AI isn't intelligence it is plaigarism on a massive scale

 Have you ever wondered why tech zillionaires set up new IT services, AI search engines, mega databases?  The answer is very simple. They want to earn zillions more. When Elon Musk bought Twitter and renamed it to X, he did so to make money. He has announced that he is launching a competitor to wikipedia called Grokopedia (with a slightly bizarre and disturbing text).

Join @xAI and help build Grokipedia, an open source knowledge repository that is vastly better than Wikipedia!

This will be available to the public with no limits on use. https://t.co/3CnfrvNIpI

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025.

I have no particular allegiance to Wikipedia, it is a uselful resource and has been very useful as a blogger. Whilst it provides the information I require, I will continue to use it. Mr Musk appears to be suggesting that his Grok alternative will be 'vastly better'. This is quite an interesting proposition. Wikipedia is maintained by its users. They manage and correct it. It is free to use. Will an AI with a similar functionality be better as Musk claims? Well the first thing an AI does is trawl the web. So I suspect that it's first stop will be to see what Wikipedia has to say, and then trawl the web to find extra information. So on that basis, he might have a point. If you assume that everything you read on the net is true, it would certainly be so. The problem is that it is only as good as the source information. The people who write wikipedia entries, generally are experts on  the given subject and work hard to ensure it is accurate. They are not always right, but when they are wrong, it gets corrected. Musk's alternative will simply trawl the internet and try and use algorythms to effectively 'improve' on the output of wikipedia.

The big question here is how effective will this be? The way AI works, it improves over time. If it gets things wrong and people challenge its output, it will add new rules to its processing algorythms and improve. My view is that, at least in the short term, I would not use it as a primary source and I'd check anything that diverges from information on wikipedia and other sites. By its very nature, Wikipedia has its limitations and these are a strength as much as a weakness. I am not entirely sure that Elon Musk gets this. It is not interactive. It is based on constant peer review. The people who update it are invested in it and generally want to ensure it is correct. My assumption is that Musk's tool will be fully interactive. Let me give an example. Just suppose I want to write a blog about West Coast Rock legend Steve Miller. I will usually start by reading the entire wikipedia page, then the discography. Wikipedia lists its sources, I will then look at a few of these. I will then sketch out a blog and add my own observations and opinions. As I've seen the band a few times in both the UK and USA, I will also source in my recollections. This should ensure that the blog is factually correct, but also contains a unique slant. The fact that I thought Gerald Johnsons bass solo on Macho city, when I saw them at Hammersmith Odeon in 1983, was the best bass solo I've ever seen is an opinion you probably won't read anywhere else.

However. When Mr Musk's new Grokipedia comes into operation and my mate Pete decides to write his own blog on the Steve Miller Band a year later, if we assume for a second that no one else anywhere on the planet has written anything else about the band. and Pete asks Grokipedia about Steve Miller, it will not only see the information I saw on wikipedia. It may well see my blog. It may well tell him that the performance at the Hammersmith Odeon included the best bass solo in the history of the world. It may or may not give him the source of the information. But my blog will be recycled. The only thing that made it better than wikipedia, was itr ead my blog and added my content. Mr Musk, if he has his business plan correct, will make money because his interactive AI wiki product read my blog. 

And what do I get for helping him? Nothing. Now just suppose for a second, in two years time, I am to be interviewed on the BBC Local news about the result of the general election in Barnet. The researcher wants to give the reporter a briefing paper on my views. What will they do? Will they read my blogs? Most likely, if Mr Musks AI works, they will simply say "what is the position of Roger Tichborne on issues in the constituency of Hendon". My guess is that they will subscribe for cash to Musks system, so that he can tell them what I think. Now without the content I've written, his service has no value, but with it, it is a valuable resource for the reporter.  In short, my efforts are lining Musks pocket.

And then, I am a musician. I write and release songs. I've spent tens of thousands of hours honing my talents, practicing, composing, writing songs. Now AI tools are generating music. A big user of this music is TV and Radio. Actual composers like me are losing work and cash. Let me suggest a scenario. A friend of mine, Laurence Lynch wrote a brilliant play called Burnt Oak, that had two runs at the Leicester Square theatre. Just suppose a Hollywood director wisely decides to make a blockbuster movie based on the script. He needs a theme tune. What does he do? Historically, he'd hire a composer to write a score. Just suppose, he wants to save a few quid and so he asks AI to write him a song about Burnt Oak, which captures the essence of Burnt Oak. The AI goes off and does a trawl. It comes across The False Dots song "The Burnt Oak Boogie", which was a minor hits a couple of years ago. We wrote this to sum up the demographics of the area, using a Ska beat (as Ska was the theme tune of Burnt Oak boot boys in the 1960's and 1970's), we then overlayed an afrobeat style guitar riff over the top, as the area has a large afro-carribean community, so we felt it also reflected the vibes of Burnt Oak now. My lyrics are based on my own experiences of the growing up and going to school in the area. The AI would, presumably, do a trawl of songs with Burnt Oak references as a basis. If the AI is any good, this would be a primary source. It will then come up with a piece of music with a similar vibe and style. 

