It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
There’s a long discussion to be had about the difference between moral and legal in cases like this one.
Andrew and the accuser met at a party in New York, when she was 17 and he was in his 30s.
Now, 17 is of legal age in New York, so he didn’t commit any obvious sexual offence against the woman, and she is not arguing that any activity between them wasn’t consensual.
However, there is a federal law that prohibits moving someone under 18 across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, which apparently does cover this woman, she didn’t live in NY and was hired for the party. The criminal case question was did Andrew, who can reasonably say he didn’t know where exactly all the girls at the party came from, know that she was 17 and had been moved across a state line?
The talk of a ‘rape’ case refers to the US offence of ‘statutory rape’, which in the UK would be described as ‘unlawful sex’ rather than rape. The New York prosecutor gave up on trying to get Andrew for that one after he refused to be interviewed by the prosecutor.
The woman came to an settlement with Epstein some years ago, and is under a non-disclosure agreement. The assumption is that she was paid a sum of money in exchange for her silence, which is not uncommon (although again we can argue the morality of these settlements)
It’s been suggested that she subsequently met Andrew in London, but I don’t know how old she was or how she got there. A similar law exists in the UK about controlling someone under 18 for the purposes of prostitution, but as far as I can see no UK prosecutor has picked up the case.
Of course, morally Andrew’s reputation has suffered immensely, for associating with someone (Epstein) convicted of sexual offences against minors, and well known for at best being careless as to how old were the girls at his parties.
I do feel sorry for the Queen, who has morally lost two members of her family in the last couple of years, both in very public circumstances, as well as losing her husband.
Not something I know much about and assuming everything you have said is correct that is a well written summary.
I think the problem now is not the facts of the case, but the Prince´s decision to "go after" his accuser. He has already had trouble with his legal team because of his hard approach, and the optics of this latest ruse are terrible. He should have taken the "noblesse oblige", more in sorrow than in anger approach. By upping the ante, he is not going to make this go away. It just makes him look like he is angry at being caught (by Epstein or by his accuser is all the same). The disastrous interview is now being followed by an even worse legal strategy. He may think he has nothing to lose, but he does, and someone in the Royal Household needs to get a grip and negotiate the terms. If the Prince loses, then he will face huge public preassure to be stripped of his knighthoods and titles, as others in similar circumstances would be. His sense of entitlement has already made him pretty unpopular in Royal circles, but as we enter the new reign, the Royal household really needs to make this go away and to make it clear to the Prince that he needs to swallow a lot of humble pie.... or else he will be shut out.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
Aggressively average Sea King driver.
And that's to his credit.
I've got this thing about people (such as yourself and ?Topping?) who have served their country in the military, and especially when they have served in war zones. I'm a bit cowardly custard, and I don't know how well I'd cope in a military situation, especially when having to make split-second decisions that might be poured over in detail years or decades later.
I therefore try to give people who have a bit more latitude and respect. Perhaps that's wrong, but it's how I feel.
As much as anything else, their doing it means I didn't have to.
Blimey. A ten-sentence piece that manages to call Macron 'preening', 'sneering', 'whiney', 'flagging', 'spineless', 'desperate', 'pound-shop Napoleon', 'tin-pot autocrat facing his Waterloo', and 'two-faced'. Oh, and in the end it turns into an attack on the BBC. Triggered. 🤪 https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1454734347374891010/photo/1
Let me guess, a similarly-worded hit piece on the UK prime minister would be absolutely brilliant?
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
Unless she was paid. I believe prostitution of a minor is an offence.
I don't think that applies to over-16's. But there's something in my mind about the Oyston case.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
There’s a long discussion to be had about the difference between moral and legal in cases like this one.
Andrew and the accuser met at a party in New York, when she was 17 and he was in his 30s.
Now, 17 is of legal age in New York, so he didn’t commit any obvious sexual offence against the woman, and she is not arguing that any activity between them wasn’t consensual.
However, there is a federal law that prohibits moving someone under 18 across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, which apparently does cover this woman, she didn’t live in NY and was hired for the party. The criminal case question was did Andrew, who can reasonably say he didn’t know where exactly all the girls at the party came from, know that she was 17 and had been moved across a state line?
The talk of a ‘rape’ case refers to the US offence of ‘statutory rape’, which in the UK would be described as ‘unlawful sex’ rather than rape. The New York prosecutor gave up on trying to get Andrew for that one after he refused to be interviewed by the prosecutor.
The woman came to an settlement with Epstein some years ago, and is under a non-disclosure agreement. The assumption is that she was paid a sum of money in exchange for her silence, which is not uncommon (although again we can argue the morality of these settlements)
It’s been suggested that she subsequently met Andrew in London, but I don’t know how old she was or how she got there. A similar law exists in the UK about controlling someone under 18 for the purposes of prostitution, but as far as I can see no UK prosecutor has picked up the case.
Of course, morally Andrew’s reputation has suffered immensely, for associating with someone (Epstein) convicted of sexual offences against minors, and well known for at best being careless as to how old were the girls at his parties.
I do feel sorry for the Queen, who has morally lost two members of her family in the last couple of years, both in very public circumstances, as well as losing her husband.
Not something I know much about and assuming everything you have said is correct that is a well written summary.
I think the problem now is not the facts of the case, but the Prince´s decision to "go after" his accuser. He has already had trouble with his legal team because of his hard approach, and the optics of this latest ruse are terrible. He should have taken the "noblesse oblige", more in sorrow than in anger approach. By upping the ante, he is not going to make this go away. It just makes him look like he is angry at being caught (by Epstein or by his accuser is all the same). The disastrous interview is now being followed by an even worse legal strategy. He may think he has nothing to lose, but he does, and someone in the Royal Household needs to get a grip and negotiate the terms. If the Prince loses, then he will face huge public preassure to be stripped of his knighthoods and titles, as others in similar circumstances would be. His sense of entitlement has already made him pretty unpopular in Royal circles, but as we enter the new reign, the Royal household really needs to make this go away and to make it clear to the Prince that he needs to swallow a lot of humble pie.... or else he will be shut out.
Would be good to see this joker not just stripped of his titles and grace and favours but sued to bankruptcy. Have him eating pot noodles in a caravan.
As for entering a new reign, the noises aren’t that positive on the timing I don’t think. Wouldnt be a bit surprised if the platinum jubilee parties are of an altogether different nature.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
Aggressively average Sea King driver.
Better than his elder brother then, who was a very below-average BAe-146 driver.
I was at Leuchars providing Sea Harrier mounted Red Air for a QWI course on that happy day.
Watching the panic unfold in the upper ranks while all other ranks soiled themselves with mirth was really quite something. Still they hung it all on the captain who was not handling the a/c at the time so all's well that ends well.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
There’s a long discussion to be had about the difference between moral and legal in cases like this one.
Andrew and the accuser met at a party in New York, when she was 17 and he was in his 30s.
Now, 17 is of legal age in New York, so he didn’t commit any obvious sexual offence against the woman, and she is not arguing that any activity between them wasn’t consensual.
However, there is a federal law that prohibits moving someone under 18 across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, which apparently does cover this woman, she didn’t live in NY and was hired for the party. The criminal case question was did Andrew, who can reasonably say he didn’t know where exactly all the girls at the party came from, know that she was 17 and had been moved across a state line?
The talk of a ‘rape’ case refers to the US offence of ‘statutory rape’, which in the UK would be described as ‘unlawful sex’ rather than rape. The New York prosecutor gave up on trying to get Andrew for that one after he refused to be interviewed by the prosecutor.
The woman came to an settlement with Epstein some years ago, and is under a non-disclosure agreement. The assumption is that she was paid a sum of money in exchange for her silence, which is not uncommon (although again we can argue the morality of these settlements)
It’s been suggested that she subsequently met Andrew in London, but I don’t know how old she was or how she got there. A similar law exists in the UK about controlling someone under 18 for the purposes of prostitution, but as far as I can see no UK prosecutor has picked up the case.
