Nicola Sturgeon was a significantly more mendacious politician than Boris Johnson.
Significantly.
link?
What did Nippy lie about that BoZo did not also lie about?
For example, Nippy was transparently lying about the situation with Salmond. Somebody with so little recall of events should be being treated for Alzheimers, not running a country.
It was always somewhat amusing to watch those of her supporters treat her as a saint at the same time as having vituperation for Boris the Liar. Everything she has said and done as leader will soon be reviewed through the prism of her own legacy of untruth.
Her reputation is collapsing faster than Merkel’s. Much much faster
Although testimony from people other than the likes of you and MM - ie non Nat haters - would be more persuasive. What I will say, with my usual good faith and sincerity hat on, is that IF Nicola Sturgeon is proven to be a bad apple it will make me question a little bit how I'm going about the business of assessing politicians. Because I've always liked her and rated her quite highly. So let's see.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
So if some gang of white guys preyed upon, abused, tortured and raped black girls specifically BECAUSE they were non-white, and referred to the girls as “black meat”, “black sluts”, “n*****r whores” you think that would not be an aggravating factor?
This is not a facetious question. I can actually see your logic and in a way I agree with you. But I also see why the legal system has a different view
I don't. People should always be treated as individuals, not members of a group.
Who knew that abusing your power to expel political opponents might have consequences - even in Tennessee ?
Tennessee Speaker admits his family lives hours away from the district he represents https://popular.info/p/update-tennessee-speaker-admits-his ...Gary Blackburn, an attorney who has practiced law in Tennessee since the 1970s, said that what Sexton is doing "violates the obvious spirit of this law" and is "contrary to the intent of the statute." Blackburn said, however, that enforcement may be difficult because of vague language in the residency statute. Nevertheless, according to Blackburn, the issue of Sexton's residency is "worthy of public discussion." He agreed that Sexton could face a court challenge in any subsequent run for office.
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
"Landing the XFY-1 was difficult, as the pilot had to look over his shoulder while carefully working the throttle to land."
Not my cup of tea, I must say.
I bet Dura would try it if offered, if only the once.
Oh yes. If I were a highly qualified psychologist with decades of experience in the field I'd tentatively venture that he misses the adrenaline rush of combat airborne ops as much as I miss the same from using 3 phones at once on the fixed income trading floor.
I thought you primarily identified as a chartered accountant, not a bond trader.
I do, but people would take the piss if I compared that to being a fighter pilot. Whereas bond trading - well like I say you have to be able to juggle phones around and look at multiple screens, so it's a better comparison. You're essentially stationery though.
If you were stationery I guess you must have been a Basildon Bond trader.
And yet, bizarrely, Humza Yousaf now finds himself like Greyfriars’ Bobby, sitting by the grave of this deeply unpopular proposal. It is not often that a politician does something so mad that it defies all rational explanation. The new first minister had a golden opportunity to distance himself from a widely divisive policy and to refocus the SNP on issues that matter to Scottish voters. Mystifyingly, he has instead chosen to double down on self-ID.
In the drama unfolding in Scottish politics today, the central character’s flaws are neither vaulting ambition nor a susceptibility to flattery, but rather blind faith, plain ineptitude and poor judgement. When the curtain finally falls, and this plan inevitably blows up in Yousaf’s face, there will be few clapping in the audience.
"Mystifyingly, he has instead chosen to double down on self-ID."
Not so mystifying when there is nothing to be said on independence, disappearing swiftly as it is over the horizon.
The SNP has to be seen to be GOVERNING in a way that is discernibly DIFFERENT from the way Westminster governs. This is one of the few areas where they can still do so.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
So if some gang of white guys preyed upon, abused, tortured and raped black girls specifically BECAUSE they were non-white, and referred to the girls as “black meat”, “black sluts”, “n*****r whores” you think that would not be an aggravating factor?
This is not a facetious question. I can actually see your logic and in a way I agree with you. But I also see why the legal system has a different view
I don't. People should always be treated as individuals, not members of a group.
It’s philosophically tricky. I generally agree with your sentiments. “Hate crimes” as a concept make me deeply uneasy
However there are some racist crimes where, I feel, you can’t ignore the overt racist element and society needs to express a specially severe disapproval. Race based lynchings have been rightly mentioned. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is another example. And some of the “Asian grooming rape gangs” were definitely motivated, in part, by racial hatred and contempt - and should be treated even more harshly than normal, as a result
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
So if some gang of white guys preyed upon, abused, tortured and raped black girls specifically BECAUSE they were non-white, and referred to the girls as “black meat”, “black sluts”, “n*****r whores” you think that would not be an aggravating factor?
This is not a facetious question. I can actually see your logic and in a way I agree with you. But I also see why the legal system has a different view
I don't. People should always be treated as individuals, not members of a group.
It’s philosophically tricky. I generally agree with your sentiments. “Hate crimes” as a concept make me deeply uneasy
However there are some racist crimes where, I feel, you can’t ignore the overt racist element and society needs to express a specially severe disapproval. Race based lynchings have been rightly mentioned. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is another example. And some of the “Asian grooming rape gangs” were definitely motivated, in part, by racial hatred and contempt - and should be treated even more harshly than normal, as a result
Id suggest the right balance is judges are able to increase sentences for aggravating factors rather than expected or obliged to.
Nicola Sturgeon was a significantly more mendacious politician than Boris Johnson.
Significantly.
link?
What did Nippy lie about that BoZo did not also lie about?
For example, Nippy was transparently lying about the situation with Salmond. Somebody with so little recall of events should be being treated for Alzheimers, not running a country.
It was always somewhat amusing to watch those of her supporters treat her as a saint at the same time as having vituperation for Boris the Liar. Everything she has said and done as leader will soon be reviewed through the prism of her own legacy of untruth.
