Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
Pumping my cervix literally right this second... keep me company? ๐ Mr. Stretch #nsfw #nsfwtwt #sizequeen #loosepussy #cervix #pumping #extreme #medical #fetish #bbw #milf #fansly #porn #content #chellyxcx
35,142 views โข 2 months ago โขvia X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
![โผ๏ธEXPOSED: The RECEIPTS Are In That Prove Erika Kirk FAKED Her PREGNANCYโUtrasound Tech Of 16 Years CONFIRMS IT! ๐ฑ After my last deep-dive into Erika Kirk's PREGANCY, an ultrasound tech with over 16 years of clinical experience reached out to meโand the details they pointed out are absolutely damning. If youโve ever had an ultrasound, you know the drill. It requires a liberal amount of conductive gel for the wand to actually work, and your shirt gets tucked way up under your bra to keep it out of the way. In Erikaโs video? There is no visible gel on her stomach, and she is just casually holding her shirt up. But here is the absolute smoking gun: The name formatting. The clinic she allegedly usedโCamelback Womenโs Health Centerโprints their patient imaging strictly as [LAST NAME, FIRST NAME]. I went a step further and tracked down another ultrasound from that exact same clinic to verify it, and it matches the tech's claim perfectly: Last Name, First Name. The image Erika shows the camera? Printed as "Erika, Frantzve." First name, last name. The formatting for that medical system is completely backwards. Add in the fact that she strategically overlaps the two printed photos to completely cover up the dates, and then crops the date out of the second image entirely. I can't say it's definitive proof, but the preponderance of the evidence points to one very obvious conclusion. The official narrative keeps collapsing. Watch the breakdown and judge the tape for yourself. ๐ โ ๏ธThey want this investigation shut down. Right now, my channel is facing targeted attacks to bankrupt me and silence the truth surrounding the Charlie Kirk assassination. If you believe in independent journalism and want to ensure this investigation stays alive, your support makes all the difference ๐ช ๐](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2056048867716583588/amplify_video_thumb/2056046811429687296/img/K1ojS9rcSRpXSQMF.jpg)
![โSomething major is changing in the world right now and it's creeping into RuneScape." "[GPT bots] are already randomizing their stats and gear patterns, so it gets difficult for me to spot them now." โNot only did none of the players get suspicious, but the bot literally roasted the players and argued with them for a good 3 minutes without raising suspicion.โ "This isn't the only tip off I've gotten about accounts having slightly strangely intelligent conversations within the last week.โ โIn the not too distant future, bots will be unidentifiable to players. But what if all of a sudden players don't know who is a bot and they're even friends with some of the bots? Unknowingly, bots kind of become somewhat of a positive externality. Players think the game is more populated than it is and find that the player base on average may even be more willing to help out as bots are programmed to break from their gold farming to do some humanlike interaction. So now, unknowingly, players actually like bots, which means JAGEX now likes bots. And as a for profit company, JAGEX actually starts to make their own bots to flood the RuneScape world with more players. It feels like the height of RuneScape in 2006. Many worlds are full, people are chatting. There are bots all over the place that act like cute noobs to give you that rush of dopamine from the nostalgia you've been being fed in not only a digital world but a fake reality of that digital world. There are thousands of fake bossing groups, fake clans, mini-games are full and everyone wants to be your friend. It takes 3 seconds to get a PVP fight whose result is pre-programmed slightly in your favor to keep your brain pumping with dopamine so that you renew your now $50 per month membership. Do you understand what I'm getting at? The nature of our reality is at stake. I'd totally be playing way more RuneScape and be purchasing way more memberships as long as JAGEX could keep tricking me that their bots are real players. Either governments will start regulating required disclosure of [AI] interaction both in video games and elsewhere online, meaning it's illegal for companies not to tell you you're talking to or playing with a nonhuman, or we're all going to be turned completely into dopamine drips.โ](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1679846530105131008/ext_tw_video_thumb/1679787376166461440/pu/img/qQPqB2kg67zwtbdn.jpg)
![This episode is about a once-in-a-generation mind working on what may be the most important problem in history. It's based on the new book The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence by Sebastian Mallaby. (0:00) This is the most crazy, ferocious corporate battle that we've ever seen. (2:21) Intelligence is fundamental; it is the root of all else. (3:27) When Demis founded DeepMind almost every investor turned him away. (4:50) Demis is a missionary entrepreneur and out-of-the-box scientist who, through brilliance and extraordinary drive, emerges as the right person for a particular moment. (6:20) I sit at my desk at 2 a.m., and I feel like reality is staring at me, screaming at me, literally screaming at me, trying to tell me something if I could just listen hard enough. That's how I feel every day, so you can see why I'm trying to build AI. I've felt that since I was very young that there's a deep, deep mystery about what's going on here. (7:10) Demis, who blazed the trail followed by rivals, is decent and public-spirited and wants the best for humanity. He has ego; he is fearsomely competitive, but his goal is scientific enlightenment, not money or power. (9:49) Demis has an extraordinary level of determination, unlike pretty much anybody. Astonishing, incredible determination. That's his most defining characteristic: just unbelievable determination. He works, sleeps, eats, breathes the mission 24 hours a day to a degree that I haven't seen with other people. (10:48) There is no 50% mode in Demis. There is not even a 99% mode in Demis. There is only 100%. (14:39) The slightly warped way I took that was: how do you know you've done your best? The only way I could know is basically if I push myself to the point just before death, because that is literally when you have done your best. (19:07) When he signed up for a game he liked to feel that he could win. (20:44) He saw no reason not to start a company and so he did. (22:40) Demis on what losing feels like to him: It's like my soul is on fire. (25:34) Demis was an extreme case of an authentic entrepreneur, not a mercenary who starts with a desire to get rich from a startup then casts around for a plausible idea, but rather a missionary who feels compelled to work on a particular challenge then starts a company as a way of tackling it. (25:57) The good thing about missionaries is that they never quit. Even if they have to work around the clock and pay themselves nothing. They will keep obsessing about the problem. (26:08) Peter Thiel on Demis: โI always say that people aren't really entrepreneurs in the abstract, but there's maybe one great company that somebody has in them. It was Demis's destiny to build this one.