You won't get global agreement to abortion on demand etc especially from Africa, Latin America and much of Asia and Eastern Europe and as we have recently seen, the US
It's amusing that a forum where, a few hours ago, posters were up in arms about women's rights, now features posts concerning rumours and sexual tittle-tattle about a female candidate, where the make candidate goes unremarked. Often from the same posters.
It must be the *correct* form of sexism...
Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you. Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO
You appear to have tittle-tattle on lots of people in Westminster. Perhaps you ought to consider that the 'tittle-tattle' might be the same as Lord McAlpine's, which he suffered for many years before it was proved wrong.
I'd have thought a top lawyer such as yourself would have realised that.
Don't be so pompous. Which bit of "I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO." did you not understand?
It's not been me sharing rumours about Ms Truss either. And what I have heard about her is not at all what has been shared on here.
I am well aware of how harmful unsubstantiated allegations can be. I have pointed this out both in relation to Prince Andrew BTL and in thread headers in relation to the very great harm done by the police over malicious allegations of child abuse.
It's not being pompous. You say you're aware of how harmful unsubstantiated rumours can be then say on several occasions that you know things - but you can't possible say them on here about individuals you name.
If you can't say them, don't mention them.
Back in 1997, a friend took me around parliament. He was doing a summer placement with a new MP after Blair's victory. During that visit, he told me about some tittle-tattle he had heard about McAlpine. He thought that would be of interest to me due to the connection with the civ eng giant.
McAlpine had to live with those 'rumours' being spread behind his back for at least fifteen years. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
It's not just the police: it's everyone on-line.
Try reading what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I did, thanks. Now, how about a proper response?
I can only repeat what I said before. I have heard some tittle tattle about both candidates. One is amusing but not surprising and has been, if true, in the public domain since at least 2018 - and not put there by me but by the Tory whips. The other is not even harmful to my mind. I have not shared any of it on here.
Address your remarks to those who have clogged up this thread and others with endless, tedious and somewhat adolescent speculation about and adolescent jokes on one candidate's alleged sexual preferences.
Is an 8-year old too young to go to a production of Julius Ceasar? He's read the book, but the production is rated 12+ for 'depictions of war, self-harm, suicide, violence, blood and offensive language'
Well, he's read the book, and he lives with me, so offensive language is not unknown to him. I *think* he can cope with it, and he's keen.
I'm partially more concerned about whether he can sit through two-and-a-half hours of it. So, would we be foolish to take him?
Truss will say anything to anybody to win the vote, then spectacularly fail to deliver any of it.
Crash and burn, perhaps within the year
I doubt she will crash and burn to the point that she is replaced before a General Election (she will need to doing seriously badly for the risk of replacing her to be worth it) but I suspect Labour will drop a few percentage during a short honeymoon period but be back to 10% leads before March next year.
It’s why the best chance of a GE win is to go to the country in October this year. Won’t happen but she (Truss) probably won’t win if she holds on to 2024/25.
In October - when people learn by how much their heating costs go up????
Is an 8-year old too young to go to a production of Julius Ceasar? He's read the book, but the production is rated 12+ for 'depictions of war, self-harm, suicide, violence, blood and offensive language'
Well, he's read the book, and he lives with me, so offensive language is not unknown to him. I *think* he can cope with it, and he's keen.
I'm partially more concerned about whether he can sit through two-and-a-half hours of it. So, would we be foolish to take him?
He'll understand what, one word in three? And that's assuming a very high level of intelligence.
THE FINLAND RUMOUR is actually a cracking title for a political thriller
If we could weave in some banking scandals as well (I'll provide the plot and knowhow, you can provide the sex) we have the next big drama. Which can make us all millionaires. Well me, hopefully.
Then we can have an outrageously sybaritic PB party on a Cumbrian beach before aliens come to annihilate us all.
The world ending on a Cumbrian beach brings to mind short lived 1990 sitcom 'Not with a bang' which was set up your way - for years I thought I had dreamed this as no-one else in real life seemed to remember it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_with_a_Bang
I recently listened to The Stranding on BBC iPlayer about 2 people on a beach as the world is rocked by some sort of nuclear annihilation and survive by climbing into the mouth of a whale.
I rather liked it.
There's a thing about the end of the world and beaches - the final scene of "The Last Hours" is on a beach, while we have of course "On The Beach" by Nevil Shute.
On the Beach is of course also one of Neil Young's greatest LPs.
THE FINLAND RUMOUR is actually a cracking title for a political thriller
If we could weave in some banking scandals as well (I'll provide the plot and knowhow, you can provide the sex) we have the next big drama. Which can make us all millionaires. Well me, hopefully.
