Labour's smear against Sunak looks even worse. I think the next election could be one of the nastiest ever in terms of negative ads and slogans
Labour's negative poster campaign was unfortunate and best left unpublished. But to suggest Johnson's scurrilous slur against Starmer, now taken on by Sunak it would seem, is a lesser of two evils is absurd.
As a committed Christian would you condone Sunak promoting the lies about Starmer and Savile even if it looks like winning him (and you) the next election?
Sunak is a Hindu, Starmer is an atheist. Even if I tried to say they should push Christian values and not be too negative about each other I doubt they would care.
Indeed the only Christian of the 3 main party leaders is Sir Ed Davey, who is Church of England.
Perhaps reflects the fact the Church of England is now more the Liberal Democrats at Prayer than the Tory Party at prayer with a few evangelical and ultra conservative high Anglo Catholic exceptions
But you don't push Christian values. The opposite. Look at the values of the people you shill for.
Sunak is pretty Christian even as a Hindu. Hunt is the most senior Anglican Tory now and also pretty Christian in values, certainly his personal life where he is in a lifelong, committed marriage with his wife.
Left Liberals also often ignore the Old Testament, just the help the poor bits of the New they like
Can I refer you back to my post from a few days ago. You really do need to get cracking on the New Testament. It's a compelling read compared to volume 1, which I find to be a bit "Game of Thrones".
Bit Indy movie to the old testaments summer blockbuster though isn't it? Too much preaching, not enough death and explosions.
I see twitter appears to have outed the "BBC personality" after several failed attempts
Has it? The false accusations do show the downside of The Sun and BBC not publishing the name: it shoves every male presenter into the firing line. Some have mentioned the irony of this "star" exploiter of 17-year-old boys being accused by The Sun whose page 3 used to carry 15-year-old breasts.
I see twitter appears to have outed the "BBC personality" after several failed attempts
Like they "appeared" to have outed the other people accused?
This whole thing seems to me to have an even stronger whiff of homophobia than the Schofield affair.
Would anyone really be surprised if any number of male BBC employees had exploited 17-year-old girls sexually?
The sex of the exploiter or the exploitee is surely immaterial.
Are you really so thick that you didn't understand the point of the question I asked?
The question - in essence - was whether the press would be treating this the same if a male TV presenter had been paying a 17-year-old woman for sexually explicit photos. And whether people would have found it equally newsworthy if it didn't involve homosexuality.
Frankly I think nowadays it is difficult to say whether it would be treated harsher or more leniently.
I see twitter appears to have outed the "BBC personality" after several failed attempts
Has it? The false accusations do show the downside of The Sun and BBC not publishing the name: it shoves every male presenter into the firing line. Some have mentioned the irony of this "star" exploiter of 17-year-old boys being accused by The Sun whose page 3 used to carry 15-year-old breasts.
In recent years it is quite rare for people to be actually named now. Most weekends the tabloids run a unnamed celeb / footballer has been naughty. I always presume the inability to name them is due to legal action been taken, could it be the same in this case? Schofield took such action for instance.
The next election is over, there is nothing the Cons can do, the country reached the stage last year in that it wants a change, this normally happens after 11 - 12 years, their task is to avoid a Canadian style wipe out.
Labour's smear against Sunak looks even worse. I think the next election could be one of the nastiest ever in terms of negative ads and slogans
Labour's negative poster campaign was unfortunate and best left unpublished. But to suggest Johnson's scurrilous slur against Starmer, now taken on by Sunak it would seem, is a lesser of two evils is absurd.
As a committed Christian would you condone Sunak promoting the lies about Starmer and Savile even if it looks like winning him (and you) the next election?
Sunak is a Hindu, Starmer is an atheist. Even if I tried to say they should push Christian values and not be too negative about each other I doubt they would care.
Indeed the only Christian of the 3 main party leaders is Sir Ed Davey, who is Church of England.
Perhaps reflects the fact the Church of England is now more the Liberal Democrats at Prayer than the Tory Party at prayer with a few evangelical and ultra conservative high Anglo Catholic exceptions
But you don't push Christian values. The opposite. Look at the values of the people you shill for.
