The Braindump Blog

It looks like some clever coders have figured out how to remove DRM from newer Kindle books now. It’s a bit more of an involved process than previously, but totally doable - only if of course it is legal where you live!

You will need version 2.8ish of Kindle for Windows (which is the current version at the time of writing), Calibre and a couple of Calibre addins installed:

• DeDrm version 10.0.15 (at least that’s the current one that works)
• A recent version of KFX input, which you can get from Calibre’s inbuilt “Get new plugins” feature. I am on version 2.28.0.

The DeDrm plugin needs a bit of configuring before it will work. I will likely do a proper writeup soon, but for now, following “solution 1” here should work.

📚Finished reading Poverty Safari by Darren McGarvey.

This book is a mixture of the author’s autobiography and his beliefs and policy prescriptions of how we could and should improve the lives of some of the most economically-deprived struggling Britons out there.

He himself grew up in a deprived area of Scotland, and certainly had a very tough early- life experience. This included bouts of violence, addiction, homelessness, the death of his mother and various other huge challenges, the impact of all of which were exacerbated by the lack of resources available to him and his community after years of austerity and social change hollowing out traditional community resources, amongst others.

His lived experience thus gives him, and hence his readers, some deep insights as to what a life of poverty is really like and what should be done to tackle this perfectly preventable social ill that blights the lives of so many of us today.

By his telling, poverty should be thought of as being far wider in scope than simply financial deprivation. The struggles of such a life also produce social exclusion, emotional distress - including anger, shame, resentment - and a kind of psychological trauma that those of us who do not experience these hardships may not intuitively understand. There is a strong association with what today we call adverse childhood experiences, which commonly will play out in negative ways in later life.

It’s largely taken as read that the right wing tradition has no understanding of and probably very little interest in fixing this issue. In fact the Thatcherite revolution et al was likely a primary cause of the cruelty that resulted in the status quo. But whilst he comes from a background of left-wing politics, he - unlike what you might predict from the earlier autobiographical sections of the book - does often harshly criticise the modern left’s admittedly well-meaning approach .

He critiques most of the institutions that are set up ostensibly to help with such matters as being totally out of touch with the reality of the real life experience of poverty. They don’t talk to the people who are subject to it, they don’t listen to what they have to say. Hence they, at best, design and promote policy “solutions” that are useless or worse.

He sees such institutions and their leaders as frequently focusing on big vision overthrowing-the-system type thinking. Nice in theory, sure, academically fascinating perhaps. but, in his view, unrealistic and hence unhelpful. Instead, he would prefer them to promote and implement practical solutions that will actually benefit folk in poverty concretely today - resources such as community centres, mental health support and education. Instead, the blue-sky thinking apparent in many such institutions mainly create everlasting jobs for the typically middle class employees who work on these problems (and who might be put out of a job should the problem they’re addressing actually be solved) - but do little to meet their stated aim of improving the lot of poorer people.

This is not to say he doesn’t believe in some of the possibly more academia-associated ideas such as structural concepts of injustice. But rather, whilst tackling them, insists that we must not overlook any alleviating solutions that we know will work today, right now - lessening the unjust suffering of poorer communities immediately rather than in some supposed decades-hence utopia.

He also has some criticism some of those folk who suffer poverty which I have to say did not sit so instinctually comfortably with me - perhaps then I am part of the problem in his view. He instructs them to not wait for solutions from above but rather inculcate a sense of personal responsibility, of realising that they have agency in their lives, of not making excuses that result in the blame for an unhappy life being situated entirely in a bad government rather than their own life choices, of not failing to take advantage to the non-zero modes of assistance that are actually available to them. It is incumbent on the governing classes to listen to those voices of those who struggle - but also incumbent on those excluded from society by poverty to make their voices heard.

This all feels like good, sensible, sometimes research-backed advice, but it is of course always a fine line between “personal responsibility” type lines and victim blaming. Nonetheless, I can certainly believe that if we do not actually believe we can do something to improve our lives then it is much less likely that our lives will in fact be improved. And there are certainly links between feelings of agency and mental health conditions such as depression.