Then we can have an outrageously sybaritic PB party on a Cumbrian beach before aliens come to annihilate us all.
The world ending on a Cumbrian beach brings to mind short lived 1990 sitcom 'Not with a bang' which was set up your way - for years I thought I had dreamed this as no-one else in real life seemed to remember it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_with_a_Bang
I recently listened to The Stranding on BBC iPlayer about 2 people on a beach as the world is rocked by some sort of nuclear annihilation and survive by climbing into the mouth of a whale.
I rather liked it.
There's a thing about the end of the world and beaches - the final scene of "The Last Hours" is on a beach, while we have of course "On The Beach" by Nevil Shute.
On the Beach is of course also one of Neil Young's greatest LPs.
It's amusing that a forum where, a few hours ago, posters were up in arms about women's rights, now features posts concerning rumours and sexual tittle-tattle about a female candidate, where the make candidate goes unremarked. Often from the same posters.
It must be the *correct* form of sexism...
Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you. Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO
You appear to have tittle-tattle on lots of people in Westminster. Perhaps you ought to consider that the 'tittle-tattle' might be the same as Lord McAlpine's, which he suffered for many years before it was proved wrong.
I'd have thought a top lawyer such as yourself would have realised that.
Don't be so pompous. Which bit of "I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO." did you not understand?
It's not been me sharing rumours about Ms Truss either. And what I have heard about her is not at all what has been shared on here.
I am well aware of how harmful unsubstantiated allegations can be. I have pointed this out both in relation to Prince Andrew BTL and in thread headers in relation to the very great harm done by the police over malicious allegations of child abuse.
It's not being pompous. You say you're aware of how harmful unsubstantiated rumours can be then say on several occasions that you know things - but you can't possible say them on here about individuals you name.
If you can't say them, don't mention them.
Back in 1997, a friend took me around parliament. He was doing a summer placement with a new MP after Blair's victory. During that visit, he told me about some tittle-tattle he had heard about McAlpine. He thought that would be of interest to me due to the connection with the civ eng giant.
McAlpine had to live with those 'rumours' being spread behind his back for at least fifteen years. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
It's not just the police: it's everyone on-line.
Try reading what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I did, thanks. Now, how about a proper response?
I can only repeat what I said before. I have heard some tittle tattle about both candidates. One is amusing but not surprising and has been, if true, in the public domain since at least 2018 - and not put there by me but by the Tory whips. The other is not even harmful to my mind. I have not shared any of it on here.
Address your remarks to those who have clogged up this thread and others with endless, tedious and somewhat adolescent speculation about and adolescent jokes on one candidate's alleged sexual preferences.
Point of order: it was La Truss who chose to wear THAT necklace and THAT dress on live national TV. She must have reckoned with the chance that there would be some high IQ viewer, also acquainted with kinkery, who would be watching
And it’s not like it was a one off. She wears that stuff all the time
Is an 8-year old too young to go to a production of Julius Ceasar? He's read the book, but the production is rated 12+ for 'depictions of war, self-harm, suicide, violence, blood and offensive language'
Well, he's read the book, and he lives with me, so offensive language is not unknown to him. I *think* he can cope with it, and he's keen.
I'm partially more concerned about whether he can sit through two-and-a-half hours of it. So, would we be foolish to take him?
I'm all in favour of taking children to the theatre. But if it's rated 12+ I'd be cautious. Were he 11 nearly 12 that might be one thing. But 8 is quite a lot younger than 12. Talk to the theatre and ask them how graphic it all is.
Images can be a lot more disturbing than reading about the same events in a book.
It's amusing that a forum where, a few hours ago, posters were up in arms about women's rights, now features posts concerning rumours and sexual tittle-tattle about a female candidate, where the make candidate goes unremarked. Often from the same posters.
It must be the *correct* form of sexism...
Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you. Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO
You appear to have tittle-tattle on lots of people in Westminster. Perhaps you ought to consider that the 'tittle-tattle' might be the same as Lord McAlpine's, which he suffered for many years before it was proved wrong.
I'd have thought a top lawyer such as yourself would have realised that.
Don't be so pompous. Which bit of "I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO." did you not understand?
It's not been me sharing rumours about Ms Truss either. And what I have heard about her is not at all what has been shared on here.
I am well aware of how harmful unsubstantiated allegations can be. I have pointed this out both in relation to Prince Andrew BTL and in thread headers in relation to the very great harm done by the police over malicious allegations of child abuse.
It's not being pompous. You say you're aware of how harmful unsubstantiated rumours can be then say on several occasions that you know things - but you can't possible say them on here about individuals you name.
If you can't say them, don't mention them.
Back in 1997, a friend took me around parliament. He was doing a summer placement with a new MP after Blair's victory. During that visit, he told me about some tittle-tattle he had heard about McAlpine. He thought that would be of interest to me due to the connection with the civ eng giant.
