152
UK ministers have no plans to publish explosive report on climate crisis
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2026
152 points (97.5% liked)
World News
59114 readers
3214 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Sorry. There are two possible meanings for the idiom "don't yell fire in a crowded theatre":
The benevolent is to avoid a crowd's panic. The selfish is to make your exit first, before the crowd's panic.
I'm not close enough to British politics to say one way or another. But the idiom fits either way.
The idiom "don't yell fire in a crowded theory" only applies when there is no fire.
It's usually brought up in free speech arguments, and the question is if triggering a panic which could kill people by causing them to be trampled underfoot (from back in the day when people actually responded appropriately to the risk of fire which we have since lost in the days of fire codes and controls) in the absence of an actual fire is a free speech right.
Traditionally yes. It has taken on new meaning over time. I've had many conversations with all sorts of people high and low where the double-entendre is clear if not explicit.
Edit: I should add that its within the context of corporate, civil and military disaster management planning. The public remains largely unaware, ignorant while many insiders throughout various institutions know how bad and how quickly things can get. Those who know often want to make their moves, before the public catches on, therefore like to muddy the message.
Classic example are investors talking their book. By the time you read about an opportunity in the G&M, FT etc, the insiders have already made the trades and the public is now their exit strategy.
In the UK, in the context of climate change, look up LifeBoat Ethics. You'll see where this new usage of an old idiom is going.
I'm still absorbing literally to mean figuratively and continue to use adverbial forms. Jonathan Swift wrote a story about me.
Did he want rich people to eat you?
That, too, but I was thinking of a story about a country where people live a thousand years and nobody can understand the seniors because their language is aniquated and they can't understand younger generations.