlightened crowd at Reform have your vote. 😅
Anyway, it's a non-story. I'm sure the enlightened crowd at Reform have your vote. 😅
If being misrepresented by the Sun makes someone unfit for national politics, then every minister since the 80s should pack their bags. Gullibilitys not the issue. The issue is tabloids manufacturing stories and people pretending that proves anything about a politician’s competence.
November 23, 2025 at 4:20 PM
If being misrepresented by the Sun makes someone unfit for national politics, then every minister since the 80s should pack their bags. Gullibilitys not the issue. The issue is tabloids manufacturing stories and people pretending that proves anything about a politician’s competence.
The Sun "journalist" came to him and then fucked him over in the write up. It's not complicated (for most people).
November 23, 2025 at 1:05 PM
The Sun "journalist" came to him and then fucked him over in the write up. It's not complicated (for most people).
Hypnosis for improved body image and self esteem isn't impossible. It's quite common.
November 23, 2025 at 1:03 PM
Hypnosis for improved body image and self esteem isn't impossible. It's quite common.
It was the Sun who asked him to do it, he said he would as long as the Sun made it clear he didn't charge for it and they said he charged for it anyway. He never offered that "service" in his normal life. The Sun got him to do it and he was just like whatever, if it's to do with body image, then OK.
November 23, 2025 at 11:42 AM
It was the Sun who asked him to do it, he said he would as long as the Sun made it clear he didn't charge for it and they said he charged for it anyway. He never offered that "service" in his normal life. The Sun got him to do it and he was just like whatever, if it's to do with body image, then OK.
Of course it can. I'm very happy to be proved wrong. For instance, you could say the renters rights bill. Good policy, a step in the right direction.
November 22, 2025 at 6:38 PM
Of course it can. I'm very happy to be proved wrong. For instance, you could say the renters rights bill. Good policy, a step in the right direction.
Yeah and I’ve already said you’ll never eliminate it entirely.
The point is: if you actually care about people crossing in boats, safe routes reduce that. If what you really care about is simply fewer people coming, then no policy will satisfy you
The point is: if you actually care about people crossing in boats, safe routes reduce that. If what you really care about is simply fewer people coming, then no policy will satisfy you
November 22, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Yeah and I’ve already said you’ll never eliminate it entirely.
The point is: if you actually care about people crossing in boats, safe routes reduce that. If what you really care about is simply fewer people coming, then no policy will satisfy you
The point is: if you actually care about people crossing in boats, safe routes reduce that. If what you really care about is simply fewer people coming, then no policy will satisfy you
There’s plenty of comparative evidence though. France/Spain/Italy routes shifting with policy, Afghan/Ukrainian/Hong Kong schemes reducing irregular arrivals, Canada’s private sponsorship model etc.
November 22, 2025 at 6:10 PM
There’s plenty of comparative evidence though. France/Spain/Italy routes shifting with policy, Afghan/Ukrainian/Hong Kong schemes reducing irregular arrivals, Canada’s private sponsorship model etc.
He frames Starmer as serious; Farage as a looming danger; Tories as negligent/compromised.
He doesn’t interrogate the UKs ongoing structural enablers of kleptocracy (property, opaque trusts, London’s financial sector), which are bipartisan failures.
Not illegitimate, but it is selective.
He doesn’t interrogate the UKs ongoing structural enablers of kleptocracy (property, opaque trusts, London’s financial sector), which are bipartisan failures.
Not illegitimate, but it is selective.
November 22, 2025 at 6:00 PM
He frames Starmer as serious; Farage as a looming danger; Tories as negligent/compromised.
He doesn’t interrogate the UKs ongoing structural enablers of kleptocracy (property, opaque trusts, London’s financial sector), which are bipartisan failures.
Not illegitimate, but it is selective.
He doesn’t interrogate the UKs ongoing structural enablers of kleptocracy (property, opaque trusts, London’s financial sector), which are bipartisan failures.
Not illegitimate, but it is selective.
We could dramatically reduce the boats by creating safe routes. We don't need open borders. But you're never going to 100% elimiate people risking their lives to seek asylum here.
November 22, 2025 at 5:25 PM
We could dramatically reduce the boats by creating safe routes. We don't need open borders. But you're never going to 100% elimiate people risking their lives to seek asylum here.
You enjoy falling asleep in front of the telly?
November 22, 2025 at 5:20 PM
You enjoy falling asleep in front of the telly?
In the policy sense, not the electoral one. Small boats only exist because the UK made every safer route illegal.
November 22, 2025 at 5:16 PM
In the policy sense, not the electoral one. Small boats only exist because the UK made every safer route illegal.
Sure. And that just proves my point. The govt manufactures small boats by banning safer ways to travel.
Fixing that doesn’t require Reform-style cruelty; it requires legal routes and decent processing.
The idea Labour needs to mimic Farage is nonsense.
Fixing that doesn’t require Reform-style cruelty; it requires legal routes and decent processing.
The idea Labour needs to mimic Farage is nonsense.
November 22, 2025 at 4:38 PM
Sure. And that just proves my point. The govt manufactures small boats by banning safer ways to travel.
Fixing that doesn’t require Reform-style cruelty; it requires legal routes and decent processing.
The idea Labour needs to mimic Farage is nonsense.
Fixing that doesn’t require Reform-style cruelty; it requires legal routes and decent processing.
The idea Labour needs to mimic Farage is nonsense.
You're never going to stop small boats. Creating safe routes for people would help, but there are always going to be people who can't access those routes or don't have a choice. The goal shouldn’t be "stop all arrivals" it should be "stop people dying." That should be the Labour message
November 22, 2025 at 4:36 PM
You're never going to stop small boats. Creating safe routes for people would help, but there are always going to be people who can't access those routes or don't have a choice. The goal shouldn’t be "stop all arrivals" it should be "stop people dying." That should be the Labour message
The heart of the argument:
Crush small boats -> immigration stops being salient -> Farage fades.
The problem is: it’s empirically false. Far-right movements just shift to a different target (crime, Islam, trans people, whatever). But he’s treating it as a mechanical cause-effect equation.
Crush small boats -> immigration stops being salient -> Farage fades.
The problem is: it’s empirically false. Far-right movements just shift to a different target (crime, Islam, trans people, whatever). But he’s treating it as a mechanical cause-effect equation.
November 22, 2025 at 4:33 PM
The heart of the argument:
Crush small boats -> immigration stops being salient -> Farage fades.
The problem is: it’s empirically false. Far-right movements just shift to a different target (crime, Islam, trans people, whatever). But he’s treating it as a mechanical cause-effect equation.
Crush small boats -> immigration stops being salient -> Farage fades.
The problem is: it’s empirically false. Far-right movements just shift to a different target (crime, Islam, trans people, whatever). But he’s treating it as a mechanical cause-effect equation.
“Resolving immigration” isn’t a neutral phrase. It only makes sense within Farage’s framing, i.e., that immigration is a “problem” to be “solved” through harsher controls. That’s already conceding Reform’s worldview.
November 22, 2025 at 4:23 PM
“Resolving immigration” isn’t a neutral phrase. It only makes sense within Farage’s framing, i.e., that immigration is a “problem” to be “solved” through harsher controls. That’s already conceding Reform’s worldview.