McAlpine had to live with those 'rumours' being spread behind his back for at least fifteen years. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
It's not just the police: it's everyone on-line.
Try reading what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I did, thanks. Now, how about a proper response?
I can only repeat what I said before. I have heard some tittle tattle about both candidates. One is amusing but not surprising and has been, if true, in the public domain since at least 2018 - and not put there by me but by the Tory whips. The other is not even harmful to my mind. I have not shared any of it on here.
Address your remarks to those who have clogged up this thread and others with endless, tedious and somewhat adolescent speculation about and adolescent jokes on one candidate's alleged sexual preferences.
Ahem. Your comment in response to mine was: "Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you."
I'd argue such tittle-tattle is little better than 'adolescent speculation', as all tittle-tattle / gossip is.
Is an 8-year old too young to go to a production of Julius Ceasar? He's read the book, but the production is rated 12+ for 'depictions of war, self-harm, suicide, violence, blood and offensive language'
Well, he's read the book, and he lives with me, so offensive language is not unknown to him. I *think* he can cope with it, and he's keen.
I'm partially more concerned about whether he can sit through two-and-a-half hours of it. So, would we be foolish to take him?
He'll understand what, one word in three? And that's assuming a very high level of intelligence.
Is an 8-year old too young to go to a production of Julius Ceasar? He's read the book, but the production is rated 12+ for 'depictions of war, self-harm, suicide, violence, blood and offensive language'
Well, he's read the book, and he lives with me, so offensive language is not unknown to him. I *think* he can cope with it, and he's keen.
I'm partially more concerned about whether he can sit through two-and-a-half hours of it. So, would we be foolish to take him?
Don't risk it. Downstream a couple of film or television versions which you can discuss with him. One risk you've not accounted for is that he noisily demands to know why the director has left out this or that scene, or set it in the "wrong" place.
The circular audience seating for the two candidates is a nightmare as they are not trained actors. Turn and turn and turn again to keep everyone engaged whilst trying to remember your lines.
It's amusing that a forum where, a few hours ago, posters were up in arms about women's rights, now features posts concerning rumours and sexual tittle-tattle about a female candidate, where the make candidate goes unremarked. Often from the same posters.
It must be the *correct* form of sexism...
Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you. Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO
You appear to have tittle-tattle on lots of people in Westminster. Perhaps you ought to consider that the 'tittle-tattle' might be the same as Lord McAlpine's, which he suffered for many years before it was proved wrong.
I'd have thought a top lawyer such as yourself would have realised that.
Don't be so pompous. Which bit of "I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO." did you not understand?
It's not been me sharing rumours about Ms Truss either. And what I have heard about her is not at all what has been shared on here.
I am well aware of how harmful unsubstantiated allegations can be. I have pointed this out both in relation to Prince Andrew BTL and in thread headers in relation to the very great harm done by the police over malicious allegations of child abuse.
It's not being pompous. You say you're aware of how harmful unsubstantiated rumours can be then say on several occasions that you know things - but you can't possible say them on here about individuals you name.
If you can't say them, don't mention them.
Back in 1997, a friend took me around parliament. He was doing a summer placement with a new MP after Blair's victory. During that visit, he told me about some tittle-tattle he had heard about McAlpine. He thought that would be of interest to me due to the connection with the civ eng giant.
McAlpine had to live with those 'rumours' being spread behind his back for at least fifteen years. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
It's not just the police: it's everyone on-line.
Try reading what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I did, thanks. Now, how about a proper response?
I can only repeat what I said before. I have heard some tittle tattle about both candidates. One is amusing but not surprising and has been, if true, in the public domain since at least 2018 - and not put there by me but by the Tory whips. The other is not even harmful to my mind. I have not shared any of it on here.
Address your remarks to those who have clogged up this thread and others with endless, tedious and somewhat adolescent speculation about and adolescent jokes on one candidate's alleged sexual preferences.
Point of order: it was La Truss who chose to wear THAT necklace and THAT dress on live national TV. She must have reckoned with the chance that there would be some high IQ viewer, also acquainted with kinkery, who would be watching
And it’s not like it was a one off. She wears that stuff all the time
I'll regret this I know, but what's the significance of the dress?
Is an 8-year old too young to go to a production of Julius Ceasar? He's read the book, but the production is rated 12+ for 'depictions of war, self-harm, suicide, violence, blood and offensive language'
Well, he's read the book, and he lives with me, so offensive language is not unknown to him. I *think* he can cope with it, and he's keen.
I'm partially more concerned about whether he can sit through two-and-a-half hours of it. So, would we be foolish to take him?