In short, it will plaigerise my song and I won't get a penny. I think AI is an amazing concept. It can spot cancers, develop drugs, cut the time new medicines take to come to market, help people like me write blogs, clean up the sound on ancient cassettes, making them suitable for release (a massive boon for people like me with old music featuring dead friends). However, I have a massive objection to the fact that the only financial beneficiaries will be tech billionaires. Content creators of source material should get a BIG slice of the profit. Now in my case, if an AI trawls my blog and comes up with an answer about a hyper local Barnet issue for a bloke in Finchley, I don't expect a million pounds. But Mr Musk has earned a tangible amount of money, if his system is used. Lets assume he earns 1/1,000 of a penny every time his apps use someone elses work. I would contend that a proportion, Lets say 75% should go to the people who actually answered the query with the source data. I would suggest that creators have accounts set up, which they can claim. When there is more than £30 in the account, they can claim it. Cash unclaimed after two years, should be donated to educational charities, not linked to the platform owners. 

Now, for me personally, given my blog stats, I'd estimate, I'd earn between £20-£100 per year. It wouldn't change my life but may cover the cost of being connected to the internet for a month or two. For Mr Musk. If he's going to earn a billion dollars from his new platform, but only owns a quarter of that, it won't ruin his life or pauperise him. What might make a massive difference though, would be if the unclaimed money helping to address the issues of poor education and digital exclusion. 

I've never written a blog to make money. It was never part of the equation, however I do not see why the richest man in the world should make even more from my efforts, whilst I don't get a penny. There are plenty of creators who do it far better than I do and who should get proper renumeration. When people say "Grok answered a question" it didn't. Someone who has had no recognition has had their work plaigerised. Historically Google gave links, so you'd see who did teh work. Now you get an 'AI Summary' and no one knows. If you've ever wondered why the likes of Musk try and snuggle up to the likes of Donald Trump, the reason is pretty obvious. They want to ensure they keep all the csh for themselves. 

I suppose I had to end this blog with this song, don't I?

Call me Dave! As Grok becomes a Nazi, I look back on the racism I saw in the workplace

Perhaps the most (or maybe not given who owns the company) strange story in the news today is that Grok (Elon Musk's AI tool) has become a Nazi. It made me consider the racism I saw first hand in the workplace. 

Once upon a time, I had a proper job. I worked in an office, with responsible adults. We had a highly important job and if we screwed up, the whole country could come to a halt. On one occasion (before I joined the team), we took down the emergency services telephone network in the West Midlands because someone made a silly mistake. Another time we blocked the M1 and caused a 17 mile tailback (again before my time). All of these were caused by basic IT errors in important systems, that had completely unforeseen impacts. On both occasions, the chairman of the company was called by a chief of police and told off, in no uncertain terms. The company was one of the biggest on the FTSE. I wont say what it was or what the system did, but we all use its service on a daily basis and it has nothing to do with either road management or emergency services. I was brought in to fix the cock ups, as a hired IT contractor. Back in the day, when I still had a brain, I was very good at such things. They gave me all the hard jobs and the things that the permanent staff didn't want to do. I figured that if I did the difficult and horrible stuff, I'd have a job and be able to pay the bills. I was taken on for three months. The contract ended up lasting  a fair few years. I was on call 24 x 7 for most of that period. When I left, a permanent member of staff took over. After three months, he told me that he couldn't believe the organisation had kept me on for 13 years, and I'd been getting money for old rope, I'd fixed all of the problems and he didn't twig that it was a pretty robust system. After six months, he was gone. They put some new software in,  had serious problems and he couldn't hack doing 36 hour shifts fixing it and getting shouted at by everyone. 

I wasn't the only contractor doing such work. There was a team of us. We were well renumerated for our efforts, but were expected to put our lives on hold. I had young kids and needed steady money, much of which I was funnelling back into my studios, as we built them up. I still meet up with the team I worked with. For a period, I thought we had the best team of people in the world in our field. Whilst other teams floundered and delivered nothing, we did all manner of leading edge work. But as so often happens in such worlds, you get no recognition for doing a good job. One of my best mates was a West Indian chap. We are still mates, we are meeting up soon for a beer. In our team was a permanent member of staff of Pakistani heritage. She was a maths graduate. We were discussing what aspirations we had for our children. She said something about her the school her daughter was about to start. Another member of the team, who we will call "The Jay Man" said "I don't know why you are worrying, you'll send her off to Pakistan to get married when she's fourteen". My jaw hit the floor. The team leader, an Australian lady, immediately hauled the Jay Man off to an office for a telling off. She then tapped my West Indian mate on the shoulder and dragged him off for a telling off. Apparently he'd laughed at the comment.

Within three months the Aussie lady had gone. She was replaced by The Jay man. Our team had three people from ethnic minorities, my West Indian mate, a Nepali and a Mauritian. Within six months, all had gone. Their contracts had not been renewed. A permanent member of staff also left. The Jay Man made it clear he didn't rate him. After he left, he told us all "If I call up, I don't want The Jay Man knowing its me, so call me Dave". The three departing contractors all muttered that they'd been the victim of ethnic cleansing within the department. I sarcastically noted "How can you possibly think Jay Man is at all racist, what has he ever done to suggest that he has a racist bone in his body". As hired hands on short term contracts, there was no real recourse. I pulled Jay Man up on it in the pub one time. He simply said "I didn't rate any of them". 

