Yes, my impression from the video feeds was that the presentations were rather from the left-wing "entitlements" angle rather than the right-wing liberties one. Still, there is cause for hope. It's only the liberties angle that will unite both sides, and it's a future Tory government that needs to be influenced.

I think Nova's argument that you are relying on the argument from authority is correct. When you say that you shouldn't need to go and study all these things and that it is sufficient to take the words of the experts for it, you are in essence saying that you either don't want to know or you lack the ability. Relying on the word of experts is not an unreasonable thing to do in these circumstances, but it means that you are essentially ducking out of the argument rather than deciding it. The argument from authority is rather misunderstood. Authorities in logical terms are people who can lay down rules. The philosopher Jamie Whyte pointed out an example of a real authority as being a parent - literally the "author" of the child's bedtime. Scientists of course aren't authorities in this sense - how would any scientific paradigm be overturned otherwise. So evoking experts to decide scientific arguments is, as Nova says, the logical fallacy of the argument from (false) authority.

Someone posted a comment on my site that the RNLI is still kosher.

Guthrum Is that separate to the fakecharities.org effort?

If it makes you feel any better, my monthly standing order (to Plan International) is going to have to be cancelled too. They are also getting millions from the state.