He'll understand what, one word in three? And that's assuming a very high level of intelligence.
So will be bored out of his mind.
That would be a 'no' to me, but he's your son.
Thanks to yourself and Ms Free. He saw the poster in town and really wants to see it. I think he can cope with it, but I'm slightly concerned. Perhaps that concern should be warning enough.
We are going to do the summer Shakespeare festival with him, though. A picnic on a collage lawn, with Shakespeare. it could only be more English if it was held at the Orchard. We haven't been for five years, and that was without him. https://cambridgeshakespeare.com/
Is an 8-year old too young to go to a production of Julius Ceasar? He's read the book, but the production is rated 12+ for 'depictions of war, self-harm, suicide, violence, blood and offensive language'
Well, he's read the book, and he lives with me, so offensive language is not unknown to him. I *think* he can cope with it, and he's keen.
I'm partially more concerned about whether he can sit through two-and-a-half hours of it. So, would we be foolish to take him?
Don't risk it. Downstream a couple of film or television versions which you can discuss with him. One risk you've not accounted for is that he noisily demands to know why the director has left out this or that scene, or set it in the "wrong" place.
There's a very good 1950s film of it starring Marlon Brando (improbably) but I don't think it's on YouTube.
THE FINLAND RUMOUR is actually a cracking title for a political thriller
If we could weave in some banking scandals as well (I'll provide the plot and knowhow, you can provide the sex) we have the next big drama. Which can make us all millionaires. Well me, hopefully.
Then we can have an outrageously sybaritic PB party on a Cumbrian beach before aliens come to annihilate us all.
The world ending on a Cumbrian beach brings to mind short lived 1990 sitcom 'Not with a bang' which was set up your way - for years I thought I had dreamed this as no-one else in real life seemed to remember it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_with_a_Bang
I recently listened to The Stranding on BBC iPlayer about 2 people on a beach as the world is rocked by some sort of nuclear annihilation and survive by climbing into the mouth of a whale.
I rather liked it.
There's a thing about the end of the world and beaches - the final scene of "The Last Hours" is on a beach, while we have of course "On The Beach" by Nevil Shute.
On the Beach is of course also one of Neil Young's greatest LPs.
And one of Cliff’s better songs. In the film he danced with Una Stubbs while singing it. Now there’s someone who has long been the subjected of a totally unsubstantiated online rumour, one that probably predates the internet.
It's amusing that a forum where, a few hours ago, posters were up in arms about women's rights, now features posts concerning rumours and sexual tittle-tattle about a female candidate, where the make candidate goes unremarked. Often from the same posters.
It must be the *correct* form of sexism...
Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you. Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO
You appear to have tittle-tattle on lots of people in Westminster. Perhaps you ought to consider that the 'tittle-tattle' might be the same as Lord McAlpine's, which he suffered for many years before it was proved wrong.
I'd have thought a top lawyer such as yourself would have realised that.
Don't be so pompous. Which bit of "I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO." did you not understand?
It's not been me sharing rumours about Ms Truss either. And what I have heard about her is not at all what has been shared on here.
I am well aware of how harmful unsubstantiated allegations can be. I have pointed this out both in relation to Prince Andrew BTL and in thread headers in relation to the very great harm done by the police over malicious allegations of child abuse.
It's not being pompous. You say you're aware of how harmful unsubstantiated rumours can be then say on several occasions that you know things - but you can't possible say them on here about individuals you name.
If you can't say them, don't mention them.
Back in 1997, a friend took me around parliament. He was doing a summer placement with a new MP after Blair's victory. During that visit, he told me about some tittle-tattle he had heard about McAlpine. He thought that would be of interest to me due to the connection with the civ eng giant.
McAlpine had to live with those 'rumours' being spread behind his back for at least fifteen years. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
It's not just the police: it's everyone on-line.
Try reading what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I did, thanks. Now, how about a proper response?
I can only repeat what I said before. I have heard some tittle tattle about both candidates. One is amusing but not surprising and has been, if true, in the public domain since at least 2018 - and not put there by me but by the Tory whips. The other is not even harmful to my mind. I have not shared any of it on here.
Address your remarks to those who have clogged up this thread and others with endless, tedious and somewhat adolescent speculation about and adolescent jokes on one candidate's alleged sexual preferences.
Not sure I know a secret I am not going to tell you even makes it as adolescent. I do have a clear understanding of what is potentially defamatory in English law and what is not though.
Liz Truss's opening is better than Rishi's imo. More on policy, and she is matching his Cameronesque stroll round the set. Laying on the Yorkshire stuff will help too.
I would not take my 7 going on 8 yo girl to see Shakespeare. She’d be bored witless.