This all happened a long time ago, DEI policy came and seems to have gone in the intervening period. Almost all of the people I worked with then are either retired or semi retired. The system I worked on is long gone. When I look back on my contract with that organisation, I see the vast majority of my time there as a brilliant time. We had a great team and did some great work. We watched each others backs. the final couple of years were a bit different. We still did some great work. There were still some good moments, but I've always felt really uncomfortable with the fact that something that was completely out of order was going on. As a non permanent employee, who had bills to pay, I was in no position to do anything about it. After leaving that team, I had a short break and then went back to the same organisation in a completely different team. The manager of the new team was an Indian chap, a lovely bloke who I am still good friends with. I mentioned the Jay Man to him and he rolled his eyes. He confessed that the individual was well known amongst the non white employees of the organisation as a 'difficult person'. He then asked me how I got on with him. I said that although I never had any issues with him, I found his attitudes to be very challenging. He was very reliant on me at the time, as I was the last person who really understood the systems I worked on, he'd got rid of everyone else. He knew my opinions on what had happened. My new boss told me something that chilled me to the core. He said "If you want to get on in this place, you learn to keep your mouth shut about such things".

If you'd asked me fie years ago, I'd have said that such things were thankfully, a thing of the past. With the rise of Trump, Farage and the Alt Right, it seems that racism and fascism has come storming back into the world of IT.

What Barnet Council needs is a bit of DOGE and Elon Musk, not baleouts from Government!

The biggest mistake that inept politicians make is that they cannot accept that people they disagree with have some good ideas. The last thing I am is a fan of Donald Trump, but I have no doubt at all that the creation of the Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE) will save American taxpayers billions. I say this based on my experience of dealing with the inept bureacracy that is Barnet Council, having written this blog since 2008. It appears to me that much of what DOGE is doing is what the Barnet bloggers spent a decade urging the leaders of Barnet Council to do. Perhaps the greatest victory of the Barnet Bloggers was to force Barnet Council to hold the "Metpro Inquiry" in 2011. This exposed the total failure of Barnet Councils oversight of suppliers. The fallout lead to savings of millions of pounds and tightening of fraud controls etc (You can read about it here). At the time, the convention in the Council was that an opposition councillor chaired this committee, to ensure that a critical eye was passed over the council's business. The chair was LibDem Lord Monroe Palmer. He did a good job and gained the confidence of all. Eric Pickles, then local government secretary congratulated the Barnet bloggers for our efforts exposing waste and potential fraud. What did the Barnet Tories learn from the debacle? Well they learned that they had lost control of the process. They abolished the convention of putting an opposition councillor in charge of audit. This had the added bonus of giving another Tory a healthy fat 'special responsibility allowance'. One of the biggest critics of this change was Labour councillor Arjun Mittra. Sadly, when Labour won, his criticism of the concept of a member the administration running the audit committee disappeared and he copped a nice fat allowance himself. 

Last week, it was announced that Barnet Council were receiving a big fat £55 million baleout from central government to plug the holes in their finances. It may surprise you to learn that Barnet Unison union came up with a plan to slash costs. Here are the key cost saving measures that they have identified.

• Reduce Executive Directors by deleting the following 3 Executive Director roles: Strategy and Innovation; Resources; Assurance and Public Protection. 

• Delete the Deputy Chief Executive role 

• Create one Executive Director role: Corporate Resources. All of the services covered by the deleted Executive Director roles transfer to the newly created Corporate Services Directorate with the exception of Public Protection which should be transferred back into the Environment Directorate as it was before the TUPE transfer to Capita in 2013.

• Greenspaces should be moved from Communities, Adults & Health back into Environment.

 • The Assistant Director (AD) role for Greenspaces and Leisure should become the A.D for Libraries and Leisure.

 • The Senior Management Team (SMT) restructure should incorporate all Heads of Service and Assistant Heads of Services levels of management in order to ensure greater equity in terms of numbers of staff managed by individual managers. 

• The Senior Management Teams (SMT) of The Barnet Group (TBG) and Barnet Education and Learning Service (BELS) are to be included in this restructure to deliver savings, avoid redundancies and making cuts to services.

 • For transparency and accountability Barnet Council should instruct BELS and TBG to publish all salaries over £50K as per the Localism Act 2011 – Openness and accountability in local pay. 

• Save £7.299 million annually by insourcing services thus avoiding the increase in national insurance which has been imposed on the private sector by the Labour Government. 

 • Impose financial penalties on Capita for underperforming of the collection of Council Tax and Business rates. 

 • Conduct an urgent review of the back-office services of TBG and BELS.

 • Use economies of scale to help deal with the increased wage bill 

• Barnet Homes, part of TBG, should be brought back into the Council. 

 • The Housing Service should be merged with the Directorate of Growth to become the Housing & Growth Directorate.