Sunak is pretty Christian even as a Hindu. Hunt is the most senior Anglican Tory now and also pretty Christian in values, certainly his personal life where he is in a lifelong, committed marriage with his wife.
Left Liberals also often ignore the Old Testament, just the help the poor bits of the New they like
Can I refer you back to my post from a few days ago. You really do need to get cracking on the New Testament. It's a compelling read compared to volume 1, which I find to be a bit "Game of Thrones".
Bit Indy movie to the old testaments summer blockbuster though isn't it? Too much preaching, not enough death and explosions.
And too woke and touchy-feely. For some anyway.
It’s definitely woke. God has a midlife crisis - has a child with a married woman. Child has complicated relationship with God, grows up into a difficult adult. Due to poor/remote relationship with God, son comes to a bad end in a complex police/courts fuckup.
God has a bit of a breakdown and re-writes the entire manual on worshipping himself based on his sons ideas. Then hands the franchise to the biggest asshole among his sons buddies…
I see twitter appears to have outed the "BBC personality" after several failed attempts
Has it? The false accusations do show the downside of The Sun and BBC not publishing the name: it shoves every male presenter into the firing line. Some have mentioned the irony of this "star" exploiter of 17-year-old boys being accused by The Sun whose page 3 used to carry 15-year-old breasts.
In recent years it is quite rare for people to be actually named now. Most weekends the tabloids run a unnamed celeb / footballer has been naughty. I always presume the inability to name them is due to legal action been taken, could it be the same in this case? Schofield took such action for instance.
After the naming/arrests of people of varying levels of celebrity (such as Cliff Richard) turned into legal disaster, naming people in these situations stopped. Quite abruptly.
I see twitter appears to have outed the "BBC personality" after several failed attempts
Has it? The false accusations do show the downside of The Sun and BBC not publishing the name: it shoves every male presenter into the firing line. Some have mentioned the irony of this "star" exploiter of 17-year-old boys being accused by The Sun whose page 3 used to carry 15-year-old breasts.
In recent years it is quite rare for people to be actually named now. Most weekends the tabloids run a unnamed celeb / footballer has been naughty. I always presume the inability to name them is due to legal action been taken, could it be the same in this case? Schofield took such action for instance.
After the naming/arrests of people of varying levels of celebrity (such as Cliff Richard) turned into legal disaster, naming people in these situations stopped. Quite abruptly.
The Cliff Richard incident was an absolute disgrace. The BBC in cahoots with the plod to film them raiding his house.
I see twitter appears to have outed the "BBC personality" after several failed attempts
Has it? The false accusations do show the downside of The Sun and BBC not publishing the name: it shoves every male presenter into the firing line. Some have mentioned the irony of this "star" exploiter of 17-year-old boys being accused by The Sun whose page 3 used to carry 15-year-old breasts.
In recent years it is quite rare for people to be actually named now. Most weekends the tabloids run a unnamed celeb / footballer has been naughty. I always presume the inability to name them is due to legal action been taken, could it be the same in this case? Schofield took such action for instance.
After the naming/arrests of people of varying levels of celebrity (such as Cliff Richard) turned into legal disaster, naming people in these situations stopped. Quite abruptly.
Probably rightly!
Does leave the tabloids with an aching expectation though.
I see twitter appears to have outed the "BBC personality" after several failed attempts
Has it? The false accusations do show the downside of The Sun and BBC not publishing the name: it shoves every male presenter into the firing line. Some have mentioned the irony of this "star" exploiter of 17-year-old boys being accused by The Sun whose page 3 used to carry 15-year-old breasts.
In recent years it is quite rare for people to be actually named now. Most weekends the tabloids run a unnamed celeb / footballer has been naughty. I always presume the inability to name them is due to legal action been taken, could it be the same in this case? Schofield took such action for instance.
After the naming/arrests of people of varying levels of celebrity (such as Cliff Richard) turned into legal disaster, naming people in these situations stopped. Quite abruptly.
The Cliff Richard incident was an absolute disgrace. The BBC in cahoots with the plod to film them raiding his house.
Which, until then, was standard procedure for the police. How do you think the cameras used to get there for arrests?
In one previous case, a police officer was genuinely confused, when in court, it was suggested that this was leaking confidential information to the press. He honestly believed that calling the press was the next thing you did after getting the warrant. Standard procedure….