She has recently however got into reading the “Murder Most Unladylike” series for kids, which deal with murder, infidelity, and suicide.
I’ve decided I’m ok with it, she really laps them up.
When Fox jr2 was 8 he rather enjoyed Shakespeare. A fair bit of the language was over his head, but in a good production the rhythm and tone of the speeches get the point across anyway.
It is impossible she doesn’t know by now. So we can only conclude she knows and she’s cool with it and she doesn’t care. She’s at ease. Good for her
She can't really not wear it now. I suspect it will be retired quietly after the campaign.
In a way, being kinky is somewhat in the tradition of senior Tories. I am faintly bemused as to why one would express it in jewellery whilst running for high office though.
It's amusing that a forum where, a few hours ago, posters were up in arms about women's rights, now features posts concerning rumours and sexual tittle-tattle about a female candidate, where the make candidate goes unremarked. Often from the same posters.
It must be the *correct* form of sexism...
Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you. Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO
You appear to have tittle-tattle on lots of people in Westminster. Perhaps you ought to consider that the 'tittle-tattle' might be the same as Lord McAlpine's, which he suffered for many years before it was proved wrong.
I'd have thought a top lawyer such as yourself would have realised that.
Don't be so pompous. Which bit of "I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO." did you not understand?
It's not been me sharing rumours about Ms Truss either. And what I have heard about her is not at all what has been shared on here.
I am well aware of how harmful unsubstantiated allegations can be. I have pointed this out both in relation to Prince Andrew BTL and in thread headers in relation to the very great harm done by the police over malicious allegations of child abuse.
It's not being pompous. You say you're aware of how harmful unsubstantiated rumours can be then say on several occasions that you know things - but you can't possible say them on here about individuals you name.
If you can't say them, don't mention them.
Back in 1997, a friend took me around parliament. He was doing a summer placement with a new MP after Blair's victory. During that visit, he told me about some tittle-tattle he had heard about McAlpine. He thought that would be of interest to me due to the connection with the civ eng giant.
McAlpine had to live with those 'rumours' being spread behind his back for at least fifteen years. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
It's not just the police: it's everyone on-line.
Try reading what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I did, thanks. Now, how about a proper response?
I can only repeat what I said before. I have heard some tittle tattle about both candidates. One is amusing but not surprising and has been, if true, in the public domain since at least 2018 - and not put there by me but by the Tory whips. The other is not even harmful to my mind. I have not shared any of it on here.
Address your remarks to those who have clogged up this thread and others with endless, tedious and somewhat adolescent speculation about and adolescent jokes on one candidate's alleged sexual preferences.
Point of order: it was La Truss who chose to wear THAT necklace and THAT dress on live national TV. She must have reckoned with the chance that there would be some high IQ viewer, also acquainted with kinkery, who would be watching
And it’s not like it was a one off. She wears that stuff all the time
I'll regret this I know, but what's the significance of the dress?
It's amusing that a forum where, a few hours ago, posters were up in arms about women's rights, now features posts concerning rumours and sexual tittle-tattle about a female candidate, where the make candidate goes unremarked. Often from the same posters.
It must be the *correct* form of sexism...
Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you. Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO
You appear to have tittle-tattle on lots of people in Westminster. Perhaps you ought to consider that the 'tittle-tattle' might be the same as Lord McAlpine's, which he suffered for many years before it was proved wrong.
I'd have thought a top lawyer such as yourself would have realised that.
Don't be so pompous. Which bit of "I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO." did you not understand?
It's not been me sharing rumours about Ms Truss either. And what I have heard about her is not at all what has been shared on here.
I am well aware of how harmful unsubstantiated allegations can be. I have pointed this out both in relation to Prince Andrew BTL and in thread headers in relation to the very great harm done by the police over malicious allegations of child abuse.
It's not being pompous. You say you're aware of how harmful unsubstantiated rumours can be then say on several occasions that you know things - but you can't possible say them on here about individuals you name.
If you can't say them, don't mention them.
Back in 1997, a friend took me around parliament. He was doing a summer placement with a new MP after Blair's victory. During that visit, he told me about some tittle-tattle he had heard about McAlpine. He thought that would be of interest to me due to the connection with the civ eng giant.
McAlpine had to live with those 'rumours' being spread behind his back for at least fifteen years. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
It's not just the police: it's everyone on-line.
Try reading what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I did, thanks. Now, how about a proper response?
I can only repeat what I said before. I have heard some tittle tattle about both candidates. One is amusing but not surprising and has been, if true, in the public domain since at least 2018 - and not put there by me but by the Tory whips. The other is not even harmful to my mind. I have not shared any of it on here.
Address your remarks to those who have clogged up this thread and others with endless, tedious and somewhat adolescent speculation about and adolescent jokes on one candidate's alleged sexual preferences.