Her reputation is collapsing faster than Merkel’s. Much much faster
Although testimony from people other than the likes of you and MM - ie non Nat haters - would be more persuasive. What I will say, with my usual good faith and sincerity hat on, is that IF Nicola Sturgeon is proven to be a bad apple it will make me question a little bit how I'm going about the business of assessing politicians. Because I've always liked her and rated her quite highly. So let's see.
I feel you’re going to need special needs guidance to reach the inevitable conclusion here. Intellectual hand holding
Let’s start with the easy stuff. In retrospect, why do you think she so suddenly and unexpectedly resigned? Do you still believe all her guff about “knowing the right time” and “running out of fuel”?
Do you honestly think the fact her SNP CEO husband was arrested a few weeks after her departure on charges of corruption was sheer coincidence?
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
So if some gang of white guys preyed upon, abused, tortured and raped black girls specifically BECAUSE they were non-white, and referred to the girls as “black meat”, “black sluts”, “n*****r whores” you think that would not be an aggravating factor?
This is not a facetious question. I can actually see your logic and in a way I agree with you. But I also see why the legal system has a different view
I don't. People should always be treated as individuals, not members of a group.
It’s philosophically tricky. I generally agree with your sentiments. “Hate crimes” as a concept make me deeply uneasy
However there are some racist crimes where, I feel, you can’t ignore the overt racist element and society needs to express a specially severe disapproval. Race based lynchings have been rightly mentioned. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is another example. And some of the “Asian grooming rape gangs” were definitely motivated, in part, by racial hatred and contempt - and should be treated even more harshly than normal, as a result
It's pretty clear that Stephen Lawrence would not have been murdered if he hadn't been black. So his ethnicity seems relevant to me.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
I was thinking, how many PB rightists complained about Mrs Johnson (or Mrs J-to-be, depending on date) and e.g. her green politics? And that was on their end of the spectrum!
Hands up if you remember Ed Miliband being vilified for his late alleged Soviet sympathising dad. Or Cherie Blair? Now she was a wrong-'un, or the baby Leo Blair, cast by the Tory press as Damien, the Antichrist.
There is a difference between the media and official election posters by a political party.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
So if some gang of white guys preyed upon, abused, tortured and raped black girls specifically BECAUSE they were non-white, and referred to the girls as “black meat”, “black sluts”, “n*****r whores” you think that would not be an aggravating factor?
This is not a facetious question. I can actually see your logic and in a way I agree with you. But I also see why the legal system has a different view
I don't. People should always be treated as individuals, not members of a group.
Exactly: and this way of thinking is what *creates* protected groups and elevates "communities" above individuals.
If you've groomed and raped hundreds of vulnerable girls, then you've raped hundred of vulnerable girls.
Back from the hospital a couple of hours ago. Interesting chats.
Small number of pickets outside. My clinic appointment turned out to be with a senior Junior Doctor (7 years), who was more sympathetic to the previous Nurses' Strike than the Junior Doctors' one based on how Doctors make more money later. Brought up in May-denhead as a Labour voter, and will continue to do so. Introduced him to a bit of political history of the Ashfield area, the demographic shift and recent recent Tory flip; and how no one has a f*cking idea what will happen next time.
Excellent service, including a new blood test and an appointment in a fortnight to discuss further treatment (Leukemia, so priority), and added a prostate test to the request due to a possible symptom mentioned.
Strange shift in mask-wearing - the place has switched from masks imposed at the main door, to masks required by a BIG RED SIGN at the clinic door which says YOU ARE ENTERING A HIGH RISK AREA. WEAR A MASK, with a mask / sanitisation stand. Around 15% of patients or carers, some with obvious coughs / colds etc, not wearing masks or wearing incorrectly. Including one of the receptionists wearing her mask like a false beard all morning. This is in a haematology clinic where a significant number of patients will have significantly weak immune systems. Minor complaint required requesting proper enforcement by reception staff.
And I noticed a bizarre series of bollards which block off 20-25% of the pedestrian footpath on the main entrance to allow cars to overhang from the car park. WTF? They'll stop 2 mobility scooters passing safely. This is known as motor-normativity, and is a strange cultural assumption we have. They have been there for at least 10 years. They probably did not even think about it, any more than pavement parkers think about their forcing of wheelchairs and parents / buggies into the road. img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/87/yflyhwf1cx4b.png" alt="" />
Those bollards are there, because without them cars would park with their wheels against the kerb, overhanging the pavement in an irregular manner - which is more dangerous and potentially blocks more pavement.
Good luck with your ongoing treatment.
I know. Plan view below (best I can get) - it is a perfectly generous car park. The bollards should be in the car park just on the car park side of the kerb, so the footway retains it's full design width. There is no reason for the parked vehicles to overhang, or for any compromise whatsoever of the pedestrian space.
Thanks for the good wishes.
Best wishes to you.
As an aside, the bollard placement may be a construction convenience, rather than a design plan. If the kerbs have a solid concrete foundation under them (often surprisingly a foot to eighteen inches wide), then they may have had to dig through concrete to put the bollards closer to the kerbs. It's easier just to dig through the infill at the side of the concrete - *if* the bollards were added later, as is often the case.
As the bollards are probably there to stop cars driving onto the pavement and adjacent road, they'd need to be set in concrete as well, and would need their own pad (you might drill down into concrete and grout/concrete them in, but that probably would not be as strong).
Perhaps... or I coul dbe talking a load of bollocksards...
The SNP has to be seen to be GOVERNING in a way that is discernibly DIFFERENT from the way Westminster governs. This is one of the few areas where they can still do so.