Of course, morally Andrew’s reputation has suffered immensely, for associating with someone (Epstein) convicted of sexual offences against minors, and well known for at best being careless as to how old were the girls at his parties.
I do feel sorry for the Queen, who has morally lost two members of her family in the last couple of years, both in very public circumstances, as well as losing her husband.
Not something I know much about and assuming everything you have said is correct that is a well written summary.
I think the problem now is not the facts of the case, but the Prince´s decision to "go after" his accuser. He has already had trouble with his legal team because of his hard approach, and the optics of this latest ruse are terrible. He should have taken the "noblesse oblige", more in sorrow than in anger approach. By upping the ante, he is not going to make this go away. It just makes him look like he is angry at being caught (by Epstein or by his accuser is all the same). The disastrous interview is now being followed by an even worse legal strategy. He may think he has nothing to lose, but he does, and someone in the Royal Household needs to get a grip and negotiate the terms. If the Prince loses, then he will face huge public preassure to be stripped of his knighthoods and titles, as others in similar circumstances would be. His sense of entitlement has already made him pretty unpopular in Royal circles, but as we enter the new reign, the Royal household really needs to make this go away and to make it clear to the Prince that he needs to swallow a lot of humble pie.... or else he will be shut out.
He doesn’t have any choice in the matter, he’s the respondent in the case, and American judges have a habit of awarding eight-figure sums in such cases.
We can all agree that his behaviour was immoral, that he shouldn’t have been ‘partying’ with teenage girls, but he still has a right to argue that he shouldn’t give up a substantial portion of his wealth to a woman who’s been paid off in a civil case already.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
Blimey. A ten-sentence piece that manages to call Macron 'preening', 'sneering', 'whiney', 'flagging', 'spineless', 'desperate', 'pound-shop Napoleon', 'tin-pot autocrat facing his Waterloo', and 'two-faced'. Oh, and in the end it turns into an attack on the BBC. Triggered. 🤪 https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1454734347374891010/photo/1
Let me guess, a similarly-worded hit piece on the UK prime minister would be absolutely brilliant?
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
Aggressively average Sea King driver.
And that's to his credit.
I've got this thing about people (such as yourself and ?Topping?) who have served their country in the military, and especially when they have served in war zones. I'm a bit cowardly custard, and I don't know how well I'd cope in a military situation, especially when having to make split-second decisions that might be poured over in detail years or decades later.
I therefore try to give people who have a bit more latitude and respect. Perhaps that's wrong, but it's how I feel.
As much as anything else, their doing it means I didn't have to.
Yeah we should go easy, he came home with a life changing war injury (to his sweat glands).
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
Of course, if she hadn't been trafficked over here (and I'm not too sure about the legalities there) she was over 16 when/if anything happened, so, while reprehensible and/or repulsive, whatever did or might happen here in UK wasn't illegal.
There’s a long discussion to be had about the difference between moral and legal in cases like this one.
Andrew and the accuser met at a party in New York, when she was 17 and he was in his 30s.
Now, 17 is of legal age in New York, so he didn’t commit any obvious sexual offence against the woman, and she is not arguing that any activity between them wasn’t consensual.
However, there is a federal law that prohibits moving someone under 18 across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, which apparently does cover this woman, she didn’t live in NY and was hired for the party. The criminal case question was did Andrew, who can reasonably say he didn’t know where exactly all the girls at the party came from, know that she was 17 and had been moved across a state line?
The talk of a ‘rape’ case refers to the US offence of ‘statutory rape’, which in the UK would be described as ‘unlawful sex’ rather than rape. The New York prosecutor gave up on trying to get Andrew for that one after he refused to be interviewed by the prosecutor.
The woman came to an settlement with Epstein some years ago, and is under a non-disclosure agreement. The assumption is that she was paid a sum of money in exchange for her silence, which is not uncommon (although again we can argue the morality of these settlements)
It’s been suggested that she subsequently met Andrew in London, but I don’t know how old she was or how she got there. A similar law exists in the UK about controlling someone under 18 for the purposes of prostitution, but as far as I can see no UK prosecutor has picked up the case.
Of course, morally Andrew’s reputation has suffered immensely, for associating with someone (Epstein) convicted of sexual offences against minors, and well known for at best being careless as to how old were the girls at his parties.
I do feel sorry for the Queen, who has morally lost two members of her family in the last couple of years, both in very public circumstances, as well as losing her husband.
Not something I know much about and assuming everything you have said is correct that is a well written summary.
I think the problem now is not the facts of the case, but the Prince´s decision to "go after" his accuser. He has already had trouble with his legal team because of his hard approach, and the optics of this latest ruse are terrible. He should have taken the "noblesse oblige", more in sorrow than in anger approach. By upping the ante, he is not going to make this go away. It just makes him look like he is angry at being caught (by Epstein or by his accuser is all the same). The disastrous interview is now being followed by an even worse legal strategy. He may think he has nothing to lose, but he does, and someone in the Royal Household needs to get a grip and negotiate the terms. If the Prince loses, then he will face huge public preassure to be stripped of his knighthoods and titles, as others in similar circumstances would be. His sense of entitlement has already made him pretty unpopular in Royal circles, but as we enter the new reign, the Royal household really needs to make this go away and to make it clear to the Prince that he needs to swallow a lot of humble pie.... or else he will be shut out.
So he should just pay up? What could go wrong with that strategy, I wonder?
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
I never thought i would ever hear the words "labour shortage" in my lifetime. There is always a shortage of skilled labour. But for unskilled?
Yep. For a whole stack of reasons: 1. The job is "demeaning" 2. The jobs are miles and miles from where the available labour is 3. The job results is a net loss vs not taking it (via UC taper plus cost of getting to the job) 4. The job is shiftwork and the potential worker has kids. etc etc etc
The hard right element of the Tories always pile in with "make people work for their benefits". I remember IDS in the Valleys suggesting to unemployed mums that there were jobs aplenty in Cardiff. Yeah. Minimum wage bar jobs, in the evening. With no childcare or public transport available even if they could be afforded on minimum wage.
The stuctural labour issue of the last decade or two is that we both have people wanting work and jobs needing filling. But the two are geographically and financially incompatible. The move to flexible working must be allowed to help spread job locations about, and we need things like wrap-around childcare that doesn't cost a 2nd mortgage.
Geography doesn't explain why London continually has higher unemployment than the country as a whole.
But there are certainly parts of the country where the geographical issue is vital and I don't see how some places eg the South Wales Valleys will ever be economically strong. After all the population is only there as a legacy of mining and the pits aren't going to come back.
Its a pity we cannot remove the 'unemployables' from London and swap them for people who do want to work from the remote parts.
There are a hardcore who do not want to work. But most people want to work so we need to look at their barriers to work. Yes, London doesn't have the geographic issues other places have. But my points 3 and 4 remain valid - work that leaves you worse off, and the lack of childcare outside normal 9-5 working hours.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
I never thought i would ever hear the words "labour shortage" in my lifetime. There is always a shortage of skilled labour. But for unskilled?
Yep. For a whole stack of reasons: 1. The job is "demeaning" 2. The jobs are miles and miles from where the available labour is 3. The job results is a net loss vs not taking it (via UC taper plus cost of getting to the job) 4. The job is shiftwork and the potential worker has kids. etc etc etc
The hard right element of the Tories always pile in with "make people work for their benefits". I remember IDS in the Valleys suggesting to unemployed mums that there were jobs aplenty in Cardiff. Yeah. Minimum wage bar jobs, in the evening. With no childcare or public transport available even if they could be afforded on minimum wage.
The stuctural labour issue of the last decade or two is that we both have people wanting work and jobs needing filling. But the two are geographically and financially incompatible. The move to flexible working must be allowed to help spread job locations about, and we need things like wrap-around childcare that doesn't cost a 2nd mortgage.