This, to me, looks like some serious cost cutting that Elon Musk would be proud of! The slashing of highly expensive and completely unnesscary management roles and boards seems like a very sensible idea. It also improves transparancy, seeing where taxpayers money is being waste on fat salaries.

The best way to beat your opponents is not to ignore their good ideas. It is to nick the good ideas and make them better. Barnet lead the way in the UK for citizens holding the council to account. We have replaced an inept Tory council with an inept Labour council. You may be tempted to vote Reform. Well, personally I wouldn't bother. They have one councillor in Barnet, who defected from the Tories. Brian Coleman reported "He has an appalling reputation in Barnet . In May he stood for Group Leader and was roundly defeated by his colleagues who recognised that he is known for his lazyness" 

Sury Khatri campaigniong for the Tories

They have also acquired two former Tory Councillors as candidates, one of whom was deselected in 2018 and then endorsed both the Lib Dems and Labour in 2022! Coleman said of him "He was never capable which was why he was deselected in 2018 by Hendon Conservatives"The other was a former Barnet Tory Mayor. Coleman said of her "As for Lisa Rutter she applied to be the Conservative candidate in the Barnet Vale by election in July and was rejected (she is as thick as two short planks) and this is a fit of pique". Now I wouldn't give Brian's views too much credence normally, but these people were all mates of his, not too long ago. It is widely recognised that the Barnet Tories were inept and according to Coleman, the most inept of them are now running as Reform candidates. If you think they will sort Barnet Council out, then you must still believe in Father Christmas. 

Sadly, the UK is unlikely to have a DOGE style authority any time soon. Whatever I think of Musk, the fact that we've got completely inept councils run by people who are useless is something that his approach may sort out. I'd have no problem paying higher salaries to the best people to sort Barnet Council out. Sadly we have a bunch of stuffed shirts who's primary concern is their own wallet. That is why we have litter filled pavements and potholed roads. Every year tax goes up and the Borough deteriorates. I quite like Elon Musk's idea of getting Federal Staff to justify their employment. People like me, who run small businesses don't carry passengers. I see no reason why the taxpayer should. In Barnet, whenever their is cost cutting it is the people who do the work who suffer, whilst the bosses simply put up their own wages. I'd reward the people who do the work, get the fat cats on high salaries to justify their wages and get people who understood what they were doing to run the place. I'd also cut the number of councillors by 1/3rd. In Mill Hill, we have three councillors, one of whom doesn't bother attending. He gets paid £11,000 for the privelidge - Members allowances paid 2023 to 2024 (ODT, 22 KB) -You are paying that. Has anyone in Mill Hill actually noticed his lack of work? Barnet does not need 63 councillors. Council Leader Barry Rawlings said of the bale out "The pressure on our finances has never been greater. As a council, we face an unprecedented crisis in financing our services, driven by a perfect storm of a decade of funding cuts from central government, high interest rates making services more expensive to deliver, and ever-increasing demand for complex and costly services we have a legal duty to provide, such as adults’ and children’s social care and temporary accommodation." -

Cutting 21 councillors would save nearly a quarter of a million quid a year. It may be a small amount in the budget, but it would be there for other services that matter.  It would also show that the political classes are willing to share the pain. But that will never happen without a DOGE style purge and that won't happen in the UK because no one has the balls to actually call out the waste. We have a culture of laziness in public sector management and political leadership. They are happy so long as someone else does the dirty jobs and their wallets bulge. 

The real reason that grooming gangs are running riot in the UK

 We've seen Elon Musk sticking the boot into Keir Starmer about the governments woeful response to the scandal around paedophile gangs running grooming rings and raping children in the UK over the past few days. Whilst I 100% agree with Mr Musk that the situation is totally wrong and that the Police and CPS should have been on this from the first moment that it reared it's ugly head, I find it somewhat odd that he seems to be stacking all of the blame on Keir Starmer, who was head of the CPS from 2008-2013 and has been Prime Miniter for six months. Even if you subscribe to the idea that for that period Starmer was 100% to blame for what went on, we've had Seven different Prime Minister since Blair appointed Starmer and five of them, over an eleven year period were from the Conservative Party. We've had three different Directors of Public Prosecutions in that period. It is a Civil Service role, not political, which is why Starmer served most of his term under under Tory Prime Minister David Camerons. Since Starmer left, we've had  Alison Saunders (2013–2018), Max Hill (2018–2023) and Stephen Parkinson (2023–present). All are culpable.

It seems rather odd to me that Mr Musk has not apportioned blame amongst all of them, although I suspect that has more to do about his personal agenda than who he actually thinks is to blame. All of them would be fully briefed on the situation and presumably could have acted if so minded (or directed to by any of the five Prime Ministers who have ultimately been their bosses. It has been noted on Mr Musk's own X platform that he has had far less to say about paedo rings run by rich and powerful white people in America, such as Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (who there are photo's doing the rounds of with Mr Musk). It is something that Mr Musk has not chosen to address in his deluge of tweets on the subject. I really think some sort of explanation would be a very good thing.