He also calls to us all to subject ourselves to some rigorous intellectual introspection and honesty. Think about your beliefs on this subject (and others). Why do you believe what you believe? Why do you think a specific solution to poverty is the right one? Do, by any chance, you happen to believe the same things as your parents and your peer group do? What would it take to change your mind?

Sure, what you intuitively think might be right - but it is rather unlikely you were born with a perfect grasp of reality and the solutions to social ills in your brain. He uses his own journey, which started off from a place of futile resignation, anger, self-destructive tendencies and a deep resentment and prejudice against anyone he believed was not “working-class” into a far more nuanced and, let’s hope, helpful to him and to society in general mindset - part of which has been channelled into writing this book.

📺 Watched This Country seasons 1-3.

I’m a sucker for a spoof documentary, and this BBC production was no exception. The purported focus is to study how the youth of today that live in the deep countryside fare where there is little work or entertainment on offer - and decades of austerity have naturally wreaked havoc on most community resources. Awkward, hilarious stuff.

The stars of the show - cousins Kerry and Lee Muckloe - are played by real-life siblings , Daisy and Charlie Cooper. They created and co-wrote the show. And whilst This Country is over, they’ve recently come back to the screens in the form of “Daisy May and Charlie Cooper’s NightWatch”, which I’m sure I’ll watch at some point.

There is nothing in this world less patriotic than calling on a foreign leader to come abduct your democratically elected leader and take over your country.

And yet:

TOMMY Robinson has called on Donald Trump to invade and “free” the UK from the “tyrannical dictator” Keir Starmer following the United States’s attack on Venezuela.

Anyone who has any love of any part of the UK should do their best to help reduce any impact that this dangerous, violent, lying, ignorant criminal has on the way our country is governed, now or in the future. He is, at times, nothing short of treasonous.

And the fact that, as far as I know, he hasn’t been arrested for this comment would seem to show that the whole ‘you can’t say anything any more without getting arrested’, sentiment - whilst there are probably a few legitimate arguments to be had on the topic - is totally overblown.

FTSE 100 CEOs earn more than average worker’s yearly pay by noon on 6 January

Statistics like these really make Britain’s economic inequality quite stark.

Median annual pay for FTSE 100 chief executives is £4.4m, the High Pay Centre thinktank calculated, 113 times higher than the £39,039 earned by the median full-time worker.

The median such chief executive is earning £23 per minute according to the High Pay Centre’s calculations, even if we assume they’re working a 62.5 hr week.

Even after the recent rises, minimum wage in the UK is set at a maximum of £12.21 an hour - and less if you’re younger than 21.

It was interesting to read that (at least) the New York Times and the Washington Post learned about the covert US military mission to abduct the President of Venezula sometime before it actually happened - not just after Trump tweeted some meandering string full of capital letters about the subject like the rest of us did. . They chose not to publish anything on it though, apparently to avoid putting the US troops involved in more danger than they otherwise would have been.

The decisions in the New York and Washington newsrooms to maintain official secrecy is in keeping with longstanding American journalistic traditions — even at a moment of unprecedented mutual hostility between the American president and a legacy media that continues to dominate national security reporting.

I imagine that was not an entirely trivial decision to make given the current environment in the US and beyond. The mission in question was after all, for all its potential upsides and downsides, very likely an internationally and nationally illegal act that hadn’t yet taken place, being planned and actioned in the absence of any sign of democratic oversight.

It was also interesting for me to realise that there is no official mechanism for the US government to ask the press to stop reporting on whatever the highly sensitive topic of the day is. It sounds like the system simply relies on the media and the government coming to a mutual agreement.

Over here in the UK it is a bit different - we have, for example, the infamous “D-Notices”, or DSMA-Notices as they have now apparently been rebranded to. Our government can issue these to request the media not publish stories that they think will endanger national security . Wikipedia has a short list of a few times we know that these have been issued.

D-Notices aren’t actually legally enforceable, although they are typically adhered to. Beyond that though, we have seen the UK government take out injunctions - or even “super injunctions” - which do legally prevent information being shared. That was how the government covered up the catastrophic data leak which revealed the personal details of the thousands of Afghans who secretly helped the UK’s armed forces for a couple of years.