โ (26:30) "If you invent a breakthrough in artificial intelligence so machines can learn, that would be worth 10 Microsofts." โ Bill Gates (32:09) We only wanted hardcore believers. We would go to conferences and tell people we are starting an AGI company. 80% of the people would roll their eyes at us, literally roll their eyes at us and turn around and walk away. We figured that this was a very efficient way to discover who we should be talking to. (32:50) Blessed are those who believed before there was any evidence. (34:17) The way Demis saw things, true general intelligence would make almost anything possible, surpassing the internet, the printing press, or even the industrial revolution in importance. (35:22) Elon had declared that humans needed to colonize Mars in case disaster struck Earth. Demis had countered that killer AI robots might be one such disaster, but that the AI could obviously follow humans to Mars if it wanted to. (36:25) Peter Thiel felt instinctively suspicious of a fellow chess player. A man who had spent his formative years mentally crushing opponents should be treated with caution, Thiel reckoned. (37:07) I'm talking about the biggest invention ever, and investors keep coming back to "Where's the widget?" and I'm like, "I'm going to revolutionize all widgets, so I can pick you a random widget if you want me to, but you obviously haven't got the point if you're asking me this." (37:42) He [Larry Page] was basically telling me, maybe you could build a company like Google, but it would take the best part of your career. If my real mission was to build AGI, then why don't I use all the resources that he's accumulated? I thought that was a pretty good argument. (38:50) Elon tries to buy DeepMind (42:33) Sam Altman emails Elon: "I've been thinking a lot about whether it's possible to stop humanity from developing AI. I think the answer is almost definitely not. If it's going to happen anyway, it seems like it would be good for someone other than Google to do it first." (43:18) If you have powerful people who are able to understand the impact of the technology, they're not just gonna sit on the sidelines. (44:08) Humans had not understood how little they had understood. (44:31) As Peter Thiel said of Demis, "Geniuses are seldom brilliant in a general way. They tend to be brilliantly suited to a particular mission." (46:50) Demis was far more original and far more of a contrarian than most of the self-identified contrarians of Silicon Valley. (48:11) When Demis solves something big, he doesn't pause to spend much time savoring the achievement. (48:49) You definitely can't crack a hard problem if the person leading the team thinks it's not possible. (54:05) This is my whole life's work. I have to do what's necessary. The mission is in me; it's infused in me. You can't separate it from me. (54:28) Demis's core theme is that money and power were not ends in themselves. They were a means to scientific knowledge.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2039458365559251121/amplify_video_thumb/2039443603676909568/img/72ctyYwmX5Rh0e7g.jpg)
![Appleโs iPad โCrushโ Ad Is Bleak, Ominous and Threatening I donโt know if youโve seen Appleโs just-released commercial for the โNewโ iPad Pro, but itโs pretty awful. It is dark, humorless, and feels like a not-so-thinly veiled threat to writers, musicians, game makers, developers, and artists of all kinds. โฆand children, even. Iโve watched it at least five times today alone, and Iโm left with one big question. โWho on earth approved this?โ Itโs absolutely baffling that the worldโs largest technology company, with the worldโs biggest marketing budget, thought this would be a good idea. What kind of idiotโor idiots, since dozens or hundreds of people had to be involved in the writing, staging, producing, recording, and editingโfelt this kind of ad would somehow create a positive emotional connection with consumers? Seriously, itโs terrifying. In a dank, cold warehouse, devoid of all life and humanity, an industrial crusher comes to life, and slowly starts destroying a collection of musical, philosophical, and artistic devices and instruments. For no apparent reason, everything starts getting smashed: first, a trumpet, then an arcade video game, then cans of paint, a piano, a globe, a metronome, a guitarโฆ on and on it goes, obliterating everything in sight into a colorful, gooey, explosive mess. Books, camera lenses, lamps, a guitar, a sculpture, and a typewriterโall tools of the liberal artsโget mangled into a garbage heap as Sonny & Cher cheerfully sing, โAll I ever need is you.โ In the penultimate moment, a goofy yellow smiley emoji becomes a bug-eyed scary-clown freak as it, too, is crushed to death. Worse, if you enable closed captions like I do by default, the video says: โ[POPPING] [SPLAT]โ right as its eyeballs pop out of its head when Cher sings, โGive me a reason to build my world around you.โ Itโs enough to make a child cry. It has all the comforting vibes of the burnt pink teddy bear floating in the swimming pool on Breaking Bad after two planes crash in mid-air. I have so many questions (aside from simply wondering the names of the soon-to-be ex-employees who greenlit this abomination). First of all, as a trumpet player myself, I am personally offended that they made me watch a perfectly good trumpet get smashed to smithereens like itโs no big deal. Why would they torture me like this? Second of all, what is the message here? No, not that โthe most powerful iPad ever is also the thinnest,โ as the voiceover artist states in the last few seconds of the clip. I mean: what is the message? Ostensibly, pulverizing childrenโs toys, arcade games, architectural models, and ceramic Angry Birds into a paste implies something like โWeโre taking all the best of humanity; all the collective works of Western Civilization, smashing it into pieces and putting it inside this remarkably thin device so you can have all of it in the palm of your hand.