Except the point about this one thing is they explicitly can't do it in a different way.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
I was thinking, how many PB rightists complained about Mrs Johnson (or Mrs J-to-be, depending on date) and e.g. her green politics? And that was on their end of the spectrum!
Hands up if you remember Ed Miliband being vilified for his late alleged Soviet sympathising dad. Or Cherie Blair? Now she was a wrong-'un, or the baby Leo Blair, cast by the Tory press as Damien, the Antichrist.
There is a difference between the media and official election posters by a political party.
So if the Conservative Party s*** on their opponents via Guido that is OK? We all know the source.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
So if some gang of white guys preyed upon, abused, tortured and raped black girls specifically BECAUSE they were non-white, and referred to the girls as “black meat”, “black sluts”, “n*****r whores” you think that would not be an aggravating factor?
This is not a facetious question. I can actually see your logic and in a way I agree with you. But I also see why the legal system has a different view
I don't. People should always be treated as individuals, not members of a group.
Exactly: and this way of thinking is what *creates* protected groups and elevates "communities" above individuals.
If you've groomed and raped hundreds of vulnerable girls, then you've raped hundred of vulnerable girls.
I shouldn't agree, but I do, although the fly in the ointment for me, as highlighted up thread is Stephen Lawrence. He was clearly attacked for his colour and his assailants not immediately prosecuted for theirs.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
Good post, Mr RCS. Are you turning into a Lib Dem?
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
Good post, Mr RCS. Are you turning into a Lib Dem?
Is it Lib Dem policy to remove 'racially aggravated' from the criminal justice system?
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
On topic. I think that the "junior doctors" will before too long run out of sympathy. There is only so long that the public sees what appear to be very well educated, charming young people, perhaps with knitted scarves and mascots on the picket line and withdrawing treatment from the poorest in society, before they think "hold on".
A claimed pay rate of £14 an hour is compelling evidence for the public to be on board with the Junior Doctors.
£99 (less VAT) an hour (in his bank account) for a tradesman (after a 12 week training course) to fix your boiler but just £14 an hour for a 7 year trained and 10 year time-served doctor to save your child's life.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
Good post, Mr RCS. Are you turning into a Lib Dem?
I’m old enough to remember “paki bashing” as a concept. A vile concept. Of course I never did it - I was a lad in provincial England far away from such things - but I recall reading about it as part of skinhead culture of the 70s
How can race not be an aggravating factor in a crime like that? Beatings handed out specifically because of race and designed to instil terror into a specific racial community?
This applies both ways of course. It can equally be done to white people
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
Good post, Mr RCS. Are you turning into a Lib Dem?
I’m old enough to remember “paki bashing” as a concept. A vile concept. Of course I never did it - I was a lad in provincial England far away from such things - but I recall reading about it as part of skinhead culture of the 70s
How can race not be an aggravating factor in a crime like that? Beatings handed out specifically because of race and designed to instil terror into a specific racial community?
This applies both ways of course. It can equally be done to white people
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
On topic. I think that the "junior doctors" will before too long run out of sympathy. There is only so long that the public sees what appear to be very well educated, charming young people, perhaps with knitted scarves and mascots on the picket line and withdrawing treatment from the poorest in society, before they think "hold on".
A claimed pay rate of £14 an hour is compelling evidence for the public to be on board with the Junior Doctors.
£99 (less VAT) an hour (in his bank account) for a tradesman (after a 12 week training course) to fix your boiler but just £14 an hour for a 7 year trained and 10 year time-served doctor to save your child's life.
"However, FY1 junior doctors are also entitled to five weeks’ annual leave, in addition to public holidays, and some other junior doctors are entitled to six weeks. If you assumed that junior doctors did not work on these days and calculated an hourly rate based only on the hours they did work (40 hours in each of roughly 45 weeks), the figure would be higher than £14.09."
----- However, those on hourly rates are entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday pay as well. Someone on £11ph does not say I'm on £11ph but after taking into account holiday pay its actually £11.50, they say they are on £11ph. This is very standard.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
“ If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy”
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
“ If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy”
Er, what?
Surely "advocating abolishing private schools" implies "slagging off people who use them", because you're saying that they're doing something that they shouldn't be allowed to.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
It definitely does not need to be assigned 6 police officers. I think it is (or should be) a valid part of council licensing at renewal time to question if they should be allowed to have a license and display their golliwog collection.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Also, he is an employee. Different situation legally.
In what organisation would you not be able to suspend an employee the subject of a dawn police raid, investigating a missing £600k? Keep them on full pay if you don't want to be on dodgy ground later if nothing happens, but if there is a live investigation, surely you don't have to wait for charges?
I agree but, as I noted below, he's not an SNP employee any more having resigned as Chief Exec a few weeks ago. At this stage "suspension" can only mean suspension of his membership. Which maybe they should do but seems a bit meaningless given what benefits do you get as an SNP membership? 5% off every purchase at the Edinburgh Woolen Mill?
It would show the SNP are getting serious about cleaning the stables. The fact they are not doing this, shows that they are not seriously keen on actual transparency. Why? Presumably because lots of people in the party fear that even worse corruption could be unearthed if the meltdown continues. And some might end up in jail. So they are simply praying it all goes away, and they get by with some fake house cleaning and under-the-carpet brushing
Yousaf won’t even reveal WHY the last auditors resigned. And he claims he never knew they resigned last October until he became leader two weeks ago
The SNP is close to being Ratnered
Hence the hurry to get him elected to cover as a rearguard and obfuscate as much as possible. He will not be there long.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
"My racist customers like these racist dolls so we're going to show them. What has happened to this country if we can't show golliwogs? I blame all these immigrants, coming over here on those boats with their oppressive religion" etc
And yet, bizarrely, Humza Yousaf now finds himself like Greyfriars’ Bobby, sitting by the grave of this deeply unpopular proposal. It is not often that a politician does something so mad that it defies all rational explanation. The new first minister had a golden opportunity to distance himself from a widely divisive policy and to refocus the SNP on issues that matter to Scottish voters. Mystifyingly, he has instead chosen to double down on self-ID.