📺 Watched Return To Paradise seasons 1 and 2.

Yet another Death In Paradise spinoff. This time it’s set in Australia and the weird/genius/awkward/reluctant detective who is always just about to quit her job is a lady, Mackenzie Clarke. She returns to her homeland for a break after being suspended from her job the police force over here in London. But will she get a break as such? Well, obviously not.

The format and storylines are basically exactly the same as the original and all the other spinoffs - some variant of “cozy murder” - so you might as well watch this one if you liked those. I did.

Yet more of the apparent hypocrisy:

November 28 2025: Trump issues a full pardon to ex-Honduran president Hernandez who was in a US jail based on charges around drug trafficking and weapons.

January 4 2026: Trump authorises the kidnapping of Venezuelan president Mandura and intends to try him in US courts on charges around drug trafficking and weapons.

Weird date coincidence (I assume):

January 3 1990: US captures Panamas’s ruler Noriega on foreign soil in a probably illegal military operation.

January 3 2026: US captures Venezuela’s president Maduro on foreign soil in a probably illegal military operation.

Trump authorises his military to bomb Venezuela and kidnap its president, Maduro, which they have successfully done.

Trump now thinks he’s going to run Venezuela, which will include seizing its oil industry, presumably so that the mega rich US oil companies can become even richer.

Apparently gone are the days where the US used proxy wars and secret funding to depose Latin American governments it disliked. Now they show no shame in directly doing it themselves and then tweeting about it.

Gone are the days when their government at least pretended at the time that their foreign military incursions were not actually mostly about seizing their opponents natural resources.

Rather:

Just two weeks ago, Trump mentioned oil as a justification for his military buildup off Venezuela’s coast.

They took our oil rights, removed our companies, and we want them back," he told reporters on the Joint Base Andrews tarmac beside Air Force One.

Trump has, for years, expressed his belief that the United States had the right to confiscate oil using the military

Maduro was a bad man, a horrible president. No one needs to venerate him as anything other than that.

Maduro was widely considered to be leading an authoritarian government characterized by electoral fraud, human rights abuses, corruption, and severe economic hardship

But one can’t just invade other countries and abduct people you don’t like. The US operation was almost certainly illegal under international law, although I have seen many of the relevant organisations look like they’re going to do anything about it so far. Given the US can veto any relevant UN decision there’s little likelihood of much happening there.

It is perhaps less mind-blowingly unprecedented than it seems. The US did something vaguely similar in Panama, at least to my recent reading, back in 1989.

The United States invaded Panama in mid-December 1989 during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. The purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto ruler of Panama, General Manuel Noriega, who was wanted by U.S. authorities for racketeering and drug trafficking. The operation, codenamed Operation Just Cause, concluded in late January 1990 with the surrender of Noriega

Although in that case it seems like they were rather more provoked rather than it being seemingly the whim of a corrupt, criminal and at times seemingly mad, US president.

Following the declaration of a state of war between Panama and the United States passed by the Panamanian general assembly, as well as the lethal shooting of a Colombia-born U.S. Marineofficer Lt. Robert Paz at a PDF roadblock, Bush authorized the execution of the Panama invasion plan.

Nontheless, Bush’s operation was condemned as illegal by much of the global community.

The U.S. government invoked as a legal justification for the invasion. Several scholars and observers have opined that the invasion was illegal under international law, arguing that the government’s justifications were, according to these sources, factually groundless, and moreover, even if they had been true they would have provided inadequate support for the invasion under international law

So there’s little doubt that Trump’s actions were, once again, not in line with the law. The question is, can and will anyone with power do anything about it, or is this the new norm for the country formerly known as a kind of global policeman?

On the one hand, Reform UK heavily promote and feature Lucy Connolly at their annual conference - a lady who was arrested and plead guilty to stirring up racial hatred via her offensive tweets.

But they’re only this kind of “free speech advocates” when it suits them. As soon as its not someone whose views agree with at the vibe of the Reform higher-ups it’s a totally different story.