So let me get this straight we imposed draconian economic sanctions on ourselves to specifically rid the nation of young EU migrant workers. And it worked like a dream. And now we want to encourage young EU workers back to the UK without reinstating any of the benefits we as a nation and as citizens of Europe cherished and lost by voting to specifically get rid of young migrant workers from the EU.
It’s about discovering Stuart Rose spoke the (unacceptable) truth.
Low end jobs had their wages suppressed by low/zero skill immigration.
Now companies are facing a shortage of people prepared to work for minimum wage (or even less - see piece work). They may even be faced with investing in automation. See all the lunch places which are installing big screen self service tills in London etc…
You have completely missed or ignored my point. We specifically voted to withdraw from all the benefits of EU membership to expel young low paid Europeans, and now we want them back, but without associating their return with reinstatement of the benefits WE lost.
No, I haven’t.
I was just remarking on *why* this comment was being made by *this* politician.
The U.K. economy has/had an addiction to ultra cheap labour. This is directly connected to the very poor productivity figures we have seen over the years. And the continued attempts at suppressing wages in the NHS.
There are two approaches to resolve this - invest in productivity. Or get more cheap labour.
Stuart Rose pointed this out in the referendum campaign. Probably foolishly.
Brexit has, of course, also inhibited the desire of companies to invest in the UK.
In fact not. Overall investment (aka Gross Fixed Capital Formation) is well above its level in 2016.
Driven by the super deduction on investment spending. As I said at the time by far the best part of the budget and something we need to do a lot more of if we want proper growth in this country.
It won't be proper growth at all - it will either reward investment decisions that would have been taken anyway (most of it) or it will incentivise (a few) decisions that would make no sense but for the tax deduction. So it will result in a surplus of useless investment and a big hit to the public finances. Oh, and like all subsidies it will be very difficult to revoke once put in place, and will result in a big rush for clever accountants to fiddle the rules to reclassify operating expenditure as capital expenditure.
Rather than fiddling with the rules and trying to introduce Brownite too-clever-by-half incentives, we should have low and stable headline rates of corporate and payroll taxes enforced with simple and predictable rules. That's the way to deliver high-quality growth in the long run, not a quick sugar rush from a fiddly tax break.
This. And when talking of growth in per capita income there is only one source, namely technological progress. But whether we need to push the technological frontier out ourselves is moot. Plenty of other countries get their growth by adopting best practice from advances made elsewhere. Indeed in the invention/innovation world there is often a first-mover disadvantage.
Well, it’s a dishonest question, designed to elicit sympathy for an exploiter, because he’s gay.
A producer who acted like this towards a 17 year old girl would certainly be in hot water, if caught.
If the allegations are vaguely like those claimed (see the news reports for details), then what happened wasn’t a relationship between an adult and a 17 year old. It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person.
If you want to accuse people of being dishonest, without any basis, that says something about you.
But what you still seem to be missing - pretty inexplicably - is that the question is not whether "It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person", which may or may not be the case (partly depending on whether you take everything the tabloids say as gospel truth), but whether whatever happened is being judged differently because it was a male celebrity and a male 17-20-year-old, as oppose to a male celebrity and a female 17-20-year old.
I see twitter appears to have outed the "BBC personality" after several failed attempts
Like they "appeared" to have outed the other people accused?
This whole thing seems to me to have an even stronger whiff of homophobia than the Schofield affair.
Would anyone really be surprised if any number of male BBC employees had exploited 17-year-old girls sexually?
The sex of the exploiter or the exploitee is surely immaterial.
Are you really so thick that you didn't understand the point of the question I asked?
The question - in essence - was whether the press would be treating this the same if a male TV presenter had been paying a 17-year-old woman for sexually explicit photos. And whether people would have found it equally newsworthy if it didn't involve homosexuality.
If Schofield had been caught grooming a young girl, rather than a young boy, at work, then the story definitely wouldn’t about how ‘brave’ he was, and wonderful that he was accepting himself, with the underage groomer bit conveniently swept under the carpet for a couple of years.
Well, obviously it wasn't about any of that, otherwise he wouldn't have been sacked!
Well, it’s a dishonest question, designed to elicit sympathy for an exploiter, because he’s gay.