In the drama unfolding in Scottish politics today, the central character’s flaws are neither vaulting ambition nor a susceptibility to flattery, but rather blind faith, plain ineptitude and poor judgement. When the curtain finally falls, and this plan inevitably blows up in Yousaf’s face, there will be few clapping in the audience.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
On topic. I think that the "junior doctors" will before too long run out of sympathy. There is only so long that the public sees what appear to be very well educated, charming young people, perhaps with knitted scarves and mascots on the picket line and withdrawing treatment from the poorest in society, before they think "hold on".
A claimed pay rate of £14 an hour is compelling evidence for the public to be on board with the Junior Doctors.
£99 (less VAT) an hour (in his bank account) for a tradesman (after a 12 week training course) to fix your boiler but just £14 an hour for a 7 year trained and 10 year time-served doctor to save your child's life.
"However, FY1 junior doctors are also entitled to five weeks’ annual leave, in addition to public holidays, and some other junior doctors are entitled to six weeks. If you assumed that junior doctors did not work on these days and calculated an hourly rate based only on the hours they did work (40 hours in each of roughly 45 weeks), the figure would be higher than £14.09."
----- However, those on hourly rates are entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday pay as well. Someone on £11ph does not say I'm on £11ph but after taking into account holiday pay its actually £11.50, they say they are on £11ph. This is very standard.
Doctors and nurses get significantly more holidays than average. My daughter who has been qualified for 3 years gets 8.5 weeks. My wife who has 20 years service gets 12 weeks. They also get excellent sick pay.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
On topic. I think that the "junior doctors" will before too long run out of sympathy. There is only so long that the public sees what appear to be very well educated, charming young people, perhaps with knitted scarves and mascots on the picket line and withdrawing treatment from the poorest in society, before they think "hold on".
A claimed pay rate of £14 an hour is compelling evidence for the public to be on board with the Junior Doctors.
£99 (less VAT) an hour (in his bank account) for a tradesman (after a 12 week training course) to fix your boiler but just £14 an hour for a 7 year trained and 10 year time-served doctor to save your child's life.
"However, FY1 junior doctors are also entitled to five weeks’ annual leave, in addition to public holidays, and some other junior doctors are entitled to six weeks. If you assumed that junior doctors did not work on these days and calculated an hourly rate based only on the hours they did work (40 hours in each of roughly 45 weeks), the figure would be higher than £14.09."
----- However, those on hourly rates are entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday pay as well. Someone on £11ph does not say I'm on £11ph but after taking into account holiday pay its actually £11.50, they say they are on £11ph. This is very standard.
Doctors and nurses get significantly more holidays than average. My daughter who has been qualified for 3 years gets 8.5 weeks. My wife who has 20 years service gets 12 weeks. They also get excellent sick pay.
On topic. I think that the "junior doctors" will before too long run out of sympathy. There is only so long that the public sees what appear to be very well educated, charming young people, perhaps with knitted scarves and mascots on the picket line and withdrawing treatment from the poorest in society, before they think "hold on".
A claimed pay rate of £14 an hour is compelling evidence for the public to be on board with the Junior Doctors.
£99 (less VAT) an hour (in his bank account) for a tradesman (after a 12 week training course) to fix your boiler but just £14 an hour for a 7 year trained and 10 year time-served doctor to save your child's life.
"However, FY1 junior doctors are also entitled to five weeks’ annual leave, in addition to public holidays, and some other junior doctors are entitled to six weeks. If you assumed that junior doctors did not work on these days and calculated an hourly rate based only on the hours they did work (40 hours in each of roughly 45 weeks), the figure would be higher than £14.09."
----- However, those on hourly rates are entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday pay as well. Someone on £11ph does not say I'm on £11ph but after taking into account holiday pay its actually £11.50, they say they are on £11ph. This is very standard.
Doctors and nurses get significantly more holidays than average. My daughter who has been qualified for 3 years gets 8.5 weeks. My wife who has 20 years service gets 12 weeks. They also get excellent sick pay.
Sure, but a lot of that is long service related. Five weeks plus public holidays is 33 days (for a 5 day week), the legal minimum is 28 days. The junior doctors getting the lowest pay are getting a fairly standard amount of holiday and 5 days more than the legal minimum. At the most that would be inflating the £14.09 figure by 2% compared to a temp on £14.09.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Correct. Those arguing against him are failing to understand the nature of hypocrisy and are propagating the Tu Quoque fallacy:
"Tu quoque is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack."
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
This is such bollocks. You’re on a roll today
If the Tories put out a poster with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP directly associating him unprosecuted pedophiles you’d immediately accuse them of racism. And you’d be right. They would be exploiting the understandable if regrettable public association of “south Asian men” with “Asian grooming gangs”. The poster would be a racist smear
And remember this poster was specifically and admittedly designed as a riposte to Braverman’s statements on the grooming gangs. So Labour knew full well what they were doing and the context
Plenty of people on the left have called out this poster as racist. It’s not a right wing reaction
As ever you are incapable of seeing racism in yourself or your own ranks because you are on the left and “the left is morally superior so cannot be racist”
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
Who knew that abusing your power to expel political opponents might have consequences - even in Tennessee ?