Regarding Abd el-Fattah, who has also been found to have produced some very offensive tweets, which he has since apologised for- well, in that case, he wants to go beyond merely arresting him, instead desiring to remove his British citizenship and deport him. Even though there would seem to be no legal basis for doing so whatsoever:

The Conservatives and Reform UK have both suggested the activist should be deported from the UK for the posts and have his British citizenship revoked, even though the law does not appear to provide grounds for either action. Nigel Farage has promoted a petition for people to sign in favour of deporting Abd el-Fattah to Egypt.

It’s yet another example of Reform and some of their ideological allies' hypocritically switching their views on some of the fundamental tenets of British society - law and order - depending on whether they like the person concerned.

Here are the books I finished reading in 2025.

Innumerable start up ventures from the often morality-free seeming tech bros that control most of our digital lives seem to be named after Lord of The Rings stuff. Business Insider gives us a few examples:

• Erebor - a bank
• Anduril - defense tech
• Palantir - how to describe? BI says “a government-focused software giant”.
• Mithril Capital - an investment firm
• Durin - mining
• Rivendell One LLC - a trust that manages Peter Thiel’s shares.
• Lembas LLC - an investment firm
• Valar Ventures - a venture captial firm
• Sauron Systems - a home security system

But often in doing so, some of these pretention and shallow thinkers betray their actual ignorance of the book, or, if it’s not that, well, it’s a bad sign for other reasons.

The latest one that crossed my radar was Sauron Systems.

They’re trying to build:

…what they envisioned as a military-grade home security system for tech elites.

…a system combining AI-driven intelligence, advanced sensors like LiDAR and thermal imaging, and 24/7 human monitoring by former military and law enforcement personnel.

Like all good tech start up products, apparently it doesn’t actually exist yet other than as something investors can throw money at.

It is also named after the famously evil baddie from the Lord of the Rings trilogy and elsewhere in Tolkien’s literary world.

So who or what exactly is Sauron? According to Wikipedia:

Tolkien stated in his Letters that although he did not think “Absolute Evil” could exist as it would be “Zero”, “Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.”

He explained that, like “all tyrants”, Sauron had started out with good intentions but was corrupted by power. Tolkien added that Sauron “went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination”,

Bold, and I suppose potentially honest, of a surveillance company to represent itself as an entity well known for it’s evil-doing.

Some might say that “started out with good intentions but was corrupted by power” and “went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination” isn’t a particularly terrible description of a few of Silicon Valley’s wannabe digital empires.

Yet another way in which the often appalling, often racist, anti-immigrant sentiment being successfully whipped up in Britain by various politicians and media is making our country a weaker, worse place to live in for even its ‘native’ citizens.

The health service is being put at risk because overseas health professionals increasingly see the UK as an “unwelcoming, racist” country, in part because of the government’s tough approach to immigration, Jeanette Dickson said.

Record numbers of foreign-born doctors are quitting the NHS and the post-Brexit surge in those coming to work in it has stalled. At the same time, the number of nurses and midwives joining the NHS has fallen sharply over the past year.

Our health system is already seemingly in a desperate condition. Without the migrants that come to our country and generously bestow their skills on us for the good of the entire British population it can only ever move further towards being totally doomed. For which we will all tremendously suffer.

Foreign-born doctors and nurses were being put off by antagonism by politicians towards migrants, media coverage of immigration, the racist abuse of international medical graduates by NHS colleagues and racist aggression by patients toward minority ethnic NHS staff, she said.

📚 Finished reading: The Secret of Secrets by Dan Brown.

This is Dan Brown’s sixth book in the Professor Langdon series. This time he’s got a girlfriend - Professor of Noetics Katherine Solomon. She’s about to publish a book that not even Langdon is allowed to know the details of its contents, other than that it’s something fairly revelatory about consciousness.

Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t go all that smoothly. Powerful people don’t want the book to get to print. And they’ll go to even greater lengths than Meta did to stop it.

As ever, Brown’s book feels well-researched. Some of the studies it mentions and the descriptions of the few notable locations I’m aware of ring true, even if the events themselves are a little credulity-stretching at times. But hey, who wants to read about a load of boring normal stuff. And the Institute of Noetics is a real organisation. What is there is engaging and fast paced.