A producer who acted like this towards a 17 year old girl would certainly be in hot water, if caught.
If the allegations are vaguely like those claimed (see the news reports for details), then what happened wasn’t a relationship between an adult and a 17 year old. It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person.
If you want to accuse people of being dishonest, without any basis, that says something about you.
But what you still seem to be missing - pretty inexplicably - is that the question is not whether "It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person", which may or may not be the case (partly depending on whether you take everything the tabloids say as gospel truth), but whether whatever happened is being judged differently because it was a male celebrity and a male 17-20-year-old, as oppose to a male celebrity and a female 17-20-year old.
In other words, hypocrisy and prejudice.
Yes, it was judged very differently. This is how the BBC reported the story:
Note the missing bit about the young intern, which no-one reported on at the time.
TV presenter Phillip Schofield has received an outpouring of support after revealing he is gay. The 57-year-old, who has two daughters with wife Stephanie Lowe, made the announcement via a statement on Instagram. "Huge respect and admiration for our friend Schofe," tweeted fellow ITV presenters Ant and Dec. "Sending love to you P, and your 3 lovely girls ❤️." Dermot O'Leary, David Walliams and James Corden also applauded him. "Takes a lot of guts to do this, not least when you're a very public figure and know it will all be dissected in a very public way," said Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan. "Sending my very best to Schofe and his family." Schofield, who has been married to Lowe for 27 years, said in his statement: "Today, quite rightly, being gay is a reason to celebrate and be proud. … "[Coming out] is my decision. This is absolutely my decision. It was something I knew that I had to do. I don't know what the world will be like now. I don't know how this will be taken or what people will think." But Schofield said he is not ready yet for a relationship with a man.
Sigh, does anybody even notice this nonsense other than PB obsessives? I seriously doubt it. But if you want to feel morally superior or simply wish to condemn there is no shortage of material. It just makes for slightly dull threads.
Indeed. And well said
It’s niche to the point of Zzzzz. But then we do all bang on about the “spin bowling conditions over the next hour at Trent Bridge” so we are as guilty as the mods
On the real subject of the day: Yes Starbucks coffee is hideous. The lattes are basically big cups of boiled milk with a faint trace of weak coffee powder
Well, it’s a dishonest question, designed to elicit sympathy for an exploiter, because he’s gay.
A producer who acted like this towards a 17 year old girl would certainly be in hot water, if caught.
If the allegations are vaguely like those claimed (see the news reports for details), then what happened wasn’t a relationship between an adult and a 17 year old. It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person.
If you want to accuse people of being dishonest, without any basis, that says something about you.
But what you still seem to be missing - pretty inexplicably - is that the question is not whether "It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person", which may or may not be the case (partly depending on whether you take everything the tabloids say as gospel truth), but whether whatever happened is being judged differently because it was a male celebrity and a male 17-20-year-old, as oppose to a male celebrity and a female 17-20-year old.
In other words, hypocrisy and prejudice.
Yes, it was judged very differently. This is how the BBC reported the story:
Note the missing bit about the young intern, which no-one reported on at the time.
TV presenter Phillip Schofield has received an outpouring of support after revealing he is gay. The 57-year-old, who has two daughters with wife Stephanie Lowe, made the announcement via a statement on Instagram. "Huge respect and admiration for our friend Schofe," tweeted fellow ITV presenters Ant and Dec. "Sending love to you P, and your 3 lovely girls ❤️." Dermot O'Leary, David Walliams and James Corden also applauded him. "Takes a lot of guts to do this, not least when you're a very public figure and know it will all be dissected in a very public way," said Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan. "Sending my very best to Schofe and his family." Schofield, who has been married to Lowe for 27 years, said in his statement: "Today, quite rightly, being gay is a reason to celebrate and be proud. … "[Coming out] is my decision. This is absolutely my decision. It was something I knew that I had to do. I don't know what the world will be like now. I don't know how this will be taken or what people will think." But Schofield said he is not ready yet for a relationship with a man.
What a lot of crap. Obviously that is a report of Schofield coming out, not a report about the relationship that led to his sacking.
When people lie so blatantly, it's a pretty reliable diagnostic of prejudice.
Well, it’s a dishonest question, designed to elicit sympathy for an exploiter, because he’s gay.