โ But my oh my, is there an elephant in this roomโฆ heโs hiding behind the monstrous destroying machine. Did anyone inside Apple realize that everyone outside Apple will recognize this imagery in a metaphorical sense, but not the one Apple intended? We donโt see a crushing machine gently consolidating the greatest output of all our artistic endeavors, simply reformatted for a digital age and consumed by everyone with instant, fingertip access. We see what is painstakingly obvious to us, and the timing couldnโt possibly be worse. We see a giant, soulless machine consuming our work in a very different way. Right now, AI models are training themselves on our intellectual property and even our very own personally-identifying data. We arenโt the ones doing the consuming. Weโre the ones being consumed. The tech industry has become one massive gaping maw, opening wide and swallowing everything in sight, chewing it up into little bits and pieces of comminuted waste, like a paper shredder or a garbage disposal. Itโs destruction in its most literal form. And for what? For a newer version of the iPad that is only slightly thinner than its predecessor? For an only marginally improved version of Appleโs tablet device that has been around for 14 years? For increased profits? This is a terrible look for Apple. They may as well be saying: โAll your work are belong to us.โ Personally, I am a fan of artificial intelligence. I am eagerly embracing our robot overlords and I welcome our new CSV god (as the actual developers of AI models like to say). I look forward to the freedom and innovation that will come as a result of humanity augmenting our intelligence with AI like a force multiplier on a battlefield. But if Apple has the same perspective I do, theyโre selling it in the worst possible way. When I see this video, I see that Apple is definitely crushing somethingโฆ but Iโm not sure what. -Crushing small companies that develop apps for the extremely heavy-handed App Store, which imposes byzantine restrictions on what they can and canโt do with their own apps? -Crushing competitors by limiting what they can do on the iOS and MacOS platforms with arbitrary and capricious rules about enabling functionalities that Apple doesnโt like, even if users do? -Crushing publishers and content creators with a punitive 30% fee on all subscriptions and in-app purchases? -Crushing choice and competition by not allowing app makers to make apps and programs that do the same thing that native apps already do, even if they do it better? -Crushing all human creativity and innovation by automating and systematizing everything? In the early days of the โGoogle vs. Appleโ fight over the web and app stores, I was really concerned that Google was becoming way, way too powerful. Specifically, in 2015, when Google came up with โapp streaming,โ they announced a desire to form a โweb of apps.โ This was concerning. Especially when coupled with Googleโs efforts to steal content from other websites and provide it to users via the โknowledge graphโ results, ending up with the creation of โzero-clickโ search results pages, which absolutely punished website owners and content creators. By taking the most valuable content off a website and showing it to Google users without them needing to click through to the website itself, Google had essentially stolen everybodyโs intellectual property with only the most minimal attribution possible (to fend off lawsuits no doubt, but with no intention of users actually visiting the website in question anymore). โGoogle is eating the internet,โ I thought, and said out loud, (although I probably wasnโt the first person to use that phrase) But what I meant was purely an analogy. It was vague and ambiguous, almost silly. Maybe I was wrong, though: maybe itโs Apple thatโs doing the eating. Maybe Apple is not only gobbling up everyone elseโs work, but also homogenizing itโand usโand forcing us to use their platform, pay their fees, abide by their rules, and constantly keep upgrading, upgrading, upgrading, to an ever-thinner iPad in order to use it. Watch the video again. This is the stuff of nightmares. To be perfectly fair, even if I were to take the commercial at face value and ignore itโs off-the-charts creepiness and just stick to its one stated claimโthat the new iPad Pro is thinnerโit still fails as a commercial. Why? Because nobody cares how thin an iPad is. Seriously. Iโve owned an iPad since 2010: that means Iโve carried around a version of Appleโs already-thin tablet every day for over a dozen years. Never once have I said to myself: โYou know what improvement Iโd really like to see in this thing? I wish it were thinner.โ Never. That thought has never crossed my mind, even once. You know what has? -Better battery life. -Iโd like my iPad to not get hot to the touch when I use the Apple Pencil to take notes. -I wish it wasnโt so fragile: I dropped my brand-new iPad 2 back in the day when it slipped out of the arm-hold I was carrying it in, it bounced on the pavement, and the screen shattered into a thousand pieces, making it unusable. -I wish it had more storage. -I wish Apple would stop changing the type of cable connector it uses: Iโve gone from the original 30-pin connector to the Lightning connector, and now to the current USB-C/Thunderbolt connector. -I wish I could view the screen in direct sunlight. -I wish it wouldnโt overheat and turn off automatically when I use it outdoors in the summertime. Those are announcements I would welcome in a new iPad Pro commercial. None of this โnow even thinnerโ nonsense nobody needs or cares about. So, back to the commercial. In my opinion, whoever made this ad should be fired. I almost never say that about other companies, especially for good-faith marketing efforts gone wrongโฆ those of us who work in marketing make mistakes sometimes, and we learn from them. But cases like this warrant a special exception. Marketing and advertising are designed to make people want to buy your products. This commercial doesnโt just not make me want to buy Appleโs products. It makes me not want to buy Appleโs products, which is something altogether different. It turns me from someone who likes iPads into someone who is almost rethinking iPads entirely. Thatโs not just a bad advertisement; itโs a harmful advertisement. Appleโs usually known for great commercials. The legendary 1984 Super Bowl commercial was, of course, their best. I thought โHello, Iโm a Macโ was absolutely brilliant. They have made some missteps along the way, but this one is really bad. Not even their nauseatingly preachy and woke โMother Natureโ ad from a few years ago was this bad. Steve Jobs once said, โTechnology alone is not enoughโitโs technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing.โ My goodness, that last line alone is poetry itself! This ad seems to be Apple signaling that they donโt believe in that anymore. And I donโt think all this handwringing is an overreaction to where you could say โOh, cโmon, itโs just a commercial! Whatโs the big deal?โ It is a big deal. It tells you about the values of the company, and what they intend to communicate. Really, how is this the same company that used to sell iPhones by showing grandmas using FaceTime to connect with their baby grandchildren from afar during the holidays? Everything about it is wrong: even the thumbnail they chose for it (the bulging-eyed smiley face) and the fact that they gave it the title โCrush!โ It was fun to see the reactions to the video online today. I find it fascinating that Apple shared it on YouTube but turned off the comments. On X, Tim Cook shared it Tuesday, and the video, which so richly deserves to be mocked, is getting it in spades. Some people are calling it โanti-art.โ One user called it โsoul-crushing,โ which was about as literal and logical a response as youโd expect. It turns out Apple actually made an announcement about the commercial. In response to the (apparently unexpected) poor welcome it got, Apple wrote: โWe missed the mark with this video, and weโre sorry.โ Lame response from a tone-deaf tech behemoth, but still, they hopefully got the message. Cโmon, Apple. I have seen the future, and this ainโt it.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1788740167194579387/media/GNLjSOOaEAAZ6VT.jpg)
![Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people ๐ฏ Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs ๐ Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR ๐ Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcherโs revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public servicesโeven when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherismโs shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something betterโa better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Governmentโs Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, โIโm more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.โ I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the Houseโon the Opposition BenchesโI get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class peopleโthe public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their placeโat the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curveโthey are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the publicโa model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industryโits excessesโhave cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisationโs inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Governmentโs economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternativeโan alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the publicโ Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapseโthese are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UKโs water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: ยฃ72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this countryโ Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companiesโselling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our waterโare not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009โnot in a boy bandโI experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about itโit is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human rightโa right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problemโit is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, โBut we have just passedโโ Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can nowโfor my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, โBut we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?โ Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered downโ[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one inโit was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Governmentโs Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targetsโjust vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. Noโwe must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our countryโs water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Governmentโs legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the roomโwho owns our waterโhas been ruled out of the Cunliffe commissionโs operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasuryโhe probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the Peopleโs Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Governmentโs Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one exampleโ Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is outโlicence terminated and on its bikeโand those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, โWhere will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?โ I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 yearsโI am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than ยฃ60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than ยฃ7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now ยฃ15.2 billion in debt and countingโwork that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a ยฃ3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownershipโsomething that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Waterโs case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith roseโ Mark Ferguson roseโ Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Waterโthat half a billion pounds in interest paymentsโwill keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should haveโfrom us, the publicโand every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell gamesโjust clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each otherโs backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbertโs novel โDuneโ believed: โA manโs flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribeโ. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1905614329543532962/amplify_video_thumb/1905612252947865600/img/4N7RnIbeKkSuIXsR.jpg)