As to the topic of Katherine’s book, well, who knows. But I did come away with the curious feeling that, despite being fictional, this book presented arguments for a “non-conventional reality”, let’s say, as convincing as some non-fiction books on the topic, albeit a lot more abbreviated.

I know people love to hate the author, Dan Brown. I have no idea how to judge his literary style. But nor do I really care when I do know that I really enjoy basically every one of his books.

For all their plastic patriotism, Reform sure do get financed by a lot of people with extensive foreign interests.

About 66% of all the money donated to Reform during this parliament came from donors who are resident overseas or with offshore interests overseas.

For all their man of the poor beleaguered common people shtick, they sure do get heavily financed by a few extraordinarily wealthy donors.

New research from Democracy for Sale shows that three-quarters of all donations to Reform have come from just three men: Christopher Harborne, Jeremy Hosking and Richard Tice

Not to get all conspiracy theoryish over this - I’ll leave that to some of their more deluded candidates - but it is surely of note that all these mega-rich folk with foreign interests - the very people that Reform at times pretend are the enemies of the people that only they can defend us against - are so enthusiastic for Reform to win.

Follow the money, cui bono, and all that jazz.

Peter Kellner uses Yougov data to estimate how many British people might vote or against Brexit if the referendum happened again today. He comes out with a figure suggesting a rather anti-Brexit verdict today:

…the combined impact of demographics and changed minds is to convert a 1.3 million majority for leaving the EU into an 8.1 million majority for rejoining it.

Something like this can only be a rough estimate that is riddled with assumptions. But, if nothing else, it reminds us that, as with every election, whatever the result was in the past, it might not remain the same in the future. Things change. People change. Priorities change. That is after all why we have governmental elections every few years!

There are several dynamics at play here.

Firstly, older people were more likely to vote at all, and more likely to vote for Brexit. They are also, sadly, more likely to have died since the original referendum in 2016.

Secondly, some people who were too young to vote in 2016 are now old enough to vote. And the youngest cohort of voters poll as very pro rejoining the EU.

As Kellner, somewhat harshly, puts it:

We are told that it would be undemocratic to overturn the 2016 referendum result. After almost ten years, that requires a belief that the votes of the dead count for more than the views of the young.

Thirdly, some people who did vote in the previous referendum and are still alive to vote today have changed their minds. Changed their minds in either direction of course, but Yougov polling suggests that shifting from pro-Brexit to anti-Brexit is rather more prevalent than the reverse; probably no surprise after the general catastrophe it turned out to be.

8% of those who voted Remain would now vote to stay out, while 29% of Leave voters want to rejoin.

All in all, the estimates of the volumes involved in this dynamics can be visualised, as he does for his New World article, like this:

The National Bureau of Economic Research recently released a working paper looking at The Economic Impact of Brexit on the UK. They set out to use various simulations and estimation techniques as to estimate what would have happened had Brexit never happened.

It doesn’t make for pleasant reading and undoubtedly helps explain some of the current mess that our country appears to be in. Whilst I haven’t been through the whole thing in detail as yet, in the abstract we learn that:

These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.

Back in the days of the referendum, the folk who raised concerns and produced analysis suggesting that there would likely be some adverse economic impact from disassociating ourselves from our nearest trading partner et al were often accused by the more rabid Brexiteers as creating a “project fear”, i.e. making fake doom-laden predictions just to scare the population from not voting exactly as the likes of Farage, Johnson et al wanted them to.

It turns out that some of the forecasts were in fact wrong in the longer term. But wrong in the other direction; underestimating the damage that would be done to the UK economy.

Comparing these with contemporary forecasts…shows that these forecasts were accurate over a 5-year horizon, but they underestimated the impact over a decade.

Often I feel that those of us who dislike the continuous and unpatriotic efforts of various politicians, media and others to illegitimately demonise immigrants in order to mask the real source of the country’s poor know what we hate - we know abject immorality and counter-productive policies of hostility when we see them - but not so much what the concrete positive policy for the future should exactly be.