A producer who acted like this towards a 17 year old girl would certainly be in hot water, if caught.
If the allegations are vaguely like those claimed (see the news reports for details), then what happened wasn’t a relationship between an adult and a 17 year old. It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person.
If you want to accuse people of being dishonest, without any basis, that says something about you.
But what you still seem to be missing - pretty inexplicably - is that the question is not whether "It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person", which may or may not be the case (partly depending on whether you take everything the tabloids say as gospel truth), but whether whatever happened is being judged differently because it was a male celebrity and a male 17-20-year-old, as oppose to a male celebrity and a female 17-20-year old.
In other words, hypocrisy and prejudice.
Yes, it was judged very differently. This is how the BBC reported the story:
Note the missing bit about the young intern, which no-one reported on at the time.
TV presenter Phillip Schofield has received an outpouring of support after revealing he is gay. The 57-year-old, who has two daughters with wife Stephanie Lowe, made the announcement via a statement on Instagram. "Huge respect and admiration for our friend Schofe," tweeted fellow ITV presenters Ant and Dec. "Sending love to you P, and your 3 lovely girls ❤️." Dermot O'Leary, David Walliams and James Corden also applauded him. "Takes a lot of guts to do this, not least when you're a very public figure and know it will all be dissected in a very public way," said Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan. "Sending my very best to Schofe and his family." Schofield, who has been married to Lowe for 27 years, said in his statement: "Today, quite rightly, being gay is a reason to celebrate and be proud. … "[Coming out] is my decision. This is absolutely my decision. It was something I knew that I had to do. I don't know what the world will be like now. I don't know how this will be taken or what people will think." But Schofield said he is not ready yet for a relationship with a man.
What a lot of crap. Obviously that is a report of Schofield coming out, not a report about the relationship that led to his sacking.
When people lie so blatantly, it's a pretty reliable diagnostic of prejudice.
The relationship with the runner was known about at the time of his coming out and there were fairly obvious hints in the public domain. This is an article from the time:
Well, it’s a dishonest question, designed to elicit sympathy for an exploiter, because he’s gay.
A producer who acted like this towards a 17 year old girl would certainly be in hot water, if caught.
If the allegations are vaguely like those claimed (see the news reports for details), then what happened wasn’t a relationship between an adult and a 17 year old. It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person.
If you want to accuse people of being dishonest, without any basis, that says something about you.
But what you still seem to be missing - pretty inexplicably - is that the question is not whether "It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person", which may or may not be the case (partly depending on whether you take everything the tabloids say as gospel truth), but whether whatever happened is being judged differently because it was a male celebrity and a male 17-20-year-old, as oppose to a male celebrity and a female 17-20-year old.
In other words, hypocrisy and prejudice.
Yes, it was judged very differently. This is how the BBC reported the story:
Note the missing bit about the young intern, which no-one reported on at the time.
TV presenter Phillip Schofield has received an outpouring of support after revealing he is gay. The 57-year-old, who has two daughters with wife Stephanie Lowe, made the announcement via a statement on Instagram. "Huge respect and admiration for our friend Schofe," tweeted fellow ITV presenters Ant and Dec. "Sending love to you P, and your 3 lovely girls ❤️." Dermot O'Leary, David Walliams and James Corden also applauded him. "Takes a lot of guts to do this, not least when you're a very public figure and know it will all be dissected in a very public way," said Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan. "Sending my very best to Schofe and his family." Schofield, who has been married to Lowe for 27 years, said in his statement: "Today, quite rightly, being gay is a reason to celebrate and be proud. … "[Coming out] is my decision. This is absolutely my decision. It was something I knew that I had to do. I don't know what the world will be like now. I don't know how this will be taken or what people will think." But Schofield said he is not ready yet for a relationship with a man.
What a lot of crap. Obviously that is a report of Schofield coming out, not a report about the relationship that led to his sacking.
When people lie so blatantly, it's a pretty reliable diagnostic of prejudice.
The whole point is that the coming out story was as a result of the affair with his colleague. It was turned around into a positive story, because the focus was on his coming out, rather than his wife finding out and divorcing him. Schofield was lying when he said it wasn’t a forced decision, because it was absolutely a forced decision.