Geography doesn't explain why London continually has higher unemployment than the country as a whole.
But there are certainly parts of the country where the geographical issue is vital and I don't see how some places eg the South Wales Valleys will ever be economically strong. After all the population is only there as a legacy of mining and the pits aren't going to come back.
Its a pity we cannot remove the 'unemployables' from London and swap them for people who do want to work from the remote parts.
There are a hardcore who do not want to work. But most people want to work so we need to look at their barriers to work. Yes, London doesn't have the geographic issues other places have. But my points 3 and 4 remain valid - work that leaves you worse off, and the lack of childcare outside normal 9-5 working hours.
I would love to have enough wealth that I didn’t need paid employment. One day…
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
I never thought i would ever hear the words "labour shortage" in my lifetime. There is always a shortage of skilled labour. But for unskilled?
Yep. For a whole stack of reasons: 1. The job is "demeaning" 2. The jobs are miles and miles from where the available labour is 3. The job results is a net loss vs not taking it (via UC taper plus cost of getting to the job) 4. The job is shiftwork and the potential worker has kids. etc etc etc
The hard right element of the Tories always pile in with "make people work for their benefits". I remember IDS in the Valleys suggesting to unemployed mums that there were jobs aplenty in Cardiff. Yeah. Minimum wage bar jobs, in the evening. With no childcare or public transport available even if they could be afforded on minimum wage.
The stuctural labour issue of the last decade or two is that we both have people wanting work and jobs needing filling. But the two are geographically and financially incompatible. The move to flexible working must be allowed to help spread job locations about, and we need things like wrap-around childcare that doesn't cost a 2nd mortgage.
I didn't expect a left wing diatribe. Ibwas metely comment on kabour shortage is not domething I expected to hear in my lifetime.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
Peel didn’t need to traffic them, they were queuing up for it...
At 16, I didn’t want to know about Peel’s history with underage girls, but it was something he openly discussed in 1989, noting that “girls used to queue up outside [...] I remember one of my regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older.” Early in his career, Peel married 15-year-old Shirley Anne Milburn, later claiming her parents had lied about her age.
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
Bernard Jenkins beat him by two whole weeks. The Fat Lying Sack of Jizz blatantly disrespects our fallen with a late poppy. Why doesn't he just go and live in what's left of the Islamic State if he hates Britain so much.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
1. The ‘slutty girls’ quote is from another woman who says she was recruited by Andrew’s accuser. He’s trying to paint the accuser as being of immoral character. 2. Epstein has already settled with the woman, therefore chasing Andrew for money amounts to double jeopardy, is Andrew’s argument.
The first abuser paid me so the subsequent abusers don't need to really isn't double jeopardy
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
The changes you mention are all welcome. Although a 6% (roughly) increase in the living wage is generous, 6% of not a lot of money is still not a lot of money, if you see what I mean. I don't think many PBers would get very excited about an extra 59p per hour. It works out at an additional £23.60 for a 40-hour week. However, an awful lot of people on the NLW work part-time, and may not be able to increase their hours. It's also worth mentioning that low-paid people spend a much higher proportion of their money on precisely those things (energy, petrol, food) where inflation is beginning to bite than those on average or above wages.
I completely accept that inflation can be very different for particular levels of income and indeed age. It is possible that some of the increases will hit the poorer paid (I am thinking those who get paid a pittance for a delivery but buy their own fuel, for example) harder.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
I don't understand the point you are making. An increase of £23 a week at best - and that's at NLW rates which many are below. Costs are shooting up, and as we've said the people at the bottom end of the income scale are far more exposed to fuel and food price rises than you and me.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
Peel didn’t need to traffic them, they were queuing up for it...
At 16, I didn’t want to know about Peel’s history with underage girls, but it was something he openly discussed in 1989, noting that “girls used to queue up outside [...] I remember one of my regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older.” Early in his career, Peel married 15-year-old Shirley Anne Milburn, later claiming her parents had lied about her age.
Yes it is not too hard to find similar stories about many national treasures of popular music and culture from those decades.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
I never thought i would ever hear the words "labour shortage" in my lifetime. There is always a shortage of skilled labour. But for unskilled?
Yep. For a whole stack of reasons: 1. The job is "demeaning" 2. The jobs are miles and miles from where the available labour is 3. The job results is a net loss vs not taking it (via UC taper plus cost of getting to the job) 4. The job is shiftwork and the potential worker has kids. etc etc etc
The hard right element of the Tories always pile in with "make people work for their benefits". I remember IDS in the Valleys suggesting to unemployed mums that there were jobs aplenty in Cardiff. Yeah. Minimum wage bar jobs, in the evening. With no childcare or public transport available even if they could be afforded on minimum wage.
The stuctural labour issue of the last decade or two is that we both have people wanting work and jobs needing filling. But the two are geographically and financially incompatible. The move to flexible working must be allowed to help spread job locations about, and we need things like wrap-around childcare that doesn't cost a 2nd mortgage.
I didn't expect a left wing diatribe. Ibwas metely comment on kabour shortage is not domething I expected to hear in my lifetime.
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
I think I mentioned before that during a recent trip to York Minster there was a series of memorials for the Yorkshire regiment. Amongst all these lists of men who had died in wars some of which I had only come across in a Flashman novel and some of which I had never heard of was an unfinished book with 8 names in it from the Afghan campaign of earlier this century. I still wear a poppy because the war to end all wars didn't.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
Peel didn’t need to traffic them, they were queuing up for it...
At 16, I didn’t want to know about Peel’s history with underage girls, but it was something he openly discussed in 1989, noting that “girls used to queue up outside [...] I remember one of my regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older.” Early in his career, Peel married 15-year-old Shirley Anne Milburn, later claiming her parents had lied about her age.
Yes it is not too hard to find similar stories about many national treasures of popular music and culture from those decades.
Go on, name names. Not that any of them should be defended.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
Aggressively average Sea King driver.
Better than his elder brother then, who was a very below-average BAe-146 driver.
I was at Leuchars providing Sea Harrier mounted Red Air for a QWI course on that happy day.
Watching the panic unfold in the upper ranks while all other ranks soiled themselves with mirth was really quite something. Still they hung it all on the captain who was not handling the a/c at the time so all's well that ends well.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
If the accusations are true then should that change anything?
American federal law explicitly allows child (under 18) trafficking victims to sue both their traffickers and those they were trafficked to be abused by.
Federal law also states an age of consent for 18 for this overriding any state age of consents.
She was under 18 and trafficked across state and international lines so the law allows her to sue both her trafficker and anyone else as well. Not either/or. Why shouldn't she, if the accusations are true?
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
I never thought i would ever hear the words "labour shortage" in my lifetime. There is always a shortage of skilled labour. But for unskilled?
Yep. For a whole stack of reasons: 1. The job is "demeaning" 2. The jobs are miles and miles from where the available labour is 3. The job results is a net loss vs not taking it (via UC taper plus cost of getting to the job) 4. The job is shiftwork and the potential worker has kids. etc etc etc
The hard right element of the Tories always pile in with "make people work for their benefits". I remember IDS in the Valleys suggesting to unemployed mums that there were jobs aplenty in Cardiff. Yeah. Minimum wage bar jobs, in the evening. With no childcare or public transport available even if they could be afforded on minimum wage.
The stuctural labour issue of the last decade or two is that we both have people wanting work and jobs needing filling. But the two are geographically and financially incompatible. The move to flexible working must be allowed to help spread job locations about, and we need things like wrap-around childcare that doesn't cost a 2nd mortgage.
Geography doesn't explain why London continually has higher unemployment than the country as a whole.
But there are certainly parts of the country where the geographical issue is vital and I don't see how some places eg the South Wales Valleys will ever be economically strong. After all the population is only there as a legacy of mining and the pits aren't going to come back.
