Please don't petulantly ask for "the source"

@Fairydust Yet so many people see them as altruistic philanthropists, whereas in reality they are immoral criminals

@WalterF

No idea how! 🤦🏼‍♀️ what times we live in. 😑

@Picklebobble2 I was one who completed and posted a petition-card against the ticket-office closures, just after receiving very good, helpful service at Settle Railway Station.

I still use my bank branch, not its own-line service.

It's easy to understand why so many big companies want such narrow, digitally-based methods: it saves them money. Nothing to do with fanciful conspiracy theories. Just expenses and profits. Their excuse is "most people now use on-line services" - yes, by them pushing us that way. While wilfully ignoring and neglecting those who don't.

There is a further reason though, I'd not twigged until someone pointed it out to me. Most of the managers now responsible for the sales and administrative systems are in early middle-age, some may have been recruited or promoted by university degree rather than career experience; but have all been brought up from an early age on computers and "smart"-'phones, have no physical problems like poor eyesight or arthritic hands, and genuinely do not know or understand any other possibilities.

A company web-site is also very useful in another way. Augmented by call-centres that give only long, expensive waits and false promises, It can be designed to deflect or prevent any enquiries, complaints or any other communications except sales.

@SunshineGirl When specific organisations and their plans and actions are named in the post, then anyone is able to check the information. In fact, it might be patronising to readers to give more.

And if the post is the thoughts / ideas of an ordinary person, what need is there for a "source"? This new insistence on "sources" seems to me to be part of the woke agenda. And as we know, woke is destroying this country.

@WalterF I didn't question the rights and wrongs of the organisations you mention, nor whatever policies or proposals they may or many not discuss - though you never have a good word for any of them.

I do agree that the notion of a "one-world government" - be it of the Left or Right or somewhere vaguely between - is pretty horrific but also so far-fetched that I cannot see it even being possible. The world is too fractured and fractious for that.

I also agree mankind as a whole is not much better now than it ever was. It is some ways, but not others, and power can corrupt no matter the system, dogma or puropse.

I questioned instead your manipulative behaviour.

@ArishMell Scarcely "manipulative"! Have I persuaded anyone along bad pathways? Or, to put it more crudely, in the bullying language of an authoritarian government with its media allies, have I "killed grannies?"

What makes me annoyed is how every believer in the official line, when confronted with an alternative points of view, trots out "Source?"

Why? So he can go to his beloved "fact-checkers", much as a baby searches for its dummy, to get "proof" that the source itself is rubbish, the author of the text is a misguided fool, and all is well in this artificial world we are now living in.

I have just posted another item, with the source clearly indicated, to placate all you petulant source-seekers.

@WalterF No you've not done that and I have not accused you of that.

Much more subtle than that, you don't want people to read your source material for themselves.

Your fear might be real and justified from careful analysis of official documents, they might be from reputable news and current-affairs journalists who can tease fact from fiction, they might be complete rhubarb parroted from American "survivalist" blogs; but if don't want anyone to know their basis....,

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout If have no idea if anything as you fear really is on the cards anywhere despite the pronouncements at the top. If it is so in any individual country, that is its own government's decision.

However, [i]no[/i] country is an island socially even if an island geographically; and infectious diseases do not understand societies and nations.