What I find really odd about the current ire against 'Asian grooming gangs' running paedo rings, is that it completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of victims of paedophiles in the UK are the victims of the white, indiginous population. That in no way excuses the gangs, but what we need to do is see a strategy that addresses Paedophiles of all colours and creeds. I suspect the reason that the gangs that we currently see highlighted are seemingly acting with such impunity is as much to do with the law being totally deficient in dealing with paedophiles in general, as it is about ignoring people from ethnic minorities to be woke. 

One of the most disturbing conversations I had on the subject was with a friend of mine, Duncan McLaughlan, who was the governor of the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland for 17 years, through the troubles. Duncan was a friend of mine and I recall a conversation about whether paedophiles can be reformed. Although the Maze had political prisoners, it also had run of the mill criminals incarcerated, including paedophiles. I asked Duncan if he thought paedophile men could be rehabilitated. His view was that they only stopped offending when they were physically incapable of doing it and all convicted paedophiles were a permanent risk to children whilst they were able bodied. Furthermore, he told me that they would exchange information and tips on how to procure children and evade detection whilst in prison. When they were released, they were far more effective and dangerous as child abusers than when they first went in. The most disturbing thing of all, is many consider themselves to be superior to non child abusers as they see the non abusing population as idiots who are missing out. Duncans view was that every time an offending paedophile is released, children are put at risk. His comment was that most criminals get fed up with being locked up eventually and try and get back on the straight and narrow. Paedophiles simply see jail as an unfortunate break in their activities, but also a chance to learn new ways to carry on their business. He would have been quite happy to lock them up permanently, as he felt child safety was more important than their human rights. I have to say that I agreed with him, having heard his logic. He was a man with relatively liberal views on most things, but it was clear that experience of offenders had taught him that there are some things where being lenient simply does not work.

Another comment was also rather disturbing. He said that when Judges, of whom he knew a fair few, sentenced such people, they knew that they would invariably start offending at the end of their term, but had to follow "sentencing guidelines". You may wonder what these are? They are the reason that Huw Edwards did not go to prison for being part of a child porn sharing ring. What you can be absolutely sure of is that every other paedophile who does a similar thing to Edwards will avoid prison, as he's set a very unfortunate precedent, supported by the guidelines. UK lawmakers set terms for what they think is an appropriate sentence for the crime. 

Then there are the offenders who commit more serious abuse. Sadly I saw at first hand how indadequate the law is in the respect. A teacher in Mill Hill, who abused his position to molest a 14 year old girl and her 7 year old sister was given eight years. He served just under three years, as he 'behaved himself' in prison. At the end of their sentence, they returned to Mill Hill and even got a role in a local community group, videoing events featuring young children, until their conviction was revealed and they refused to undertake a DBS check. Rather sadly, the Police showed no interest at all in the matter, when local residents raised the issue. Sadly, I can say no more for legal reasons, but the response of the Police left me horrified and I realised that the safety of children is not a policing priority in Barnet. 

It is clear to me that prison service, the parole service, the police and the lawmakers in the UK fully understand the nature of child molesters. They know that the law if wholly inadequate and has been for years. New online platforms have been a huge enabler of child molesters, allowing networking opportunities that they could never have dreamed of 30 years ago. In France recently, we've seen how a very sick minded man used such tools to allow dozens of strangers to abuse his drugged wife. She is clearly a strong and intelligent woman. Just think how like minded men may use the same tools to exploit vulnerable children?

Anyone who understands they way the internet has developed over the last quarter century will know that the process of legislation of the internet and keeping it safe for everyone almost needs to be done in real time to keep up with all of the developments. I've seen first hand how a relatively IT savvy dodgy individual was able to exploit the complete lack of regulation to do all manner of dodgy things and the Police were either unwilling or unable to lift a finger. It is clear to me that abusers target weak, vulnerable people. What concerns me most, are the more well connected and powerful people who are able to exert power and influence to abuse. A good example of such people is former MP Cyril Smith, who used his stature as a local MP to abuse boys at a childrens home in Rochdale. What is truly disturbing is that in 1988, Margaret Thatcher was made aware of the allegations before he was given a Knighthood, but chose not to act. Thatcher was also on good terms with the likes of Jimmy Savile. The more you lift the carpet, the more you wonder whether the reason that all of these people, from the gangs that Musk is ranting about, to Cyril Smith, Jimmy Savile and Huw Edwards can get away with it because the people who run the Country and make the laws want them to. And when we talk about Islamic paedo gangs, what about the Christian gangs in the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. It really is time for both organisations to turn their files over to the police and compensate victims.

It couldn't be clearer to me, that if the Government properly legislated, followed Duncan McLoughlan's advice and locked up child molesters until they could no longer offend and made the Police properly investigate claims, then the number of children being molested by dirty old men would fade into insignificance. One other thing that should be considered is that many offenders, were themselves victims and the behaviour they were subjected to was normalised. Of course most victims don't go on to offend, but I believe that if we took serious action to lock up offenders and protect children, then we would see a lot less children being taught that such behaviour is OK. So in short, the awful truth is that the reason we have grooming gangs and other forms of paedophile activity on such a large scale is because both Labour and Conservative governments think it absolutely fine. And until you see the UK and other Western countries building new, purpose built prisons to lock up such people, and more police resources dedicated to catching paedophiles, nothing at all will change. 