Its a pity we cannot remove the 'unemployables' from London and swap them for people who do want to work from the remote parts.
There are a hardcore who do not want to work. But most people want to work so we need to look at their barriers to work. Yes, London doesn't have the geographic issues other places have. But my points 3 and 4 remain valid - work that leaves you worse off, and the lack of childcare outside normal 9-5 working hours.
I would love to have enough wealth that I didn’t need paid employment. One day…
They *need* paid employment. The challenge is that by the time you factor in the costs of being employed (getting to/from work, childcare etc) it so often leaves people worse off. Women doubly so.
At the bottom end of the pay spectrum the response from the right is usually "cut their benefits" as if the pittance we pay in the UK is enough to live on anyway. In the middle there is a structural problem of women who simply can't afford to work for a few years. Professional women early in their careers having kids where the cost of childcare is bigger than their wage.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
I suppose it is relevant that underage marriage with parental consent is legal in several US States, and that is where Peel was living at the time.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
A 26 year old marrying a 15 year old, even if he thought she was 16, is pretty weird. A 26 year old marrying a 16 year old isn’t much better really, but at least it’s legal
She seemed a very troubled soul. Four marriages, three kids - all taken into care, and took her own life at 38
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
If the accusations are true then should that change anything?
American federal law explicitly allows child (under 18) trafficking victims to sue both their traffickers and those they were trafficked to be abused by.
Federal law also states an age of consent for 18 for this overriding any state age of consents.
She was under 18 and trafficked across state and international lines so the law allows her to sue both her trafficker and anyone else as well. Not either/or. Why shouldn't she, if the accusations are true?
I don't know all the facts or frankly care much either way about the specifics. There is a simple principle to defend though - the law is the law. We can't have opt-outs because the accused is the Prime Minister a prince of the realm. There is clearly a case to answer whether or not it goes to trial. "Do you know who I am?" as a defence doesn't really work for me...
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
A 26 year old marrying a 15 year old, even if he thought she was 16, is pretty weird. A 26 year old marrying a 16 year old isn’t much better really, but at least it’s legal
She seemed a very troubled soul. Four marriages, three kids - all taken into care, and took her own life at 38
I would be reluctant to rule out the hypothesis that there was a causal connection between being sexually exploited as a child and her being a "very troubled soul" myself.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
I suppose it is relevant that underage marriage with parental consent is legal in several US States, and that is where Peel was living at the time.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
Sex with 12 year olds has been legal in the Phillipines for years, but I wouldn’t want to be in the position of defending English men taking advantage of it whilst living there
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Sorry, hadn’t realised this was yet another skirmish in the culture war.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
Peel didn’t need to traffic them, they were queuing up for it...
At 16, I didn’t want to know about Peel’s history with underage girls, but it was something he openly discussed in 1989, noting that “girls used to queue up outside [...] I remember one of my regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older.” Early in his career, Peel married 15-year-old Shirley Anne Milburn, later claiming her parents had lied about her age.
Yes it is not too hard to find similar stories about many national treasures of popular music and culture from those decades.
Go on, name names. Not that any of them should be defended.
There are quite a few named in this interesting article:
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
If the accusations are true then should that change anything?
American federal law explicitly allows child (under 18) trafficking victims to sue both their traffickers and those they were trafficked to be abused by.
Federal law also states an age of consent for 18 for this overriding any state age of consents.
She was under 18 and trafficked across state and international lines so the law allows her to sue both her trafficker and anyone else as well. Not either/or. Why shouldn't she, if the accusations are true?
I don't know all the facts or frankly care much either way about the specifics. There is a simple principle to defend though - the law is the law. We can't have opt-outs because the accused is the Prime Minister a prince of the realm. There is clearly a case to answer whether or not it goes to trial. "Do you know who I am?" as a defence doesn't really work for me...
What opt out are you talking about? There has been none, and what on earth is the point of that strike through?
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
I suppose it is relevant that underage marriage with parental consent is legal in several US States, and that is where Peel was living at the time.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
That makes it all fine and dandy then, doesn't it? Everything's fine, and Peel should be worshipped as a God. Someone to be admired; looked up to. Nothing to see here folks, just move on ...
I also see you ignore the other claims against Peel as well. So you consistently excuse him his misbehaviours, whilst pour scorn on Prince Andrew's lesser, unproven ones.
Times were different. In fact, we can argue that times were different pre-MeToo (and that is as much a reason as any to be glad of that campaign). And yes, the fact that times were different should be taken into account. But it does not excuse the behaviour. Not in the least.
Peel should be seen as a man who gained fame and brought joy into the lives of many. But there was another side of him as well, that gets whitewashed by shits people who value talent. And that side means that he probably doesn't deserve to be treated as a hero, or even as someone to be admired.
He gained a little power; he abused it. In that, he was very much like Saville, Allen, Polanski and so many others. People excused them, as well. Sadly, some still do ...
In any conversations about inflation and wage rises, can we please remember that the headline figures mask a lot of variation.
For example, if you're on the breadline and inflation is being tipped higher by rising prices in luxury goods, you're not going to feel it as keenly as if it's rising food and energy prices.
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
I suppose it is relevant that underage marriage with parental consent is legal in several US States, and that is where Peel was living at the time.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
Sex with 12 year olds has been legal in the Phillipines for years, but I wouldn’t want to be in the position of defending English men taking advantage of it whilst living there
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
I think I mentioned before that during a recent trip to York Minster there was a series of memorials for the Yorkshire regiment. Amongst all these lists of men who had died in wars some of which I had only come across in a Flashman novel and some of which I had never heard of was an unfinished book with 8 names in it from the Afghan campaign of earlier this century. I still wear a poppy because the war to end all wars didn't.
An uncle was severely wounded in Normandy in August 1944. He recovered to lead an active life, as a teacher, although his physical disability (loss of a leg) was but the outward sign of other things going on mentally. In later life he had first a heart attack and then a stroke. The Legion looked after him and ensured far better treatment than he would have got as 'simply' a retired teacher. So I buy a poppy.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
I suppose it is relevant that underage marriage with parental consent is legal in several US States, and that is where Peel was living at the time.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
That makes it all fine and dandy then, doesn't it? Everything's fine, and Peel should be worshipped as a God. Someone to be admired; looked up to. Nothing to see here folks, just move on ...
I also see you ignore the other claims against Peel as well. So you consistently excuse him his misbehaviours, whilst pour scorn on Prince Andrew's lesser, unproven ones.
Times were different. In fact, we can argue that times were different pre-MeToo (and that is as much a reason as any to be glad of that campaign). And yes, the fact that times were different should be taken into account. But it does not excuse the behaviour. Not in the least.
Peel should be seen as a man who gained fame and brought joy into the lives of many. But there was another side of him as well, that gets whitewashed by shits people who value talent. And that side means that he probably doesn't deserve to be treated as a hero, or even as someone to be admired.
He gained a little power; he abused it. In that, he was very much like Saville, Allen, Polanski and so many others. People excused them, as well. Sadly, some still do ...
I think Peel was quite sleazy in the Sixties and Seventies, but did it seems change his lifestyle considerably with age.
I do not worship him, but undeniably he was a major influence on the development of punk and indy music culture. He was one of the few hippies that got it.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
You could try adding Churchill to that list and see how the conversation suddenly turns.
A local company to me, Haskel, is investing heavily in Hydrogen too and domestic boiler makers are already trialling fully hydrogen enabled boilers.
There are issues to resolve but it is attracting lots of interest and money,
Question for our scientists.
I can see how hydrogen is feasible for road, rail and marine transport. Indeed, for a country like us it would be ideal given we’re surrounded by it.
But wouldn’t water vapour in the upper atmosphere actually be worse in terms of warming effect than CO2? Which would rule it out for jet aircraft.