Tennessee Speaker admits his family lives hours away from the district he represents https://popular.info/p/update-tennessee-speaker-admits-his ...Gary Blackburn, an attorney who has practiced law in Tennessee since the 1970s, said that what Sexton is doing "violates the obvious spirit of this law" and is "contrary to the intent of the statute." Blackburn said, however, that enforcement may be difficult because of vague language in the residency statute. Nevertheless, according to Blackburn, the issue of Sexton's residency is "worthy of public discussion." He agreed that Sexton could face a court challenge in any subsequent run for office.
I thought America had pretty strict anti-carpetbagger rules.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
This is such bollocks. You’re on a roll today
If the Tories put out a poster with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP directly associating him unprosecuted pedophiles you’d immediately accuse them of racism. And you’d be right. They would be exploiting the understandable if regrettable public association of “south Asian men” with “Asian grooming gangs”. The poster would be a racist smear
And remember this poster was specifically and admittedly designed as a riposte to Braverman’s statements on the grooming gangs. So Labour knew full well what they were doing and the context
Plenty of people on the left have called out this poster as racist. It’s not a right wing reaction
As ever you are incapable of seeing racism in yourself or your own ranks because you are on the left and “the left is morally superior so cannot be racist”
Normal service is resumed. Rational Leon has left the building.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
On topic. I think that the "junior doctors" will before too long run out of sympathy. There is only so long that the public sees what appear to be very well educated, charming young people, perhaps with knitted scarves and mascots on the picket line and withdrawing treatment from the poorest in society, before they think "hold on".
A claimed pay rate of £14 an hour is compelling evidence for the public to be on board with the Junior Doctors.
£99 (less VAT) an hour (in his bank account) for a tradesman (after a 12 week training course) to fix your boiler but just £14 an hour for a 7 year trained and 10 year time-served doctor to save your child's life.
"However, FY1 junior doctors are also entitled to five weeks’ annual leave, in addition to public holidays, and some other junior doctors are entitled to six weeks. If you assumed that junior doctors did not work on these days and calculated an hourly rate based only on the hours they did work (40 hours in each of roughly 45 weeks), the figure would be higher than £14.09."
----- However, those on hourly rates are entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday pay as well. Someone on £11ph does not say I'm on £11ph but after taking into account holiday pay its actually £11.50, they say they are on £11ph. This is very standard.
Doctors and nurses get significantly more holidays than average. My daughter who has been qualified for 3 years gets 8.5 weeks. My wife who has 20 years service gets 12 weeks. They also get excellent sick pay.
They must be on non-standard contracts. This is the AFC entitlement:
"The following entitlements are taken from section 13 of the NHS Terms and Conditions of Service Handbook. This entitlement is for a full- time worker. Part-time staff receive a pro rata amount of annual leave and public holiday days.
on appointment: 27 days leave and eight general public holiday days after five years service: 29 days leave + eight days general public holiday days after 10 years service: 33 days leave + eight days general public holiday days."
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
This is such bollocks. You’re on a roll today
If the Tories put out a poster with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP …
This is one of a series of posters attacking the PM. While the poster in question is lamentable, you are being silly.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Sunak is Prime Minister. Is *every* poster that singles him out also going to be racist? Selecting an Asian Labour MP - or Asian any MP who isn't PM - could potentially be racist depending on what it says and why.
Sunak is Prime Minister. Responsible for the policies which deliver so little justice to victims of abuse and rape and most other crime actually. Fingering him for it isn't racism. It isn't saying he's doing it because he is a Hindu. Its because he is PM.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
“ If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy”
Er, what?
Surely "advocating abolishing private schools" implies "slagging off people who use them", because you're saying that they're doing something that they shouldn't be allowed to.
Not at all. Two totally different things. Eg somebody who believes Healthcare should be privatized - does this imply slagging off the people who use the NHS? Of course it doesn't. C'mon.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
How did they get caught cheating
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
And I've pointed this out earlier this year - I needed to import something from Germany and I wasted a whole day and paid 50% extra just to get what I needed because otherwise the company couldn't be faffed to sell to the UK because of the paperwork we insist on.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
QED. The state of the Left. “We cannot be racist because we are good and superior.” Whatever
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
How did they get caught cheating
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
How did they get caught cheating
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
"As a result of an audit.... backdated...."
Yep - I'm now paying duty on something I didn't used to - so either I close the business or restructure it to avoid the cost.
In every scenario it's likely that the restructure of the business would minimise the part of it that's in the UK or simple (as I pointed out below) just ignore / reject potential UK customers as the extra hassle isn't worth it.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
How did they get caught cheating
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
And I've pointed this out earlier this year - I needed to import something from Germany and I wasted a whole day and paid 50% extra just to get what I needed because otherwise the company couldn't be faffed to sell to the UK because of the paperwork we insist on.
But the agreed trade deal between the UK and EU had no tarrifs and no quotas. So where is the 8% charge coming from?
This company sounds like they’re trying to play games with imports and exports, to prevent tarrifs based on the real origin of the goods.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
How did they get caught cheating
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
"As a result of an audit.... backdated...."
Perhaps they took that bloke seriously when he said we still had brilliant tariff free trade with Europe.
You know, that bloke. Thingy. Chucked in a bit of Latin whenever he got caught out. Hair like he was plugged in to a Van Der Graaf generator. Whatever happened to him?
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
QED. The state of the Left. “We cannot be racist because we are good and superior.” Whatever
No, they are just saying that your argument in this case is fallacious. Which it clearly is.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
QED. The state of the Left. “We cannot be racist because we are good and superior.” Whatever
I don't know where that extrapolation came from. I have said the poster is tasteless, untrue and unwise. I don't see the race element though. Maybe you can because you are better versed in these subjects than I am.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Ok, I like mine but I like that too.
"You wouldn't be here if I had my way but given you are ... there's the shovel".