Ahem. Your comment in response to mine was: "Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you."
I'd argue such tittle-tattle is little better than 'adolescent speculation', as all tittle-tattle / gossip is.
Would you like to quote the next sentence I wrote? No?
I'll remind you - "Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO."
It is impossible she doesn’t know by now. So we can only conclude she knows and she’s cool with it and she doesn’t care. She’s at ease. Good for her
She can't really not wear it now. I suspect it will be retired quietly after the campaign.
In a way, being kinky is somewhat in the tradition of senior Tories. I am faintly bemused as to why one would express it in jewellery whilst running for high office though.
I have no idea if this applies to Truss, but some subs get a kick out of discreetly exhibiting their ‘owned’ status to the vanilla world, which largely remains clueless. Yet other kinksters will recognize it
This is a plot device in Story of O, if I recall correctly - a foundational text of BDSM
Having a true contest has definitely been good for the Tories. If Sunak had got it without one, it would have been a disaster, and if Truss had got it without one, she wouldn’t have had chance to change people’s perceptions of her.
Is an 8-year old too young to go to a production of Julius Ceasar? He's read the book, but the production is rated 12+ for 'depictions of war, self-harm, suicide, violence, blood and offensive language'
Well, he's read the book, and he lives with me, so offensive language is not unknown to him. I *think* he can cope with it, and he's keen.
I'm partially more concerned about whether he can sit through two-and-a-half hours of it. So, would we be foolish to take him?
When I was just turned 10, my mother (OGHs wife) took me to see Kenneth Branagh as Henry V at the RSC, and I absolutely loved it.
It's amusing that a forum where, a few hours ago, posters were up in arms about women's rights, now features posts concerning rumours and sexual tittle-tattle about a female candidate, where the make candidate goes unremarked. Often from the same posters.
It must be the *correct* form of sexism...
Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you. Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO
You appear to have tittle-tattle on lots of people in Westminster. Perhaps you ought to consider that the 'tittle-tattle' might be the same as Lord McAlpine's, which he suffered for many years before it was proved wrong.
I'd have thought a top lawyer such as yourself would have realised that.
Don't be so pompous. Which bit of "I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO." did you not understand?
It's not been me sharing rumours about Ms Truss either. And what I have heard about her is not at all what has been shared on here.
I am well aware of how harmful unsubstantiated allegations can be. I have pointed this out both in relation to Prince Andrew BTL and in thread headers in relation to the very great harm done by the police over malicious allegations of child abuse.
It's not being pompous. You say you're aware of how harmful unsubstantiated rumours can be then say on several occasions that you know things - but you can't possible say them on here about individuals you name.
If you can't say them, don't mention them.
Back in 1997, a friend took me around parliament. He was doing a summer placement with a new MP after Blair's victory. During that visit, he told me about some tittle-tattle he had heard about McAlpine. He thought that would be of interest to me due to the connection with the civ eng giant.
McAlpine had to live with those 'rumours' being spread behind his back for at least fifteen years. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
It's not just the police: it's everyone on-line.
Try reading what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I did, thanks. Now, how about a proper response?
I can only repeat what I said before. I have heard some tittle tattle about both candidates. One is amusing but not surprising and has been, if true, in the public domain since at least 2018 - and not put there by me but by the Tory whips. The other is not even harmful to my mind. I have not shared any of it on here.
Address your remarks to those who have clogged up this thread and others with endless, tedious and somewhat adolescent speculation about and adolescent jokes on one candidate's alleged sexual preferences.
Ahem. Your comment in response to mine was: "Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you."
I'd argue such tittle-tattle is little better than 'adolescent speculation', as all tittle-tattle / gossip is.
Would you like to quote the next sentence I wrote? No?
I'll remind you - "Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO."
And I have explained why neither element of that is relevant any more than allegedly or innocent face would be.
If Sunak had taken charge of Tories as Opposition leader after, say, eight years of Lab government I think he would have come across as the young, fresh, talented candidate who would change things - touches of Blair when he is on form and in 'teacher politician' mode.
It's amusing that a forum where, a few hours ago, posters were up in arms about women's rights, now features posts concerning rumours and sexual tittle-tattle about a female candidate, where the make candidate goes unremarked. Often from the same posters.
It must be the *correct* form of sexism...
Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you. Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO
You appear to have tittle-tattle on lots of people in Westminster. Perhaps you ought to consider that the 'tittle-tattle' might be the same as Lord McAlpine's, which he suffered for many years before it was proved wrong.
I'd have thought a top lawyer such as yourself would have realised that.
Don't be so pompous. Which bit of "I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO." did you not understand?