!["What NewJeans Wanted to Say" [Full transcript translated to English] ๐น: Some of you might be surprised by this sudden meeting, but we wanted to share our thoughts and opinions about the recent events, so we prepared this session. First, I want to explain one of the reasons we decided to do this live. It's been hard to see many people who have worked with us continue to suffer from unfair demands and pressure even after our CEO was dismissed. It was frustrating to just stand by and watch these situations unfold, and we were very worried about our future as a group of five. Honestly, while preparing for this live, we were naturally concerned about the reactions we might receive afterward. We were also worried that people might mistakenly think that our CEO instructed us to do this, but I want to clarify that this live was prepared because we five members genuinely wanted to express our thoughts. We received help from directors we trust for things we couldn't prepare ourselves, like setting up the shoot and finding a location. It didnโt feel right for us to stay silent when everyone, including our Bunnies, has been stepping up to support us. Moreover, this is not just a matter of leaving it to the adults because it directly affects the lives of us five members. Since we're the ones going through this, we felt that it would be healthier to speak up ourselves than to do nothing, so we mustered the courage to do so. The main point of what we want to say today is directed towards HYBE. We've already had meetings with the current management to express our opinions, but after seeing what happened afterward, it feels like our concerns weren't clearly conveyed. It seemed like communication was blocked, so we felt that preparing this live was the only way to properly share our thoughts and feelings. ๐ป: Iโm sure that todayโs announcement has shocked many of the staff as well, as they were not aware of it, and I imagine everyone watching is quite surprised too. Weโve thought a lot about where to begin, but since the purpose is to express our intentions, weโll try to explain as clearly as possible. Of course, due to contractual issues, we canโt share everything, but weโll be as honest as we can. After it was decided that we would debut as NewJeans, our members spent a lot of time getting to know Min Heejin Daepyonim, both as a group and individually. At first, I had reservations and a certain fear towards the adults we were working with, but Daepyonim was the first person to approach us in a way that allowed us to open up, which was initially awkward but eventually built trust. From before our debut until now, weโve been aware of various issues related to our debut schedule and other matters. However, working with Daepyonim made us feel good, and I believe thatโs why we were able to debut successfully and continue our activities until now. This has been todayโs news story. ๐ถ: Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Heejin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Heejin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because of the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Heejin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Heejin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeansโ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable. ๐ฑ: However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Heejin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they havenโt resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and weโre left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. Weโve come to the conclusion that if we donโt speak out about this now, no one will know what weโre going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step. ๐ฐ: Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, โIgnore her,โ right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still donโt understand why I had to go through that. ๐ป: When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, Iโm worried about our future, but whatโs most frightening is that the work weโve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but weโve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and weโre left wondering how weโre supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didnโt make sense to me. If they really didnโt intend to interfere with our producing, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet theyโre making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they havenโt considered our wishes? We donโt want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things theyโre doing right now are not in our best interest at all. ๐ฐ: Something we all find very important, something that plays a very important role in our team's colour and image is our media content and creative production. Despite saying that they would leave all the creative production to our now former CEO, Min Heejin, through official statements that I think a lot of you might have already read or seen, and also during our personal meetings, they infringed our content. Content that not only we worked really hard on, but also our staff who spent endless hours to produce and release them solely for our fans. And if they had any understanding about what type of team we are, and the type of content that we create, they would have thought more deeply for crossing the line that they set for themselves. Because of this incident, we realized that there's not much we can do to prevent these type of issues. Personally, the way that ADOR used to run was the business management and creative production was not separated and was factors that played and worked in harmony with each other. That's how it worked and it was perfectly fine. It was our way of working and it was our CEO's way of producing NewJeans' content, which a lot of you were able to enjoy and appreciate. But now that she's no longer CEO, these factors that should have continued to work together in harmony are now being seen as two different areas of work. ๐ป: Besides this, there are many other incidents weโve experienced that are beyond my understandingโthings that are frightening and uncomfortable. These incidents naturally make us question whether HYBE really cares about NewJeans, and there are clear signs of this. However, itโs hard to discuss everything today because weโre not sure how far things could escalate. We just hope you can understand a little of whatโs been on our minds and why we chose to speak out in this way. ๐ถ: As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we canโt do that, and the plans weโve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director