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
It’s not racist, Leon is being disingenuous, and Ash Sarkar has got Starmer Derangement Syndrome.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
How did they get caught cheating
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
And I've pointed this out earlier this year - I needed to import something from Germany and I wasted a whole day and paid 50% extra just to get what I needed because otherwise the company couldn't be faffed to sell to the UK because of the paperwork we insist on.
But the agreed trade deal between the UK and EU had no tarrifs and no quotas. So where is the 8% charge coming from?
This company sounds like they’re trying to play games with imports and exports, to prevent tarrifs based on the real origin of the goods.
or HMRC are the bunch of idiots that they seem to be every time I have the misfortune to deal with them.
An example - Chapter 10 IR35 that results in a tax bill of 45% or 95% depending on how willing the contractor is to solve the agency's problem (wish I was kidding but literally it has 2 end states depending on whether the agency can recover the money from the poor contractor who isn't involved because the decision is outside his hands).
Edit - when pressed on this HMRC's statement is that an agency's T&C's should contain the right to reclaim the money paid to the contractor - the fact that would be against the law is neither here nor there.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
“ If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy”
Er, what?
Surely "advocating abolishing private schools" implies "slagging off people who use them", because you're saying that they're doing something that they shouldn't be allowed to.
Not at all. Two totally different things. Eg somebody who believes Healthcare should be privatized - does this imply slagging off the people who use the NHS? Of course it doesn't. C'mon.
Yes, after two terms of hobbing with the nobs at Oxford, my (grammar school educated) lad also appreciates the difference. He said the other day that while he thinks that private schools are detrimental for society as a whole, he'd probably send his own future children to one if he could afford to.
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
I don't believe this case is the optimal anti-wokery hill for Government supporters to die on. This couple don't appear to be merely collectors of unfashionable toys, they seem to have something of the distasteful agenda and the notion "that we're not racist, but if we want to display racially offensive toys, we can and we will".
The right-wing complaints have little to do with the display or otherwise of toy dolls, and everything to do with what are increasingly been seen as the priorities of the police force service.
I'm sort of with you on that. The original complainant should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, but this pair have since doubled down on their "you can't stop me displaying racially offensive symbols" narrative, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The only reason they’re doubling down, is because six police officers thought that toy dolls were their priority on that day.
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
Given that this is a photo from the pub in the Landlord's facebook account - I'm not surprised the police visited. The only question is why now and not 6 years ago.
The corollary to the tedious and incessant cry of the right that everyone is too easily offended is that far too many are desperate to offend. Gollywog defenders tend to the ‘it ain’t racist’ line, but this prick* happily blew that one out of the water by linking it to slavery and lynchings.
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
How did they get caught cheating
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
And I've pointed this out earlier this year - I needed to import something from Germany and I wasted a whole day and paid 50% extra just to get what I needed because otherwise the company couldn't be faffed to sell to the UK because of the paperwork we insist on.
But the agreed trade deal between the UK and EU had no tarrifs and no quotas. So where is the 8% charge coming from?
This company sounds like they’re trying to play games with imports and exports, to prevent tarrifs based on the real origin of the goods.
or HMRC are the bunch of idiots that they seem to be every time I have the misfortune to deal with them.
An example - Chapter 10 IR35 that results in a tax bill of 45% or 95% depending on how willing the contractor is to solve the agency's problem (wish I was kidding but literally it has 2 end states depending on whether the agency can recover the money from the poor contractor who isn't involved because the decision is outside his hands).
Biggest advantage of working abroad, is not having to deal with HMRC.
My brother got done last year, for a company car allowance that his former company screwed up, to the tune of £10k over a number of years! IR35 was one of the biggest reasons I left the UK in the first place, and it’s got way worse since I left!
Another day another business dies, collapses, or moves offshore.
So they got caught cheating.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
How did they get caught cheating
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
And I've pointed this out earlier this year - I needed to import something from Germany and I wasted a whole day and paid 50% extra just to get what I needed because otherwise the company couldn't be faffed to sell to the UK because of the paperwork we insist on.
But the agreed trade deal between the UK and EU had no tarrifs and no quotas. So where is the 8% charge coming from?
This company sounds like they’re trying to play games with imports and exports, to prevent tarrifs based on the real origin of the goods.
Who told you that? There is a long list of tariffs that have to be paid on products. You have to match the product against the tariff code and declare that on the customs paperwork.
Even when the product attracts a 0% rate you still have to do all the paperwork to declare that you owe no money. Which costs money. So for the zero tariff products it is not zero cost as it was before. And for the products which attract a tariff, well...
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
It’s not racist, Leon is being disingenuous, and Ash Sarkar has got Starmer Derangement Syndrome.
Technically, Sarkar didn't say it was racist.
She said that if the Tories had done the same, the Left would have accused them of being racist.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The Miliband juniors actually used a deed of variation on their father's will to avoid the tax. Miliband senior had nothing to do with it and I doubt he would have agreed with his sons' use of a tax dodge on their inheritance. It was hypocritical to the extreme for Ed to rage against Tory inheritance tax cuts when he had used legal trickery available only to rich people to do the same.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
So the barbs at the PM because of whom he married, before he was an MP, rather than anything he’s done in office, is fair game?
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
You’d have more of an argument if his wife had yielded her non Dom status the day he became an MP. Instead she kept it, and only gave it up when it became publicised and politically awkward
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
The latter is not necessarily fair game. It might be but it depends. If you argue private schools should be abolished yet use them this is not hypocrisy. But if you slag off others for using them whilst doing so yourself, it is.
Both are examples of hypocrisy. Exhibit A: Diane Abbott.
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
I don't agree. kinabalu is right.
Thank you, Stocky. Yes, the difference is subtle but important.