It's not been me sharing rumours about Ms Truss either. And what I have heard about her is not at all what has been shared on here.
I am well aware of how harmful unsubstantiated allegations can be. I have pointed this out both in relation to Prince Andrew BTL and in thread headers in relation to the very great harm done by the police over malicious allegations of child abuse.
It's not being pompous. You say you're aware of how harmful unsubstantiated rumours can be then say on several occasions that you know things - but you can't possible say them on here about individuals you name.
If you can't say them, don't mention them.
Back in 1997, a friend took me around parliament. He was doing a summer placement with a new MP after Blair's victory. During that visit, he told me about some tittle-tattle he had heard about McAlpine. He thought that would be of interest to me due to the connection with the civ eng giant.
McAlpine had to live with those 'rumours' being spread behind his back for at least fifteen years. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
It's not just the police: it's everyone on-line.
Try reading what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I did, thanks. Now, how about a proper response?
I can only repeat what I said before. I have heard some tittle tattle about both candidates. One is amusing but not surprising and has been, if true, in the public domain since at least 2018 - and not put there by me but by the Tory whips. The other is not even harmful to my mind. I have not shared any of it on here.
Address your remarks to those who have clogged up this thread and others with endless, tedious and somewhat adolescent speculation about and adolescent jokes on one candidate's alleged sexual preferences.
Ahem. Your comment in response to mine was: "Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you."
I'd argue such tittle-tattle is little better than 'adolescent speculation', as all tittle-tattle / gossip is.
Would you like to quote the next sentence I wrote? No?
I'll remind you - "Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO."
And I have explained why neither element of that is relevant any more than allegedly or innocent face would be.
It is impossible she doesn’t know by now. So we can only conclude she knows and she’s cool with it and she doesn’t care. She’s at ease. Good for her
She can't really not wear it now. I suspect it will be retired quietly after the campaign.
In a way, being kinky is somewhat in the tradition of senior Tories. I am faintly bemused as to why one would express it in jewellery whilst running for high office though.
I have no idea if this applies to Truss, but some subs get a kick out of discreetly exhibiting their ‘owned’ status to the vanilla world, which largely remains clueless. Yet other kinksters will recognize it
This is a plot device in Story of O, if I recall correctly - a foundational text of BDSM
'Foundational' in the sense of easily identifying people who call themselves things like 'Sir Stephen' and marking them down as 'do no want'?
It is impossible she doesn’t know by now. So we can only conclude she knows and she’s cool with it and she doesn’t care. She’s at ease. Good for her
She can't really not wear it now. I suspect it will be retired quietly after the campaign.
In a way, being kinky is somewhat in the tradition of senior Tories. I am faintly bemused as to why one would express it in jewellery whilst running for high office though.
I have no idea if this applies to Truss, but some subs get a kick out of discreetly exhibiting their ‘owned’ status to the vanilla world, which largely remains clueless. Yet other kinksters will recognize it
This is a plot device in Story of O, if I recall correctly - a foundational text of BDSM
Everything she does is just a bit dopey and unsubtle isn't it? I suppose we should be grateful she didn't rock up in head to toe PVC.
However, if she turns out to be a good PM, I'm fine with it.
It is impossible she doesn’t know by now. So we can only conclude she knows and she’s cool with it and she doesn’t care. She’s at ease. Good for her
She can't really not wear it now. I suspect it will be retired quietly after the campaign.
In a way, being kinky is somewhat in the tradition of senior Tories. I am faintly bemused as to why one would express it in jewellery whilst running for high office though.
I have no idea if this applies to Truss, but some subs get a kick out of discreetly exhibiting their ‘owned’ status to the vanilla world, which largely remains clueless. Yet other kinksters will recognize it
This is a plot device in Story of O, if I recall correctly - a foundational text of BDSM
Everything she does is just a bit dopey and unsubtle isn't it? I suppose we should be grateful she didn't rock up in head to toe PVC.
However, if she turns out to be a good PM, I'm fine with it.
She may of course be doing it for a bet, or for a laugh, who knows
I'm just explaining the sub psychology as I have encountered it
It's amusing that a forum where, a few hours ago, posters were up in arms about women's rights, now features posts concerning rumours and sexual tittle-tattle about a female candidate, where the make candidate goes unremarked. Often from the same posters.
It must be the *correct* form of sexism...
Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you. Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO
You appear to have tittle-tattle on lots of people in Westminster. Perhaps you ought to consider that the 'tittle-tattle' might be the same as Lord McAlpine's, which he suffered for many years before it was proved wrong.
I'd have thought a top lawyer such as yourself would have realised that.
Don't be so pompous. Which bit of "I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO." did you not understand?
It's not been me sharing rumours about Ms Truss either. And what I have heard about her is not at all what has been shared on here.