Why I am staying on Twitter/X

I was asked yesterday "when will you be quitting Twitter" by a good mate. I was a bit miffed in truth, that someone thought I was so indecisive that if I thought a platform was completely untenable, I'd not depart immediately. There has been lots of talk of quitting Twitter recently. Everyone from the Guardian to Clifton Suspension Bridge have left the platform. If I am honest, I've given far more thought to stopping my subscription to The Guardian than I have to 'quitting Twitter'. The reason? Well it costs me a small fortune to buy the Guardian and there is almost nothing worth reading in it. I used to have a whole list of people that I'd check in the morning, as they had something worth reading. These days, it really is only sketch writer John Crace left, as well as Dooensbury on a Friday morning. I buy the Daily Express and The Guaridan every day. It gives me a balance of writing on the right and left. It helps me hone my arguments. Much of what is in the Express political content is complete rubbish, but a trip to Twitter will confirm that there are no shortage of people who beleive it. Let me give you one example. This morning, their political writer Leo McKinstry claimed Labour were wasting Britians reserves of oil and gas by not exploiting them. Think of this logically, it is an absurd statement. The reserves will be there forever, until we extract them. We are simply making a decision not to exploit them now. If that decision turns out to be a mistake, future generations will still have some wealth in the bank. If I hadn't read this twaddle, I'd not have my arguments formed should someone say something so ridiculous. There was a fascinating feature about a crime writer and how his terrifying experience of being abducted as a teenager influenced his writing. The only article of real interest in the Guardian today (apart from Crace & Doonesbury) was an interveiw with Gwen Stefani, where she admitted that Madness and the Specials were two of her favourite bands. Stefani is a big guilty pleasure of mine (don't tell Mrs T). She used to be on rotation at the Gym when I used to do a lot of running on a treadmill. The point I'm making is that as a rational person, I don't spend money on information sources because I agree with the politics of the owners. 

If I didn't subscribe to products owned by people I find reprehensible, I'd never have subscribed to the Rupert Murdoch owned Sky Sports. As a football fan, this would have meant I'd be depriving myself of one of the few things I really enjoy. Of course, I hated lining the pockets of Rupert Murdoch, a man I despise and who I believe has caused more damage to the Uk than anyone since the second world war. But life is full of compromises. Had I not subscribed to Sky Sports, it would have massively impacted my life in a negative way. I doubt Rupert Murdoch would have missed the money I spent, that made its way into his bank account. Ironically, Sky studios in Elstree have actually ended up making a massive contribution to the local economy. I still can't stand Murdoch, but the concept of watching Strictly on the BBC instead of the football on Sky is something that I personally couldn't do. I'd much rather Someone else got the cash, but in our Capitalist society, that is not how it works. We get these powerful billionaires with a monopoly on information and we have to live with it. It is also worth pointing out that before Sky TV, football coverage was far less professional and there was far less opportunity to watch it. The sad truth is that such billionaires do deliver products that make our lives better, even if they do many other things that make our lives worse.

Which brings us to Elon Musk and Twitter. I first heard of Musk when I started using Ebay in around 2002. I made a small fortune trading on the platform. Musk also owned Paypal. Whatever you may think of Musk, Paypal is a brilliant platform and is the payment platform we use for online payments at the studio. For someone despised by the left, it is rather ironic that Musk invested a fortune building the Tesla green brand, which makes electric vehicles and batteries, which are seen as the future of the green economy. Unlike Trump, who is all for a dirty carbon economy, Musk has probably done more to move us to electric than any other person on the planet. You may not like it, but the facts are there. Then there is SpaceX. Now you may see it as completely bonkers. Musk says that it is the only way that humanity can ever survive in the long term. Moving  beyond planet Earth will secure the long term future of humanity.  He has a point, whether you like it or not, it is a worthy goal. Which brings us to his takeover of Twitter. From the moment it was first mooted, it was met with howls of anger from the left. "How dare a zillionaire take over a start up that we like?" seemed to be the refrain. 

Twitter was a company bleeding money. Press coverage indicated that when Musk saw the books, he was horrified. Much of what he's done to try and make it turn a profit has been very painful, but he's not the first boss to fire staff in a loss making business. He's not the first boss to try and wring every penny out of his customers. He's also not the first boss to mess up a product. Twitter is now a horrible environment. Musk welcomed back the likes of Tommy Robinson and all manner of US far right loonies. He made changes that encouraged them to spout bile on line. There is nothing nice to say about it, except that in the West we believe in free speech and sadly that means these sort of people have as much right to spout bile, so long as they are not breaking the law, as woke lefties like me. 