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
Your right wing example isn't equivalent. A better one might be someone who argues for tighter immigration controls while employing cheap foreign labour.
Or someone who extolls the democracy dividend of Brexit (let’s face it, there isn’t much else left) while chortling about democracy being stymied in Scotland. Thankfully we don’t have that sort of big, fat aitch round here.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
He benefited from a controversial tax loophole via his billionaire wife. He’s also the Chancellor/First Lord who decides how much tax we pay
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
The "nonce" poster that started all this made me feel rather queasy. As the days progress it looks like someone, unusually for the hapless, hopeless Labour Party has thought through an effective if cynical campaign to undermine those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
I didn't like the poster because I hate prurient, easy target virtue-signalling around 'pedos'. However I don't see it as racist. You'd only find it racist if you link child sex crime to Sunak's skin colour - ie you need to have succumbed to racism yourself to find it racist.
It is only Leon, so far as I can see has found a racial angle. My biggest issue is the "nonce" poster is clearly untrue. We should leave that element of campaigning to the Conservatives.
No. Not just me. Even corbynites like Ash Sarkar can see that it is racist
Still don't see the correlation. The content is untrue, so the poster is reprehensible. I don't even see the racial angle even after Ash Sarkar has explained it to me.
It’s not racist, Leon is being disingenuous, and Ash Sarkar has got Starmer Derangement Syndrome.
Technically, Sarkar didn't say it was racist.
She said that if the Tories had done the same, the Left would have accused them of being racist.
Which is true.
Except “the same” would have been a dishonest poster attacking Starmer. So, not really, no.
Comments
Of course it’s fair to target this. Saying otherwise is ludicrous whining. The pedo poster was in a different league. That was a mendacious smear tinged with racism and Labour should be ashamed
Tennessee Speaker admits his family lives hours away from the district he represents
https://popular.info/p/update-tennessee-speaker-admits-his
...Gary Blackburn, an attorney who has practiced law in Tennessee since the 1970s, said that what Sexton is doing "violates the obvious spirit of this law" and is "contrary to the intent of the statute." Blackburn said, however, that enforcement may be difficult because of vague language in the residency statute. Nevertheless, according to Blackburn, the issue of Sexton's residency is "worthy of public discussion." He agreed that Sexton could face a court challenge in any subsequent run for office.
Not so mystifying when there is nothing to be said on independence, disappearing swiftly as it is over the horizon.
The SNP has to be seen to be GOVERNING in a way that is discernibly DIFFERENT from the way Westminster governs. This is one of the few areas where they can still do so.
However there are some racist crimes where, I feel, you can’t ignore the overt racist element and society needs to express a specially severe disapproval. Race based lynchings have been rightly mentioned. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is another example. And some of the “Asian grooming rape gangs” were definitely motivated, in part, by racial hatred and contempt - and should be treated even more harshly than normal, as a result
We can agree to disagree on that one.
Peter Murrell, Carrie Johnson, to some extent Cherie Blair, were all fair game as political figures in their own right. Other spouses, less so unless they explicitly benefit from changes in policy or find themselves falling foul of the law.
Otherwise, how the hell do we find good people to want to be MPs in the first place?
Let’s start with the easy stuff. In retrospect, why do you think she so suddenly and unexpectedly resigned? Do you still believe all her guff about “knowing the right time” and “running out of fuel”?
Do you honestly think the fact her SNP CEO husband was arrested a few weeks after her departure on charges of corruption was sheer coincidence?
those USPs that Sunak has been keen to self promote, particularly his competency and his probity.
It might backfire horribly, but it is somewhat reassuring that Labour are no longer of the opinion that losing election after election having played with a straight bat is admirable.
If you've groomed and raped hundreds of vulnerable girls, then you've raped hundred of vulnerable girls.
As an aside, the bollard placement may be a construction convenience, rather than a design plan. If the kerbs have a solid concrete foundation under them (often surprisingly a foot to eighteen inches wide), then they may have had to dig through concrete to put the bollards closer to the kerbs. It's easier just to dig through the infill at the side of the concrete - *if* the bollards were added later, as is often the case.
As the bollards are probably there to stop cars driving onto the pavement and adjacent road, they'd need to be set in concrete as well, and would need their own pad (you might drill down into concrete and grout/concrete them in, but that probably would not be as strong).
Perhaps... or I coul dbe talking a load of bollocksards...
So if the Conservative Party s*** on their opponents via Guido that is OK? We all know the source.
It’s a fair target. That’s why she gave it up
Equally, the fact Miliband Senior made tax arrangements to benefit his millionaire Labour MP
sons was and is equally fair, as a target. Likewise Labour MPs who send kids to private schools while condemning privilege etc etc
"A pub landlady today defied authorities and put more of her golliwog collection back on display just days after 20 of them were seized by police as part of a hate crime investigation into her and her husband.
Benice Ryley proudly placed five of the controversial dolls behind the bar of The White Hart pub in Grays, Essex, which she has run for the past 17 years with her husband Chris.
The couple, who are in their 60s, saw six officers enter the pub last Tuesday and take away 20 dolls displayed on a shelf behind the bar after an anonymous complaint was made against them."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11957405/Pub-landlady-defies-police-orders-puts-five-golliwogs-display.html
He’s quite old anyway, but he’s always been hale and hearty despite his years. Suddenly he can barely walk, barely even breathe. Fully vaxxed as well
It remains a sinister and menacing disease, especially for older people
https://fullfact.org/health/bma-junior-doctors-hourly-pay/
How can race not be an aggravating factor in a crime like that? Beatings handed out specifically because of race and designed to instil terror into a specific racial community?