If I’m wrong, please tell me.
Automotive hydrogen tanks are pressurised to 700 bar which makes making them crashworthy a very expensive challenge.
It's also the reason you never see any hydrogen fuelled cars in any FIM sanctioned motorsport.
It's a possible solution for heavy plant, aviation and other controlled environments.
I'm a bit of a fan of JCB (my dad had a few, I went to some product launches, and I went to school at the hill above the factory). But putting that to one side, I think they need congratulating for investing in this technology.
And for not going with 'Blue hydrogen', which may have allowed easier sourcing.
The safety requirements for storing pressurised hydrogen are long, instructive to those of an inquiring mind and written in blood. As is usual with safety rules.
Anyone who starts their pitch for something with "we will need to ignore these X safety rules", needs to be blindfolded and left in an abandoned building, full of unguarded elevator shafts and live, exposed wires.
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Please excuse my unpatriotically off topic wokery.
I remember as a youngster we used to wear the poppy with pride as a nod to those who had sacrificed their lives for our continued freedom. It wasn't so much the celebration of victorious national patriotism that it is now. A prayer was read in Friday's school assembly and a couple of old soldiers would pay their respects to fallen friends at the local war memorial on the Sunday. It was generally an understated event for quiet contemplation.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
I suppose it is relevant that underage marriage with parental consent is legal in several US States, and that is where Peel was living at the time.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
Sex with 12 year olds has been legal in the Phillipines for years, but I wouldn’t want to be in the position of defending English men taking advantage of it whilst living there
No, neither would I.
Wasn't that (rightly) specifically made a crime, in the UK?
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
I suppose it is relevant that underage marriage with parental consent is legal in several US States, and that is where Peel was living at the time.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
23 years after they married, 15 years after their divorce.
Why did you describe that amount of time as "several decades"?
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
You could try adding Churchill to that list and see how the conversation suddenly turns.
I don't recall people defending Churchill based on his artistic endeavours.
"The Bengal Famine is irrelevant - he won the Nobel Prize for literature! What kind of awful philistine are you?"
His book on Afghanistan is still worth reading, mind you.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
I suppose it is relevant that underage marriage with parental consent is legal in several US States, and that is where Peel was living at the time.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
That makes it all fine and dandy then, doesn't it? Everything's fine, and Peel should be worshipped as a God. Someone to be admired; looked up to. Nothing to see here folks, just move on ...
I also see you ignore the other claims against Peel as well. So you consistently excuse him his misbehaviours, whilst pour scorn on Prince Andrew's lesser, unproven ones.
Times were different. In fact, we can argue that times were different pre-MeToo (and that is as much a reason as any to be glad of that campaign). And yes, the fact that times were different should be taken into account. But it does not excuse the behaviour. Not in the least.
Peel should be seen as a man who gained fame and brought joy into the lives of many. But there was another side of him as well, that gets whitewashed by shits people who value talent. And that side means that he probably doesn't deserve to be treated as a hero, or even as someone to be admired.
He gained a little power; he abused it. In that, he was very much like Saville, Allen, Polanski and so many others. People excused them, as well. Sadly, some still do ...
And equally sadly, some use this as "whataboutery" to distract from more current cases.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
You could try adding Churchill to that list and see how the conversation suddenly turns.
Was he a nonce, or are you still miffed about the rhino?
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Please excuse my unpatriotically off topic wokery.
I remember as a youngster we used to wear the poppy with pride as a nod to those who had sacrificed their lives for our continued freedom. It wasn't so much the celebration of victorious national patriotism that it is now. A prayer was read in Friday's school assembly and a couple of old soldiers would pay their respects to fallen friends at the local war memorial on the Sunday. It was generally an understated event for quiet contemplation.
I recall as a Boy Scout standing at the Remembrance Day parade by the local War Memorial and listening to the Secretary of the local Branch of the Legion reading out the names of the fallen. There was always a catch in his voice at two names. Two of his sons.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
Yes, but for the other 70% of the working population tax rises and wages lagging inflation mean less money in the pocket.
Not if real wages continue to grow which seems likely given the tightness of the labour market. The level of increase in the public sector will be important in this. My guess is that this will be inflation plus tenths of a percent resulting in some industrial action.
Do you actually think we'll get public sector payrises of 6%+?
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Caravaggio might be worth a mention. Although mere murder may seem a less heinous offence than some of the others alluded to.
I find it very disturbing the notion that a victim of a crime shouldn't get justice because they already got compensation from one of their abusers so the rest shouldn't get sued.
That's like saying if a murderer gets convicted that their accomplice shouldn't get out on trial once identified because that's "double jeopardy" since the case has already been dealt with and justice served.
That's not how it works. That's never been how it works. One criminal facing justice doesn't let others get away with it without facing justice.
If the accusations are false then he shouldn't have to pay compensation. But if the accusations are true then the fact she got compensation from Epstein is irrelevant.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Jackson is of course not played in the UK any more, nor in the US, I believe? Driving in Italy this summer, he was played on some Italian radio station and it struck me how you don't here them at home any more
Thanks. Yes, my views are not so far away from that.
I am interested in history, including military history, but I do think that our national culture is far too backward looking, and that is something that we need to break free from.
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Did you join in with this yesterday?
I’ve said before that I’d ban all of this stuff from football, but I think it’s very hard to go back to the days when footballers were told off for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
In Orwell's essay, he made that point IIRC. That the art and the artist are separable to an extent. He actually asked the question - what should we do if it turned out that Shakespeare was a nonce? Which shows that not much has changed....
One possible moral dividing line is that Michael Jackson is dead - so buying his works does not cause him to profit.
Gad, Polanski & Weinstein* are still collecting royalties.
*Weinstein bought all the rights to the film Dogma. That's why it is very hard to find now - no-one wants to be in business with him.
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Did you join in with this yesterday?
I’ve said before that I’d ban all of this stuff from football, but I think it’s very hard to go back to the days when footballers were told off for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child.
We did a minute silence at St James Park yesterday before being pumped by Chelsea.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Fortunately, since people are complex things, we're allowed complex reactions to them. Few people can't see the genius of Jackson AND the harm of his non-musical pursuits. You can enjoy A Lume Spento without going full Mosley. And you can realise that, despite supporting Franco, Dali can rightly take his place as a massive wanker and artistic fraud.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
I am not sure that Andrew has much talent.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I understand your point very well, and am pointing out you are just using it as an excuse because you liked the guy.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
I suppose it is relevant that underage marriage with parental consent is legal in several US States, and that is where Peel was living at the time.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
23 years after they married, 15 years after their divorce.
Why did you describe that amount of time as "several decades"?
I think the 3rd decade may reasonably be described that way.
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Did you join in with this yesterday?
I’ve said before that I’d ban all of this stuff from football, but I think it’s very hard to go back to the days when footballers were told off for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child.
We did a minute silence at St James Park yesterday before being pumped by Chelsea.
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Please excuse my unpatriotically off topic wokery.
I remember as a youngster we used to wear the poppy with pride as a nod to those who had sacrificed their lives for our continued freedom. It wasn't so much the celebration of victorious national patriotism that it is now. A prayer was read in Friday's school assembly and a couple of old soldiers would pay their respects to fallen friends at the local war memorial on the Sunday. It was generally an understated event for quiet contemplation.
I recall as a Boy Scout standing at the Remembrance Day parade by the local War Memorial and listening to the Secretary of the local Branch of the Legion reading out the names of the fallen. There was always a catch in his voice at two names. Two of his sons.
I have no issue with people not wanting to wear a poppy but equally there should be respect to those who do and remember the loss of family members
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Did you join in with this yesterday?
I’ve said before that I’d ban all of this stuff from football, but I think it’s very hard to go back to the days when footballers were told off for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child.
We did a minute silence at St James Park yesterday before being pumped by Chelsea.