weโve been working with all this time, and weโre extremely anxious because we donโt know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? Itโs hard to fully express whatโs in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Heejin Daepyonim, as we have done so far. ๐ฑ: Personally, I want to continue working with the people around us who have helped me grow mentally and made me feel alive. However, I can't understand, nor do I think I should have to understand, why external forces are constantly obstructing and hindering us. I absolutely cannot comprehend what is truly in our best interest or what is supposed to help us grow. And I feel so sorry and heartbroken that our Bunnies, who found comfort in us and shared joyful memories with us, have to go through this ordeal and worry about things they shouldn't have to. We almost lost the work that symbolizes the relationship between NewJeans and Bunnies, and we don't want to lose anything else. I refuse to conform to or follow the values of the society those people belong to, and because I believe that direction is not the right one, I will not choose to go that way. ๐น: We found out about the CEO's dismissal through the news on the very day it happened. It was so sudden and unimaginable for all of us, and honestly, it was really difficult for us to process. As artists under HYBE, the company's unilateral notification made it clear to us that they don't respect us at all. In the midst of this confusion, we heard through our manager that the new CEO wanted to meet with us. From the very first action taken by the newly appointed Juyoung, it was clear that there was no consideration for us. He claimed to care for us, to prioritize NewJeans, but looking at everything that has happened, it's evident that his words were just thatโempty words. HYBEโs actions, like publishing articles that painted us in a bad light just a week before our comeback, make us question how any of this is supposed to be in our best interest. ๐ป: It's already been half a year of unnecessary and exhausting discussions about us and NewJeans, and even as a third party, it must be tiring. As the ones directly involved, itโs incredibly uncomfortable for us. We still have music we want to make and goals we want to achieve together, but as things stand now, itโs heartbreaking to think that we might lose not only the work weโve created so far but also the identity of our team. Thatโs what makes us feel so helpless. We held this live stream to express our feelings because we sincerely want this tiresome conflict to end. ๐ฐ: Like how we have our own and individual thoughts and feelings, we have the choice to choose how we will react to each situation, and we are not going to follow Hybe's every order blindly. We are more than well aware that this is getting in the way of our work, and that we should be treated much, much better than how we are right now. And it's very hard to believe that they are truly sincere about wanting to help us continue, to be able to continue to work with our Daepyonim, Min Heejin Daepyonim. Despite her being in the midst of all this current legal conflict, she's expected to plan and creatively produce our future endeavours in just only two months, which I personally think makes no sense at all. We don't want to hear all the empty words of how they're going to help us continue to work with Min Heejin, Daepyonim. And all we want is this legal conflict to be resolved and have our working environment returned back to normal the way it was before. ๐น: The way HYBE is operating right now feels dishonest and wrong to us. Please, stop interfering. Reinstating our CEO and returning us to the original ADOR environment we had before, with familiar people, not strangers, would make things right. Weโre not asking for special treatment; we just want everyone to do their jobs well in their respective places. Weโll do our best in our roles too. We sincerely hope our request is heard. ๐ถ: From a human perspective, I hope you stop harassing our CEO, Min Hee Jin. Honestly, she seems so pitiful, and HYBE just comes across as an inhumane company. What can we possibly learn from a company like this? So, I really hope you stop bothering our CEO. ๐ป: What we want is the original ADOR, where CEO Min Hee Jin leads both management and production. The reason we're making this request is because it's a way to coexist peacefully without conflict with HYBE. If our message has been conveyed properly, we hope Chairman Bang and HYBE make a wise decision to restore ADOR to its original state by the 25th. Thank you for listening to us. #ํ์ด๋ธ์ด๋์ด_๋ด์ง์ค์ง์ฐ๊ธฐ_์์ํด #HYBE_STOP_SABOTAGING_NEWJEANS #HYBEใซใใNewJeansใธใฎๅฆจๅฎณใซๆ่ญฐใใพใ #NEWJEANS_NEVER_DIE](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1833845252211474737/amplify_video_thumb/1833843519804592128/img/CtgDOp_doKrnNvSv.jpg)
![[Behavioral Scientist's Analysis] NewJeans, Now Even Stronger, HYBE in Trouble Iโll listen again. Danielle: โNaturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Hee-jin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeansโ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable.โ Danielle clearly stated this and also expressed it in English. So, in terms of the NewJeans issue, international fans who donโt have much information may not have had a clear perception of Ms. Min Hee-jin or how to view this issue. If you look at the comments, it was very poorly organized. In Korea, we now have clear information, so NewJeans fans, Bunnies, are cheering for NewJeans and supporting Ms. Min Hee-jin. It has become clearly sorted out like this. However, internationally, it hasnโt been clearly explained. But with Danielle explaining it so well in English, I expect that from now on, the international atmosphere will shift towards attacking HYBE, criticizing Bang Si-hyuk, and supporting Ms. Min Hee-jin and NewJeans worldwide. So, now that the artist has clearly stated their position and made it clear that the identity and assets of the NewJeans brand come from Ms. Min Hee-jin, regardless of any legal disputes or lawsuits, in the minds of the fans, NewJeans equals Min Hee-jin. And as for the current management of ADOR and HYBE, they will be seen as the ones attacking NewJeans and the mysterious people with no clear motive, such as Bang Si-hyuk. I think this will now be clear. Considering the nature of the entertainment industry, like many creative industries and the cultural industry, this is not manufacturing. Many things canโt be determined through legal processes like patents for ideas or lawsuits. The B2C