I have my own suspicions as to why Elon Musk has snuggled up to Trump. I suspect the main reason is that he knew Trump would win and it would be good for business. He is in the inner circle. He has the opportunity to shape the future of the USA. Unlike just about every other appointment Trump has made, Musk is actually very intelligent and has acheived things in his life. His wealth was built in tech and in spotting opportunities that no one else even realised existed. How could he not see an opportunity in what the Trump presidency offers? Musk does not come from a mega wealthy background. His father, Errol Musk, is a South African electromechanical engineer, pilot, sailor, consultant, emerald dealer, and property developer. He clearly comes from a family where taking risks and seizing opportunities is in his blood. My assessment and it may be cruel, is that Musk see's Trump as a gateway to realising his dreams of space exploration and destroying the old financial world order. He sees a bloke who appears to be suffering from a touch of dementia, who has appointed a bunch of absolute morons to run his government, because they all tell him he's marvellous. If you are clever, ambitious and a risk taker, what is not to like?

That is not to say I don't have massive concerns, which are probably just due to my paranoid and cynical nature. My biggest is Musk's investment in "The Boring Company". What does every credible Bond style villain have, whilst they are planning to destroy the world with nuclear bombs? A massive bunker where they can be safe. I do wonder if Trump ever watched any of the Bond films with Roger Moore? If I was him, I'd be a tad reticent about snuggling up too close to Musk, but maybe that's just why I don't own Paypal and am not President of the USA.

A friend suggested that Musk wants to be the next President. Whatever you may think of him, that's impossible as he was not born in the USA. It would require a change to the constitution and I doubt that will ever happen. I suspect Musk has bigger dreams. He has his eyes on the whole universe. For him, I suspect the USA is a bit small for his ambitions. My gut feeling is that Musk will be one of the few sane people in the Trump administration and that cannot be a bad thing. What few people seem to understand is that as the owner of Twitter, he has ownership of one of the biggest data mines of personal information on the planet. Every opinion that you've ever expressed on Twitter is owned by Mr Musk. I used to write software that mined information to spot fraud patterns in UK government benefits payments. What we soon learned was that once you start looking at such data, you learn all manner of things. A whole bunch of types of fraud were identified that no one even new existed until the data was crunched. I have no doubt that all of the Tommy Robinsons and their followers are having their data thoroughly crunched as we speak and I suspect that the usage of the data will only become apparent when someone realises how you can use it. I suspect that with AI analysis, Mr Musk will be able to study my Twitter history and tell me what colour underpants I'm wearing, what I'm having for dinner tonight, what time I go to the toilet, what I'm listening to on the radio and all manner of other information that would be highly useful if he decided to destroy me by fair means or foul. Whilst I doubt I'd find myself in his crosshairs, I do wonder if all of these libertarian Americans who he's actively encouraging to share their lives and thoughts on Twitter will be quite so lucky, when they cease to be useful and stand in his way. 

And if you've been tweeting your life away for the last fifteen years and you've quit, it's too late. You've already put it out there.  Every time you've tweeted that a company has badly served you, every time you've posted a restaurant, gig or coffee shop you like, every time you mention someone you know, everything. It's all there and it can all be crunched. Even things like the time you tweet at will give away things. There is also the location you are tweeting from. All of it. Not just Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc. All of them. The reason why a loss making concern such as Twitter was worth so much to Musk is because Tech investors understand this. Let me give you a trite example. If Mr Musk owned a rare bootleg album of The Ramones at The Roundhouse in 1977, he could get his lackeys to crunch Twitter and he may well conclude that I'd be a great person to sell it to and send me a Tweet offering it to me. There are far darker things he may want to do with data. Who knows? The sad thing about Twitter and all of these other platforms is you've already put it out there. 

Which brings us back to the title of this blog. Why I am staying on Twitter.

1. It costs me nothing.

2. IMHO Musk is no worse than most other multi billionaires and tech companies.

3. The horse had bolted, my digital history on Twitter is already in his hands

4. I beleive in free speech and much as I dislike nutcases, they have as much right to post crap as snowflakes like me. I don't want to belong to a platform that is an eho chamber for my views.

5. No one has actually made a rational case for leaving, other than their personal dislike of Musk.

6. Twitter is still the best of breed and I see good content on it.

7.  I dislike Rupert Murdoch more than Musk and I still have Sky Sport, so it would be deeply hypocritical to flounce off Twitter just to keep my lefty mates happy.

8. Every review of every film, play and record I've read in the Guardian in the last ten years has been wrong, If they like something, it is invariably rubbish and vice verse, so their flounce off Twitter is most unconvincing.

9. Like reading the Daily Express, Twitter exposes me to difficult arguments from people I don't like, which ultimately makes me better able to argue my case.

10. If Musk succeeds in his aims of moving forward humanities colonisation of space, it may mean humanity lasts a bit longer than it would if we were earthbound. As someone with a vested in the survival of humanity, it seems a worthy ambition.

11. Its the zillionaires that we never hear about who really worry me.

12. Having someone in the Government of the USA who is not a thick, useless Trump yes man can only be good. 

And what would make me change my mind? That is really quite simple. If I found that I couldn't be arsed looking at it anymore. I'd not flounce off, I'd just stop looking at it and unconsciously disengage, like I did with Friends Reunited and Myspace. Or if Elon Musk bans me as he doesn't like this blog.

----

Anyway, now I've got your attention, here's another plug for The False Dots gig on Sunday at 2pm, at The Dublin Castle. Please come along. We are launching our first album in 45 years! 