At least the Saudi blood money might come in useful when you're playing in the Championship.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
You could try adding Churchill to that list and see how the conversation suddenly turns.
Was he a nonce, or are you still miffed about the rhino?
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Did you join in with this yesterday?
I’ve said before that I’d ban all of this stuff from football, but I think it’s very hard to go back to the days when footballers were told off for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child.
We did a minute silence at St James Park yesterday before being pumped by Chelsea.
At least the Saudi blood money might come in useful when you're playing in the Championship.
You joke, but it certainly would come in useful.
High chance of us getting relegated this season and to be honest I wouldn't be that bothered when taking the long view.
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Did you join in with this yesterday?
I’ve said before that I’d ban all of this stuff from football, but I think it’s very hard to go back to the days when footballers were told off for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child.
No, I was working yesterday, so couldn't go.
I wouldn't disrupt or boo such occasions though, I just don't participate or seek them out.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Fortunately, since people are complex things, we're allowed complex reactions to them. Few people can't see the genius of Jackson AND the harm of his non-musical pursuits. You can enjoy A Lume Spento without going full Mosley. And you can realise that, despite supporting Franco, Dali can rightly take his place as a massive wanker and artistic fraud.
In the case of Dali - I would argue that artistically, there were multiple Dali
The later versions were mostly bollocks. He did have a very considerable talent, though, and was great artist at his height.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Fortunately, since people are complex things, we're allowed complex reactions to them. Few people can't see the genius of Jackson AND the harm of his non-musical pursuits. You can enjoy A Lume Spento without going full Mosley. And you can realise that, despite supporting Franco, Dali can rightly take his place as a massive wanker and artistic fraud.
In the case of Dali - I would argue that artistically, there were multiple Dali
The later versions were mostly bollocks. He did have a very considerable talent, though, and was great artist at his height.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Fortunately, since people are complex things, we're allowed complex reactions to them. Few people can't see the genius of Jackson AND the harm of his non-musical pursuits. You can enjoy A Lume Spento without going full Mosley. And you can realise that, despite supporting Franco, Dali can rightly take his place as a massive wanker and artistic fraud.
I don't think Dali thought any different, clue here
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
Poppymas seems to start earlier every year, I see the sack of jizz was sporting one yesterday. Not even November.
To be fair the appeal was officially launched this week.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
Did you join in with this yesterday?
I’ve said before that I’d ban all of this stuff from football, but I think it’s very hard to go back to the days when footballers were told off for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child.
One of my most poignant memories is of being at Twickenham on Remembrance Day, 2010.
80,000 people, observing an impeccable two minutes’ silence, left most of the crowd in tears. You really could have heard a pin drop in the place.
Was a great day after that too, much like at the cricket yesterday it finished with a humiliating defeat for the Australians, with Chris Ashton running the length of the pitch for a second-half try! http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/9177377.stm
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Jackson is of course not played in the UK any more, nor in the US, I believe? Driving in Italy this summer, he was played on some Italian radio station and it struck me how you don't here them at home any more
I've heard Jackson played in various public venues, in the UK. Maybe just not on radio?
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Jackson is of course not played in the UK any more, nor in the US, I believe? Driving in Italy this summer, he was played on some Italian radio station and it struck me how you don't here them at home any more
Thriller was the grand finale of the ToTP Halloween special on Friday night. Less played perhaps, but not anathema. I don't think he did anything worth listening to after Thriller.
My attitude to these things is not to ban them, just as I do not advocate removing statues etc. These are points of our history that need revisiting and at times revisionism is required. We need to face up to both the good and bad in our history, whether as a nation or when considering individuals.
We should temper our opinions but not adopt the idea that only the pure should be permitted. After all, who would survive that purge?
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Fortunately, since people are complex things, we're allowed complex reactions to them. Few people can't see the genius of Jackson AND the harm of his non-musical pursuits. You can enjoy A Lume Spento without going full Mosley. And you can realise that, despite supporting Franco, Dali can rightly take his place as a massive wanker and artistic fraud.
Nice idea, but not really true in our puritannical woke age; where a shadow system of justice without any due process operates. This primarily operates to serve the human need for simple answers to complex problems, and is much in evidence today.
Macron has seriously cocked up by threatening the UK with unlawful sanctions for things we don't control - issuing of fishing licenses in Jersey. EuCo know this, and are trying to damp him down.
Is he imagining that Jersey is part of the UK like Reunion is part of Metropolitan France in his haste, and then trying to backtrack when someone thoughtfful tells him to calm down?
If there is a declared intention that excessive bureaucracy at the chunnel etc is to make it difficult for the UK, does that count as a measure under the FTA for which proportional retaliation is possible? Clearly any UK response would have to be EU-wide under the FTA, as our treaty is with the EU, but can we eg put a small say 25% tariff on 'all alcoholic drinks imported from the EU with the protected name "Champagne" ' ?
Interesting that on Lord Frost's thread, he sets out the UK position on UK-France, and is buried under a pile of FBPE types attacking him for the actions of Jersey which UKGov does not control. Rather ignorant. https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1454460923922591744
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Jackson is of course not played in the UK any more, nor in the US, I believe? Driving in Italy this summer, he was played on some Italian radio station and it struck me how you don't here them at home any more
Thriller was the grand finale of the ToTP Halloween special on Friday night. Less played perhaps, but not anathema. I don't think he did anything worth listening to after Thriller.
My attitude to these things is not to ban them, just as I do not advocate removing statues etc. These are points of our history that need revisiting and at times revisionism is required. We need to face up to both the good and bad in our history, whether as a nation or when considering individuals.
We should temper our opinions but not adopt the idea that only the pure should be permitted. After all, who would survive that purge?
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Fortunately, since people are complex things, we're allowed complex reactions to them. Few people can't see the genius of Jackson AND the harm of his non-musical pursuits. You can enjoy A Lume Spento without going full Mosley. And you can realise that, despite supporting Franco, Dali can rightly take his place as a massive wanker and artistic fraud.
In the case of Dali - I would argue that artistically, there were multiple Dali
The later versions were mostly bollocks. He did have a very considerable talent, though, and was great artist at his height.
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
But blue hydrogen has no benefit over using natural gas in CO2 terms. And if you add in carbon capture and storage, it’s no longer cheap.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
For the people struggling on UC the changes you describe move the situation from being impossible to merely grim. They still face an increase in the cost of living, just less severe than it would have been.
I never thought i would ever hear the words "labour shortage" in my lifetime. There is always a shortage of skilled labour. But for unskilled?
Yep. For a whole stack of reasons: 1. The job is "demeaning" 2. The jobs are miles and miles from where the available labour is 3. The job results is a net loss vs not taking it (via UC taper plus cost of getting to the job) 4. The job is shiftwork and the potential worker has kids. etc etc etc
The hard right element of the Tories always pile in with "make people work for their benefits". I remember IDS in the Valleys suggesting to unemployed mums that there were jobs aplenty in Cardiff. Yeah. Minimum wage bar jobs, in the evening. With no childcare or public transport available even if they could be afforded on minimum wage.
The stuctural labour issue of the last decade or two is that we both have people wanting work and jobs needing filling. But the two are geographically and financially incompatible. The move to flexible working must be allowed to help spread job locations about, and we need things like wrap-around childcare that doesn't cost a 2nd mortgage.
I didn't expect a left wing diatribe. Ibwas metely comment on kabour shortage is not domething I expected to hear in my lifetime.
It’s not unreasonable for him to point out, that his accuser has already received one financial settlement related to the events in question.
Hmm...if you are saying nothing happened is that really your best point?
He’s not arguing that nothing happened, he’s arguing against having to pay a sum of money to his accuser.
Subtle difference between criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't seem the best defence to me that:
1) Giuffre was procuring "slutty girls" for his friend Epstein.
2) Epstein has already settled out court, with a non disclosure agreement.