The report “Time for change: The evidence-based policies that can actually fix the immigration system”, from Zoe Gardner, presents 9 key recommendations. The full thing should perhaps be compulsory reading for anyone who is trying to form an opinion on the matter.

Below are the 9 key reforms the report demands:

1. Safe routes
2. The right to work and faster, better asylum decisions
3. A not-for-profit asylum accommodation system
4. Reform labour inspection and protections from workplace exploitation
5. Scrap restrictive employer-sponsored visas
6. Integrate asylum seekers into the points-based system
7. A simplified, universal pathway to settlement after five years
8. Reintroduce birthright citizenship and reduce integration barriers for children
9. Embrace a positive narrative about immigration, diversity and belonging

The “why?” and “what about?” side of things is argued at length in the full report of course.

Something else the report brings up that I hadn’t thought of in a while is how the UK (and other countries) reacted to Ukrainian folk who wanted to flee Putin’s violence. We did not see nearly the negative frenzy surrounding the relatively large numbers of people involved then than when the average small boat containing a few people from amongst the world’s least privileged imaginable lands on our shores. Nor do we see endless newspaper stories today about whichever the self-contradicting hot topic of the day is about Ukranians “relying on handouts” or “stealing our jobs”.

There are obvious reasons why this is the case. But it is further evidence that another way is possible; indeed another way is essential.

In the UK, people who receive certain types of benefits get a £10 Christmas bonus each year.

Whilst that’s a cute and, given the current state of things, desperately needed extra from a kind of state Santa, it’s of note that this policy has existed since 1972. And, incredibly, it’s always been a nominal £10 every year since then.

Hence the amount been absolutely ravaged by inflation. £10 in 1972 would be worth around £120 today. It’s probably about time the amount received was updated.

After a lead up mired in chaos and leaks, the UK’s new budget dropped last week. At first glance it is substantially less terrible than I had feared.

Not everyone agrees of course, because not everyone agrees on anything any more. Yougov did some interesting polling on the public reaction to its individual components , shown below.

Probably the one I’m most confused / despondent about is the negative public reaction to the eradicating of the 2 child benefit limit.

A majority of Britons though this was a bad move. But how anyone could imagine this was the wrong thing to do given it was a policy that condemned hundreds of thousand of children to poverty whilst seemingly failing to achieve its self-declared aims whatsoever is beyond me.

Innocent children should not be punished no matter how poorly you believe their parents have behaved.

🎥 Watched Cruella.

The supposed origin story of everyone’s least favourite Dalmatian-murderer.

Watch as the troubled wannabe fashion designer Estella Miller lives out her unfortunately transformational life experiences. Not sure the story lines up 100% with the previously accepted nature of Cruella - but it was a surprisingly entertaining take on it all.

Not to be all Cruella, but really my only complaint really was with Estrella’s beloved dogs and their peers- I don’t know what kind of weird AI they animated them with but I wish they…hadn’t.

As summarised by Open Culture, Umberto Eco documented in his relatively famous essay what he sees as fourteen signs of fascist regimes in general, even whilst in the details fascism may manifest in a variety of different ways

…the fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change. … These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

As so many, many people have observed before now, it goes without saying that some of these seem very relevant today.

1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers."
2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity.
3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection".
4. Disagreement is treason.
5. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
6. Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
7. The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged.”
8. The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.
10. Contempt for the weak.
11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. With a resulting embrace of a cult of death - fascist heroes should fight to the death, and send other people to their death.
12. Machismo and weaponry.
13. Selective populism. “…the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
14. Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”

📚 Finished reading Deadline by Steph McGovern.

Deadline or Dead line? Either would make sense. Officially it seems to be the former.

This is a quick-to-read thriller telling the story of (fictional) TV presenter Rose who is in the midst of her career high - an exclusive interview with Britain’s Chancellor the Exchequer. When all of a sudden, in front of a viewership of million, the guidance of her studio team in her earpiece is replaced by something much more disturbing.

The author is herself a broadcaster - after various presenting jobs and more with the BBC she currently co-hosts the popular economics podcast The Rest Is Money. So she no doubt has some domain knowledge of what she writes. Hopefully thought the events of the book are not quite as simple as they seem to pull off.