Tickets Here >>>>>> wegottickets.com/event/627785

The final tweets of the week in the London Borough of Barnet - 19th November 2023 - A statement

 I had a couple of emails asking me whether I should be doing this feature, in light of the platform owners behaviour. This has seen large companies such as M&S and BT withdrawing advertising from the brand. The question I have to ask is this. Do I want to promote a company such as "X" which is run by someone who clearly has a very different agenda for his platform to what I happen to believe in. This is something I've thought long and hard about since the ownership was changed. 

I have to be honest, I love many aspects of Twitter, not least it's democracy. Anyone can post a tweet which could go viral and go around the world. I've learned all manner of things and made a few good friends along the way. I block those that I don't want to see and I have always enjoyed doing this feature. 

Since the current owner took the helm, I've found it increasingly difficult to put this together. On occasisons, searches haven't worked. Every move seems to have been misconceived attempts to squeeze more money out of the platform, none of which have made it easier to use or better for the ordinary folk who use it. Some of the changes, charging for blue ticks, limiting searches, making their view of what you want the default, so you see all manner of tweets you are not interested in are infuriating. 

It seems that the platform has lost it's heart and soul. Tweets are no longer tweets. Twitter is no longer twitter. How can you pick "tweets of the week" when there is no such thing as a tweet? I doubt whether Elon Musk gives a flying F**K whether I do this or what I think of his platform. For the time being, I am staying on the platform, but I look at it less and less. I think it is dying on its feet. My wish is that Musk would sell it to someone who understood what it should and could be, rather than seemingly running it as a vanity project. 

Do I want to spend my Sunday morning doing this feature? I don't really think I do. So this is it.

I will finish with a special edition. This weeks pick are the good and bad of local tweeters, which I am retweeting as a final hurrah, with a bit of commentary.

1. I f it hadn't been for the campaign to save the Railway Hotel in Edgware, I may have wrapped this feature up a long time ago. Twitter was an effective campaigning platform for naming and shaming lazy Councillors. A big thanks is due to Cllr Lucy Wakeley, who has stepped up. If the Barnet Tories have any sense, they will find a bigger platform for her talents

A word of thanks to @lucy_wakeley for her support in matters of the #RailwayEdgware - TBH the only @BarnetCouncil councillor to have pro-actively done anything to help save the building https://t.co/5JajVe8MQ6

— Roger Tichborne/Rog T (@Barneteye) November 19, 2023

2. This had to be said

One of the pleasures of doing the TOTW column in the Barnet Eye blog for the last decade of so, has been featuring and highlighting the amazing work of local historian Mark Amies. It is a shame that so many nick/plagerise his efforts and don't even bother to credit him https://t.co/Qa4TPDIoGM

— Roger Tichborne/Rog T (@Barneteye) November 19, 2023

3. I really feel I had to say this. David is a nice enough bloke, but if he wants to persuade me that he is worthy of my vote, then he'd better do a few less photo ops and a bit more proper campaigning on local issues

It is a crying shame that the @BarnetLabour candidate for Hendon has not seen fit to do anything to support the campaign to save the #RailwayEdgware. He's been down a few times but not a dickybird. https://t.co/nvIwf8JJKv

— Roger Tichborne/Rog T (@Barneteye) November 19, 2023

4. I will miss the tweets from our local sports clubs

It is great to see some good news and a valued local club doing well. https://t.co/mfwIsnRtPI

— Roger Tichborne/Rog T (@Barneteye) November 19, 2023

5. And now for the worst of local Twitter. Smart media and PR exec rewriting our local history

This is a ridiculous post. Brent Cross didn't exist until the shopping centre was built. The tube station was called Brent. It was renamed in 1976 when the shopping centre opened, even though it is a long and unpleasant walk from the shops. The airfield was in Cricklewood. https://t.co/Va8CHFlgTe

— Roger Tichborne/Rog T (@Barneteye) November 19, 2023

6. Yes and Yes

Want a new #guitar? Live in #millhill pic.twitter.com/nQWhWt18sf

— #MillHillMusicComplex (@MillHillMusicCo) November 19, 2023

7. I'll miss highlighting some of the amazing pics of our locality

#millhillstreets pic.twitter.com/JASKTX6Gtj

— A Better Mill Hill 🔸🌈🇬🇧🇪🇺 (@ABetterMillHill) November 19, 2023

8. I also love finding these sort of gems!

Get out and check this out. Lovely to see these out and about https://t.co/xhmEdQ0Kab

— Roger Tichborne/Rog T (@Barneteye) November 19, 2023

9. I'll miss highlighting the amazing work of our libraries

Why wouldn't you! https://t.co/E8dznf0A2T

— Roger Tichborne/Rog T (@Barneteye) November 19, 2023

10. Sad really to end with a scumbag alert, but if it gets my mate John his guitar back, then what better way

Please share. #Scumbagalert https://t.co/4PSx6SjeIi

— Roger Tichborne/Rog T (@Barneteye) November 19, 2023

That really is all folks, lets end with some music. If you like it, you can see me with The False Dots at the Dublin Castle on Sat 23rd December playing this!