Indeed even less so than his non-sweating Pizza interview.
Oh come on now, Foxy. Isn't Prince Andrew 'talent' enough for you to excuse him this behaviour? After all, you're willing to excuse John Peel's (IMO much worse) behaviour because he was apparently a good DJ.
What is Andrew’s ‘talent’? Asking for an expectant nation.
That, as you well know, is not the point. Talent is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think Peel was particularly 'talented'). It's just a bit sick when people use 'talent' as a reason to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour.
It's odd that two left-leaning people on here - der old Roger and Foxy - are willing to pour disdain on people they don't like, but are willing to defend the indefensible when people they do like do much worse sexual misdemeanours.
Orwell wrote a rather good essay on the blind spot regarding artistic talent and the behaviour of the artist. "Must We Burn De Sade?"
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently. - D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know. - Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
It depends, doesn’t it? I am happy to carry on listening to Michael Jackson and happy if Gary Glitter is forever banned, so talent comes in to it. But that's not the same as defending Jackson's conduct.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Jackson is of course not played in the UK any more, nor in the US, I believe? Driving in Italy this summer, he was played on some Italian radio station and it struck me how you don't here them at home any more
I've heard Jackson played in various public venues, in the UK. Maybe just not on radio?
Jackson has definitely come back on radio. I reckon he was dropped for about two years but I hear his songs quite regularly again. They also played Thriller at the Emirates on Tuesday night.
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
But blue hydrogen has no benefit over using natural gas in CO2 terms. And if you add in carbon capture and storage, it’s no longer cheap.
Does it matter? You cant replace natural gas with green natural gas, but you can replace blue hydrogen with green hydrogen in the same equipment. Therefore if green hydrogen is 10 years away, we want to ensure we have the infrastructure in place to use it as it comes online.
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
But blue hydrogen has no benefit over using natural gas in CO2 terms. And if you add in carbon capture and storage, it’s no longer cheap.
With CCS blue is still cheaper than green.
Floating wind farms and offshore electrolysers don't come cheap.
But that should change in time. And then we won't have to keep importing natural gas.
So, the NLW has gone up by significantly more than current inflation and more than even worst case projected inflation. The taper for loss of UC has been made much less severe. There is a pool of money for those who are suffering from the withdrawal of the extra £20 on UC. Wages are generally rising rapidly at the moment in real terms and we have a clear and obvious labour shortage which is going to drive them higher.
What is that first question about, exactly? If government popularity is determined by real increases or decreases in the cost of living we are going to see an increase in the Tory lead.
Yes, but for the other 70% of the working population tax rises and wages lagging inflation mean less money in the pocket.
Not if real wages continue to grow which seems likely given the tightness of the labour market. The level of increase in the public sector will be important in this. My guess is that this will be inflation plus tenths of a percent resulting in some industrial action.
Do you actually think we'll get public sector payrises of 6%+?
Maybe in the health service so we can nick more trained doctors and nurses off third world countries but not overall, no.
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
But blue hydrogen has no benefit over using natural gas in CO2 terms. And if you add in carbon capture and storage, it’s no longer cheap.
The theory is that, just as moving to electricity for various things, moving to blue hydrogen means that you now have a power transmission form that *can* be generated with zero carbon.
It's a two-step process.
It used to be a thing to claim that there was no point to electric cars, since all the electricity came from coal, anyway.
Interesting in-depth study of New Zealand by Ashcroft. It sounds pretty harmonious - there are no political parties at all that a majority wouldn't consider voting for. There's an open dislike of culture war stuff and most people pretty favourable to immigration. Democracy and environmentalism get overwhelming support from all parties, with opinion on monarchy, capitalism, socialism and other concepts fairly evenly divided.
Some frustration about Covid, but on balance people supporting the hardline Government approach, with a 2-1 majority for trying for "zero Covid" rather than opening up and accepting Covid as something to live with.
Politically Labour really dominant - most voters prefer them on nearly all of 18 different issues and Jacinda Ardern remains very popular. Interestingly, though, mental health and housing dominate as key issues over Covid.
Significant production is still a decade off at least, but the Australian project is an interesting start.
The government announced a target for several hundred MW of green hydrogen to be in production by the middle of the decade. Coupled with the blue hydrogen projects that are also in the pipeline there should be plenty of low carbon hydrogen floating around by 2030.
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
‘Plenty’ sounds seriously optimistic, and blue hydrogen an expensive waste of time. Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
Oh yes, it will take until 2040 or thereabouts to ramp up hydrogen production to allow the entire gas distribution network to switch over. But between the late 2020s and then it can be done zone by zone.
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
But blue hydrogen has no benefit over using natural gas in CO2 terms. And if you add in carbon capture and storage, it’s no longer cheap.
We still need to work out how to make the distribution network work with hydrogen:
1 - The far smaller hydrogen molecules H compared to say methane CH4, which leak far more easily. Requires far better seals, especially as H2-O2 explosions are somewhat violent. 2 - The far lower energy density of hydrogen compared to natural gas. I believe it is 70% or so less, which means we need to burn a lot more of it for the same output, which means we need a much higher pressure in our gas network for the same output, which will make the elak problem worse, or to use far less.
Comments
I've got this thing about people (such as yourself and ?Topping?) who have served their country in the military, and especially when they have served in war zones. I'm a bit cowardly custard, and I don't know how well I'd cope in a military situation, especially when having to make split-second decisions that might be poured over in detail years or decades later.
I therefore try to give people who have a bit more latitude and respect. Perhaps that's wrong, but it's how I feel.
As much as anything else, their doing it means I didn't have to.
As for entering a new reign, the noises aren’t that positive on the timing I don’t think. Wouldnt be a bit surprised if the platinum jubilee parties are of an altogether different nature.
But an increase in the cost of living is, at best, one side of the balance sheet. If someone's earnings increase in line with their costs there is no difference. In the case of the majority of the lower paid its going to do a bit better than that, albeit by not very exciting sums. The hypothesis on which the question was asked is therefore nonsensical and meaningless, a bit like the answer.
Watching the panic unfold in the upper ranks while all other ranks soiled themselves with mirth was really quite something. Still they hung it all on the captain who was not handling the a/c at the time so all's well that ends well.
We can all agree that his behaviour was immoral, that he shouldn’t have been ‘partying’ with teenage girls, but he still has a right to argue that he shouldn’t give up a substantial portion of his wealth to a woman who’s been paid off in a civil case already.
You mis represent my point about John Peel (who married a teenage Texan in the 1960's). My point was that in the 1960s, 1970s sex with young groupies was considered part of the lifestyle*, in a way that is considered quite sleazy now. I am not aware of any allegations of rape or trafficking against Peel, unlike Savile for example.
I agree that particularly in those decades "sexual liberation" was quite exploitative for many men. Indeed we still see it in much #metoo behaviour.
I decided in 2018 that a century was long enough. I have stopped wearing them, though I do support a couple of charities for ex military personnel.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-peel-allegations-metoo-radio-1-jimmy-savile-a9097866.html?amp
At 16, I didn’t want to know about Peel’s history with underage girls, but it was something he openly discussed in 1989, noting that “girls used to queue up outside [...] I remember one of my regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older.” Early in his career, Peel married 15-year-old Shirley Anne Milburn, later claiming her parents had lied about her age.
You mean, John Peel, who married an under-age Texan (*) in the 1960s, who later committed suicide. And the John Peel there were various other allegations about as well.
(*) Why is that relevant?
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/30/us-eu-steel-dispute-resolved-517828
This all depends on public sector funding for it to happen, but the commitment seems to be there.
The Tories aren't going to get credit for people feeling worse off even if you can make some arbitrary sums that show them to actually be better off actually.
American federal law explicitly allows child (under 18) trafficking victims to sue both their traffickers and those they were trafficked to be abused by.