market, or the market for services and consumption of an artist's brand, is driven by sensitivity. People consume it because of the emotional connection and enjoy it because of that sensitivity. So, whatโs the point of winning a legal case? Even if HYBE were to win any legal case, do you think consumers wouldnโt boycott NewJeansโ music or other products afterward? I believe HYBE will be punished in some way for its actions towards ADOR and its current management. The way they are handling risk management is shortsighted, as they fail to understand peopleโs emotions. They seem to only rely on the advice of legal professionals and accountants, and their entire approach to this issue is so narrow-minded and misguided. It feels incredibly foolish to me. So, to summarize: NewJeansโ branding was done by Ms. Min Hee-jin. The identity and assets of the NewJeans brand were created by her, and we did it together because of her. Haerin: โHowever, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they havenโt resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and weโre left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. Weโve come to the conclusion that if we donโt speak out about this now, no one will know what weโre going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step.โ The current situation is shocking, but this is not just about this one incident; theyโve been continuously receiving unfair treatment from HYBE. The fact that they are saying this publicly now is truly shocking. Theyโve been discussing these unfair treatments with their parents and Ms. Min Hee-jin while continuing their activities as NewJeans. They are saying that the unfair treatment from HYBE has been ongoing. Itโs hard to understand as an outsider, but now the artists themselves have confirmed that there have been instances where the company has mistreated them. This is no longer a matter of speculation or exaggeration. NewJeans has officially admitted that HYBE has been continuously mistreating them. Moving forward, this changes the entire perspective on the issue. Itโs no longer just NewJeans vs. HYBE or Min Hee-jin vs. Bang Si-hyuk. Itโs hard to even imagine the reality of this situation. Now that the NewJeans artists have come out and said that HYBE has mistreated them, regardless of how HYBE tries to communicate going forward, they will now be framed as the ones mistreating NewJeans. How can they possibly shake off this perception now? I donโt think they can. Hanni: โSomething happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, โIgnore her,โ right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still donโt understand why I had to go through that.โ I still donโt understand why that happened, even now. When I think about it, I feel like it was really ridiculous. This story from Hanni was so frustrating and absurd. Wow, what Hanni just shared is really shocking. She mentioned meeting an artist, and that artist's manager told them to ignore her. If this happened in middle or high school, people would probably dismiss it as childish fighting, but this happened among adults, and it's becoming a huge issue. Honestly, the NewJeans members arenโt sharing these stories to stir things up. Theyโre probably just speaking truthfully about their experiences and trying to be genuine with their fans, saying, โItโs time we express our stance honestly.โ The timing and approach theyโve taken are actually perfect. They started by clearly explaining their motivations and why theyโre speaking out, then moved on to using English to express what NewJeansโ identity is and the members' feelings, as well as their history with their manager. They made it clear how they feel about these situations. Now, they've started sharing more detailed stories. The way theyโve structured everything is so good because people remember stories more than abstract thoughts or philosophies. When you say, โThis happened to me,โ people are much more likely to remember that than vague statements. Hanni shared her unfair experience in such an honest way, and I think itโs going to spread widely. I can already imagine netizens trying to figure out which manager it was, which artist, and so on. This story will likely go viral. People remember stories like this because they stick in their minds. For example, remember when Bang Si-hyuk didnโt return NewJeansโ greeting, and it became a huge thing about face blindness? People donโt remember the details, but they remember that someone important didnโt greet them. It became a memorable story. Minji: โWhen I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, Iโm worried about how many more similar incidents might occur in the future and whether weโll be subtly ostracized without anyone there to protect us.โ Hanni: โI hope no one else has to go through something like that, but since itโs already happened once, I canโt help but feel scared that other members might experience the same thing. I spoke to the new CEO about it, but since I didnโt have evidence and it was considered too late, they seemed to brush it off, making me feel like thereโs no one left to protect us. It really felt like the concern for us was gone, and even though I was being honest, it made me feel like I was suddenly being treated as a liar. Before, Min Heejin, our previous CEO, used to take care of us a lot. But now, while the new people say theyโll help, itโs just been months of excuses... excuses... excuses... They keep saying that itโs something they canโt resolve. But this is something that I personally went through and experienced, yet they are trying to dismiss it as if itโs my fault. Iโm worried and scared about what might happen next.โ I want to make two points here. First, this is clearly โinvisibility.โ Itโs not physical violence, but itโs about not acknowledging someoneโs greeting, deliberately ignoring them, and so on. While it may not seem like a big deal, it still deeply hurts someoneโs feelings. Thereโs been a lot of research on how these kinds of actions negatively affect an organization, spreading like poison and making people feel bad. Itโs something we should really work against. The second point is about third-party justice. Hanni raised a legitimate concern, and it wasnโt handled properly within the company. This made Hanni, Minji, and others realize that the new management isnโt on their side. When others witness this, theyโll also realize that this company doesnโt have their best interests at heart. This realization leads to a loss of trust. People will remember these events, and once this perception sticks, itโs hard to change. It affects not just NewJeans, but also other artists who will think, โOh, this is how HYBE treats people.