I am well aware of how harmful unsubstantiated allegations can be. I have pointed this out both in relation to Prince Andrew BTL and in thread headers in relation to the very great harm done by the police over malicious allegations of child abuse.
It's not being pompous. You say you're aware of how harmful unsubstantiated rumours can be then say on several occasions that you know things - but you can't possible say them on here about individuals you name.
If you can't say them, don't mention them.
Back in 1997, a friend took me around parliament. He was doing a summer placement with a new MP after Blair's victory. During that visit, he told me about some tittle-tattle he had heard about McAlpine. He thought that would be of interest to me due to the connection with the civ eng giant.
McAlpine had to live with those 'rumours' being spread behind his back for at least fifteen years. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
It's not just the police: it's everyone on-line.
Try reading what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I did, thanks. Now, how about a proper response?
I can only repeat what I said before. I have heard some tittle tattle about both candidates. One is amusing but not surprising and has been, if true, in the public domain since at least 2018 - and not put there by me but by the Tory whips. The other is not even harmful to my mind. I have not shared any of it on here.
Address your remarks to those who have clogged up this thread and others with endless, tedious and somewhat adolescent speculation about and adolescent jokes on one candidate's alleged sexual preferences.
Ahem. Your comment in response to mine was: "Well I have tittle tattle about Sunak's sexuality if that's what's bothering you."
I'd argue such tittle-tattle is little better than 'adolescent speculation', as all tittle-tattle / gossip is.
Would you like to quote the next sentence I wrote? No?
I'll remind you - "Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO."
And how is that relevant? 'Tittle tattle' about someone's sexuality is all you need to say to get the tongue's wagging and the minds bending. As you well know.
You won't get global agreement to abortion on demand etc especially from Africa, Latin America and much of Asia and Eastern Europe and as we have recently seen, the US
If you check out the law, abortion on demand does not exist in the UK.
Comments
Address your remarks to those who have clogged up this thread and others with endless, tedious and somewhat adolescent speculation about and adolescent jokes on one candidate's alleged sexual preferences.
Is an 8-year old too young to go to a production of Julius Ceasar? He's read the book, but the production is rated 12+ for 'depictions of war, self-harm, suicide, violence, blood and offensive language'
Well, he's read the book, and he lives with me, so offensive language is not unknown to him. I *think* he can cope with it, and he's keen.
I'm partially more concerned about whether he can sit through two-and-a-half hours of it. So, would we be foolish to take him?
That would be .... brave.
So will be bored out of his mind.
That would be a 'no' to me, but he's your son.
Dale points out that was Cameron 2005, no notes
And it’s not like it was a one off. She wears that stuff all the time
Images can be a lot more disturbing than reading about the same events in a book.
I'd argue such tittle-tattle is little better than 'adolescent speculation', as all tittle-tattle / gossip is.
This is just cruel.
We are going to do the summer Shakespeare festival with him, though. A picnic on a collage lawn, with Shakespeare. it could only be more English if it was held at the Orchard. We haven't been for five years, and that was without him.
https://cambridgeshakespeare.com/
No wonder as she has totally trashed them in recent days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3l9UDELtnk
She has recently however got into reading the “Murder Most Unladylike” series for kids, which deal with murder, infidelity, and suicide.
I’ve decided I’m ok with it, she really laps them up.
It is impossible she doesn’t know by now. So we can only conclude she knows and she’s cool with it and she doesn’t care. She’s at ease. Good for her
But she is a poor actor/deliverer. The jokes sometimes aren't bad but they don't actually "sound" like jokes with her speaking skills.
Not her fault - it is clearly a weakness. But looks like it wont matter now.
And it almost certainly wont matter in GE 2024 as Starmer is equally poor to be honest.
In a way, being kinky is somewhat in the tradition of senior Tories. I am faintly bemused as to why one would express it in jewellery whilst running for high office though.
The country will be punished.
I'll remind you - "Though personally I have no idea whether it's true and it doesn't reflect badly on him in any event. IMO."
This is a plot device in Story of O, if I recall correctly - a foundational text of BDSM
But that is not the situation now...
Rishi Sunak says he would support the return of grammar schools
'I believe in educational excellence, I believe education is the most powerful way that we can transform people's lives'
That's sounds like a *major* commitment - but he doesn't expand on it
https://twitter.com/adrianmcmenamin/status/1552733873108312064
Translation: Rishi Sunak wants to make 3/4 of schools Secondary Moderns
However, if she turns out to be a good PM, I'm fine with it.
I'm just explaining the sub psychology as I have encountered it
Social Media is the new reality, and this case will establish some precedents on what can be said, what the consequences are and defamation.
ETA I've not dabbled.