Federal law also states an age of consent for 18 for this overriding any state age of consents.
She was under 18 and trafficked across state and international lines so the law allows her to sue both her trafficker and anyone else as well. Not either/or. Why shouldn't she, if the accusations are true?
At the bottom end of the pay spectrum the response from the right is usually "cut their benefits" as if the pittance we pay in the UK is enough to live on anyway. In the middle there is a structural problem of women who simply can't afford to work for a few years. Professional women early in their careers having kids where the cost of childcare is bigger than their wage.
Her suicide was several decades and marriages latter.
She seemed a very troubled soul. Four marriages, three kids - all taken into care, and took her own life at 38
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Milburn-638
the Prime Ministera prince of the realm. There is clearly a case to answer whether or not it goes to trial. "Do you know who I am?" as a defence doesn't really work for me...https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/arts_ents/18388811.groupies-muses-victims/
I also see you ignore the other claims against Peel as well. So you consistently excuse him his misbehaviours, whilst pour scorn on Prince Andrew's lesser, unproven ones.
Times were different. In fact, we can argue that times were different pre-MeToo (and that is as much a reason as any to be glad of that campaign). And yes, the fact that times were different should be taken into account. But it does not excuse the behaviour. Not in the least.
Peel should be seen as a man who gained fame and brought joy into the lives of many. But there was another side of him as well, that gets whitewashed by shits people who value talent. And that side means that he probably doesn't deserve to be treated as a hero, or even as someone to be admired.
He gained a little power; he abused it. In that, he was very much like Saville, Allen, Polanski and so many others. People excused them, as well. Sadly, some still do ...
For example, if you're on the breadline and inflation is being tipped higher by rising prices in luxury goods, you're not going to feel it as keenly as if it's rising food and energy prices.
Annual UK consumption of natural gas is around 70m tonnes.
The "protection" has been extended to a range of client groups.
So we have (to this day) people solemnly defending
- Ezra Pound, a foaming at the mouth Nazi. He was hard done by, apparently.
- D'Annunzio. The godfather of Italian fascism. Because he was an artist, don't you know.
- Dali. Who enthusiastically supported Franco. Because he was just pulling Franco's leg.
after that, supporting Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, John Peel etc is simply part of the pattern.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/don-t-mention-the-war
In later life he had first a heart attack and then a stroke. The Legion looked after him and ensured far better treatment than he would have got as 'simply' a retired teacher.
So I buy a poppy.
I do not worship him, but undeniably he was a major influence on the development of punk and indy music culture. He was one of the few hippies that got it.
Anyone who starts their pitch for something with "we will need to ignore these X safety rules", needs to be blindfolded and left in an abandoned building, full of unguarded elevator shafts and live, exposed wires.
I remember as a youngster we used to wear the poppy with pride as a nod to those who had sacrificed their lives for our continued freedom. It wasn't so much the celebration of victorious national patriotism that it is now. A prayer was read in Friday's school assembly and a couple of old soldiers would pay their respects to fallen friends at the local war memorial on the Sunday. It was generally an understated event for quiet contemplation.
And to read the Cantos and watch Chinatown.
Why did you describe that amount of time as "several decades"?
"The Bengal Famine is irrelevant - he won the Nobel Prize for literature! What kind of awful philistine are you?"
His book on Afghanistan is still worth reading, mind you.
That's like saying if a murderer gets convicted that their accomplice shouldn't get out on trial once identified because that's "double jeopardy" since the case has already been dealt with and justice served.
That's not how it works. That's never been how it works. One criminal facing justice doesn't let others get away with it without facing justice.
If the accusations are false then he shouldn't have to pay compensation. But if the accusations are true then the fact she got compensation from Epstein is irrelevant.
I am interested in history, including military history, but I do think that our national culture is far too backward looking, and that is something that we need to break free from.
I’ve said before that I’d ban all of this stuff from football, but I think it’s very hard to go back to the days when footballers were told off for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child.
One possible moral dividing line is that Michael Jackson is dead - so buying his works does not cause him to profit.
Gad, Polanski & Weinstein* are still collecting royalties.
*Weinstein bought all the rights to the film Dogma. That's why it is very hard to find now - no-one wants to be in business with him.
High chance of us getting relegated this season and to be honest I wouldn't be that bothered when taking the long view.
I wouldn't disrupt or boo such occasions though, I just don't participate or seek them out.
The later versions were mostly bollocks. He did have a very considerable talent, though, and was great artist at his height.
He was also a total shit as a human being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Masturbator
Blue is much cheaper to produce than green at present. That is likely to change in the future, but for the first phase of bulk production blue will dominate. Green has a role now for smaller scale production, for example linked to transport applications.
But ad I say, it is all much more expensive than carrying on with fossil fuels, so the government needs the right combination of carrot and stick to get things moving.
For those still around, it will be fascinating to see what our energy mix is in 2050. And whether we do achieve net zero.
80,000 people, observing an impeccable two minutes’ silence, left most of the crowd in tears. You really could have heard a pin drop in the place.
Was a great day after that too, much like at the cricket yesterday it finished with a humiliating defeat for the Australians, with Chris Ashton running the length of the pitch for a second-half try!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/9177377.stm
My attitude to these things is not to ban them, just as I do not advocate removing statues etc. These are points of our history that need revisiting and at times revisionism is required. We need to face up to both the good and bad in our history, whether as a nation or when considering individuals.
We should temper our opinions but not adopt the idea that only the pure should be permitted. After all, who would survive that purge?
Macron has seriously cocked up by threatening the UK with unlawful sanctions for things we don't control - issuing of fishing licenses in Jersey. EuCo know this, and are trying to damp him down.
Is he imagining that Jersey is part of the UK like Reunion is part of Metropolitan France in his haste, and then trying to backtrack when someone thoughtfful tells him to calm down?
If there is a declared intention that excessive bureaucracy at the chunnel etc is to make it difficult for the UK, does that count as a measure under the FTA for which proportional retaliation is possible? Clearly any UK response would have to be EU-wide under the FTA, as our treaty is with the EU, but can we eg put a small say 25% tariff on 'all alcoholic drinks imported from the EU with the protected name "Champagne" ' ?
Interesting that on Lord Frost's thread, he sets out the UK position on UK-France, and is buried under a pile of FBPE types attacking him for the actions of Jersey which UKGov does not control. Rather ignorant.
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1454460923922591744
And for the bottled water thing, which has now been 'officially' debunked:
https://fullfact.org/economy/eu-mineral-water-imports/
Floating wind farms and offshore electrolysers don't come cheap.
But that should change in time. And then we won't have to keep importing natural gas.
It's a two-step process.
It used to be a thing to claim that there was no point to electric cars, since all the electricity came from coal, anyway.
Pyrites is a very cheap mineral, and the lithium sulphur chemistry has a much higher possible energy density than current batteries. It’s also safer.
https://www.electrive.com/2021/10/15/solid-power-unveils-battery-data-collects-further-funding/
All the major manufacturers are looking at this, and it’s probably about half a decade away from serious mass production.
Some frustration about Covid, but on balance people supporting the hardline Government approach, with a 2-1 majority for trying for "zero Covid" rather than opening up and accepting Covid as something to live with.
Politically Labour really dominant - most voters prefer them on nearly all of 18 different issues and Jacinda Ardern remains very popular. Interestingly, though, mental health and housing dominate as key issues over Covid.
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Living-the-Kiwi-Dream-Lord-Ashcroft-Polls.pdf
1 - The far smaller hydrogen molecules H compared to say methane CH4, which leak far more easily. Requires far better seals, especially as H2-O2 explosions are somewhat violent.
2 - The far lower energy density of hydrogen compared to natural gas. I believe it is 70% or so less, which means we need to burn a lot more of it for the same output, which means we need a much higher pressure in our gas network for the same output, which will make the elak problem worse, or to use far less.
Are these solved yet?