โ And it even affects the employees who work there. Minji: โOf course, Iโm worried about our future, but whatโs most frightening is that the work weโve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but weโve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and weโre left wondering how weโre supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didnโt make sense to me. If they really didnโt intend to interfere with our production, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet theyโre making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they havenโt considered our wishes? We donโt want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things theyโre doing right now are not in our best interest at all.โ Whatโs worth discussing here is the perception of hypocrisy. People really dislike hypocrisy, and when you think about it, it makes sense. When humans are surviving, if thereโs an enemy or a difficult environment, they overcome it as part of life. But the most dangerous situation is when you think someone is an ally, but they turn out to be an enemy. When you thought they were on your side but they stab you in the back โ thatโs when people are really upset. Thatโs why people hate it when thereโs a discrepancy between outward appearances and inward intentions. It creates a near-hatred, especially when someone claims to be acting for your benefit but itโs clear that theyโre not. This is what Minji is clearly pointing out โ these people are hypocrites. New Jeans has already reached a conclusion internally: this new management team, in less than a month, has revealed themselves to be hypocrites. And theyโve shared this with the fans and everyone else. This isnโt just some interesting topic on a live broadcast; this will cause a huge impact, and I am certain of that. New Jeans has come to a solid realization โ these people are not working for us. They are liars and hypocrites. Therefore, the new management can no longer properly lead the company. They will not be able to continue, and this system cannot be maintained. Why? Because the artist has called them out as hypocrites. The only way they can recover is by proving they arenโt hypocrites, but even then, thatโs not effective โ New Jeans would have to say it. But the chance of that happening is zero. In short, these people have been socially branded as hypocrites. The new managementโs time is up. Less than a month, and their time is over. In the creative industry, especially in culture and the arts, content production โ such as creating songs or music videos โ cannot be separated from management. Thatโs how weโve always worked, and it was good for us. Min Hee-jin was a remarkable creator and artist who understood all of this. The harmony between management and artistic decision-making brought about the incredible phenomenon of New Jeans. But now, theyโve created a system where that harmony canโt exist anymore. Moreover, the new management is culturally ignorant. They donโt understand art, music, or creativity. They have shown this clearly, especially with their mishandling of Director Shin Woo-seokโs music video and the associated fan content, like those on the Dolphiners YouTube channel. Theyโve demanded to delete content without protecting the artists, or respecting the work of those who collaborated on it. Their management decisions show a complete lack of sensitivity or empathy. So once again, I say: "the new managementโs time is over." Danielle: โAs I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we canโt do that, and the plans weโve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director weโve been working with all this time, and weโre extremely anxious because we donโt know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? Itโs hard to fully express whatโs in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, as we have done so far.โ Personally, they just want to be left aloneโjust "Leave us alone. Don't interfere; just leave us alone.โ This is what theyโre saying to both ADOR and HYBE. It's become clear now that HYBE and ADOR can no longer meddle with NewJeans, and I think things will flow that way from now on. The fans wonโt stand still either. In entertainment, itโs not about titles like "Iโm the CEO," or "I own shares." These are shallow understandings of what makes the entertainment business work. The real value created in this industry is the love and recognition from the fans. No amount of shares or CEO titles matter when that love disappears in an instant. NewJeans is asking to be left alone, and because of this, the new management of HYBE and ADOR can no longer act. I believe the future will unfold accordingly. One important thing I want to emphasize is that NewJeans is a unique group. Theyโre not just factory-produced idols. The distinctive nature of NewJeansโ music is felt by everyone who listens to them. For example, producer 250, who played a significant role in shaping the NewJeans sound, alongside other talented producers like those from the Banana Culture label, was brought in by CEO Min Hee-jin. This collaboration birthed the unique musical style of NewJeans, which many have come to appreciate. Their latest album, which incorporated elements like New Jack Swing, wasnโt just NewJeans making this musicโit was 250's creative vision, drawing inspiration from 70s and 80s funk, R&B, and American black music, and reinterpreting them. If 250 no longer works with NewJeans, their music might become indistinguishable from other idol groups. The choreography, another element that set NewJeans apart, also contributed to their success. However, with the recent tensions, it's obvious that working with key figures like director Shin Woo-seok, who directed many of NewJeans' music videos, will become difficult moving forward. Director Shin wasnโt even interested in music videos before but was inspired to work with NewJeans after a conversation with Min Hee-jin. If Min Hee-jin and people like director Shin are ousted from ADOR, itโs inevitable that the core assets of NewJeans, including their distinctive musical and visual style, will vanish. This is not just a simple matter of one person being oustedโitโs about losing the core elements that made NewJeans what they are. WE STAND WITH NEWJEANS #๋ฒ๋์ฆ_๋ด์ง์ค์ํจ๊ป_์ค๋น๊ฐ์๋ฃ #๋ฐฉ์ํ_2์ฃผ์ค๋ค_๋ฏผํฌ์ง_๋ณต๊ท์์ผ๋ผ](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1836325806362235187/amplify_video_thumb/1836325301087072256/img/-KRorTRouoqNniiz.jpg)