This applies both ways of course. It can equally be done to white people
https://twitter.com/pjasinski/status/1645709215820926977?s=20
"However, FY1 junior doctors are also entitled to five weeks’ annual leave, in addition to public holidays, and some other junior doctors are entitled to six weeks. If you assumed that junior doctors did not work on these days and calculated an hourly rate based only on the hours they did work (40 hours in each of roughly 45 weeks), the figure would be higher than £14.09."
-----
However, those on hourly rates are entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday pay as well. Someone on £11ph does not say I'm on £11ph but after taking into account holiday pay its actually £11.50, they say they are on £11ph. This is very standard.
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
Er, what?
It’s the equivalent of declaring yourself an ardent vegetarian and condemning the farming of meat as evil and unnecessary and barbaric and then saying “however we live in a society where meat is freely on sale so I’m going to sit down and enjoy a lovely rib eye steak because they’re delicious and I can afford a really good one”
Don't know 14%
The rich 13%
Corruption/Greed 4%
The Economy 4%
Nothing 4%
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1645804023772225536?s=20
"Tu quoque is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Let me guess that a pub suffers plenty of minor instances of crime over the course of a year, in which the police decide to take very little interest unless it involves a dead body.
If the Tories put out a poster with a picture of a south Asian Labour MP directly associating him unprosecuted pedophiles you’d immediately accuse them of racism. And you’d be right. They would be exploiting the understandable if regrettable public association of “south Asian men” with “Asian grooming gangs”. The poster would be a racist smear
And remember this poster was specifically and admittedly designed as a riposte to Braverman’s statements on the grooming gangs. So Labour knew full well what they were doing and the context
Plenty of people on the left have called out this poster as racist. It’s not a right wing reaction
As ever you are incapable of seeing racism in yourself or your own ranks because you are on the left and “the left is morally superior so cannot be racist”
Don't know 18%
For the people/country 6%
Fairness/Equality 5%
The working class 4%
https://twitter.com/redfieldwilton/status/1645806500982722561
"I don't think this system should exist, and I'd vote to get rid of it, but given it does exist and my child will benefit I'll put family over politics and use it."
"I go around criticizing others for using this system even though I do it myself."
The 2nd is rank hypocrisy, the 1st isn't. The 1st is akin to arguing for a Wealth Tax but not paying it until there actually is one.
Or, let's have a right wing example, a free market absolutist using the NHS.
The 'H' word is used incessantly and sloppily - and I get animated about it because in political punditry it's forever being flung at the left.
"The following entitlements are taken from section 13 of the NHS Terms and Conditions of Service Handbook. This entitlement is for a full- time worker. Part-time staff receive a pro rata amount of annual leave and public holiday days.
on appointment: 27 days leave and eight general public holiday days
after five years service: 29 days leave + eight days general public holiday days
after 10 years service: 33 days leave + eight days general public holiday days."
While the poster in question is lamentable, you are being silly.
Nothing 15%
Don't know 13%
Immigration 12%
Sturgeon’s husband arrested 6%
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1645808996924915720?s=20
SNP financial scandal in there too…
Sunak is Prime Minister. Responsible for the policies which deliver so little justice to victims of abuse and rape and most other crime actually. Fingering him for it isn't racism. It isn't saying he's doing it because he is a Hindu. Its because he is PM.
Chess, Grand Master playing International Master in a 5-minute game - but the GM is blindfolded and can’t see the board.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2cbBhdJrMgM
The young lady IM is a great Youtube follow.
Let's check back in a year to see if this company has:
a) gone bust; or
b) worked out a payment plan with HMRC and suddenly learned how to dye lace themselves, thus expanding their expertise and reducing their costs.
They send lace abroad to be dyed - the additional 8% charge which is clearly a tariff not reclaimable VAT destroys the business.
It seems the company has decided it's not worth the hassle and is closing down - I would be doing the same...
And I've pointed this out earlier this year - I needed to import something from Germany and I wasted a whole day and paid 50% extra just to get what I needed because otherwise the company couldn't be faffed to sell to the UK because of the paperwork we insist on.
In every scenario it's likely that the restructure of the business would minimise the part of it that's in the UK or simple (as I pointed out below) just ignore / reject potential UK customers as the extra hassle isn't worth it.
This company sounds like they’re trying to play games with imports and exports, to prevent tarrifs based on the real origin of the goods.
You know, that bloke. Thingy. Chucked in a bit of Latin whenever he got caught out. Hair like he was plugged in to a Van Der Graaf generator. Whatever happened to him?
Which it clearly is.
It must have been on his second list of thoughts and considerations.
"You wouldn't be here if I had my way but given you are ... there's the shovel".
Plenty of that going on, I'm sure.
An example - Chapter 10 IR35 that results in a tax bill of 45% or 95% depending on how willing the contractor is to solve the agency's problem (wish I was kidding but literally it has 2 end states depending on whether the agency can recover the money from the poor contractor who isn't involved because the decision is outside his hands).
Edit - when pressed on this HMRC's statement is that an agency's T&C's should contain the right to reclaim the money paid to the contractor - the fact that would be against the law is neither here nor there.
A better basis than Sunak’s word cloud, but I’m not convinced either mean very much for now.
*Let me correct that, stupid prick.
Fun fact: the vast majority of lace at this firm is undyed. Most dyed lace is special order only.
My brother got done last year, for a company car allowance that his former company screwed up, to the tune of £10k over a number of years!
IR35 was one of the biggest reasons I left the UK in the first place, and it’s got way worse since I left!
Even when the product attracts a 0% rate you still have to do all the paperwork to declare that you owe no money. Which costs money. So for the zero tariff products it is not zero cost as it was before. And for the products which attract a tariff, well...
She said that if the Tories had done the same, the Left would have accused them of being racist.
Which is true.
So, not really, no.