We know about the timeline, because a comedian and some fringe media people did tell the whole story at the time, and Schofield’s people did a good job of keeping them mostly hiddden. I won’t link to it for legal reasons, but there’s a video on Youtube called “ The REAL reason Phillip Schofield came out as gay now (allegedly).” which tells the whole story as we now know it, but three years ago.
What happened this year, is that the knowledge of the story became more widely known, including to his employers.
Well, it’s a dishonest question, designed to elicit sympathy for an exploiter, because he’s gay.
A producer who acted like this towards a 17 year old girl would certainly be in hot water, if caught.
If the allegations are vaguely like those claimed (see the news reports for details), then what happened wasn’t a relationship between an adult and a 17 year old. It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person.
If you want to accuse people of being dishonest, without any basis, that says something about you.
But what you still seem to be missing - pretty inexplicably - is that the question is not whether "It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person", which may or may not be the case (partly depending on whether you take everything the tabloids say as gospel truth), but whether whatever happened is being judged differently because it was a male celebrity and a male 17-20-year-old, as oppose to a male celebrity and a female 17-20-year old.
In other words, hypocrisy and prejudice.
Yes, it was judged very differently. This is how the BBC reported the story:
Note the missing bit about the young intern, which no-one reported on at the time.
TV presenter Phillip Schofield has received an outpouring of support after revealing he is gay. The 57-year-old, who has two daughters with wife Stephanie Lowe, made the announcement via a statement on Instagram. "Huge respect and admiration for our friend Schofe," tweeted fellow ITV presenters Ant and Dec. "Sending love to you P, and your 3 lovely girls ❤️." Dermot O'Leary, David Walliams and James Corden also applauded him. "Takes a lot of guts to do this, not least when you're a very public figure and know it will all be dissected in a very public way," said Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan. "Sending my very best to Schofe and his family." Schofield, who has been married to Lowe for 27 years, said in his statement: "Today, quite rightly, being gay is a reason to celebrate and be proud. … "[Coming out] is my decision. This is absolutely my decision. It was something I knew that I had to do. I don't know what the world will be like now. I don't know how this will be taken or what people will think." But Schofield said he is not ready yet for a relationship with a man.
What a lot of crap. Obviously that is a report of Schofield coming out, not a report about the relationship that led to his sacking.
When people lie so blatantly, it's a pretty reliable diagnostic of prejudice.
The whole point is that the coming out story was as a result of the affair with his colleague. It was turned around into a positive story, because the focus was on his coming out, rather than his wife finding out and divorcing him. Schofield was lying when he said it wasn’t a forced decision, because it was absolutely a forced decision.
We know about the timeline, because a comedian and some fringe media people did tell the whole story at the time, and Schofield’s people did a good job of keeping them mostly hiddden. I won’t link to it for legal reasons, but there’s a video on Youtube called “ The REAL reason Phillip Schofield came out as gay now (allegedly).” which tells the whole story as we now know it, but three years ago.
What happened this year, is that the knowledge of the story became more widely known, including to his employers.
Schofield took legal action / made complaints to the media regulators to stop any discussion.
Day 4 pitch, 100 runs to go, six wickets left. Should be easy, right?
Right?
Well its a good job England bat deep ;-)
Again that 50 Australia got for the last 2 wickets is absolutely crucial. Blown through those for 10 and we would be talking about England needing 60 now.
We now fast forward to 30 mins after lunch....Ben Stokes is now batting with Stuart Broad, England need 60 & Stokes is going to try and get them all in 6s.
We now fast forward to 30 mins after lunch....Ben Stokes is now batting with Stuart Broad, England need 60 & Stokes is going to try and get them all in 6s.
Alternatively, Brook and Stokes cruise to 230-4 in about 80 untroubled minutes, game over?
So let me get this straight we imposed draconian economic sanctions on ourselves to specifically rid the nation of young EU migrant workers. And it worked like a dream. And now we want to encourage young EU workers back to the UK without reinstating any of the benefits we as a nation and as citizens of Europe cherished and lost by voting to specifically get rid of young migrant workers from the EU.
It’s about discovering Stuart Rose spoke the (unacceptable) truth.
Low end jobs had their wages suppressed by low/zero skill immigration.
Now companies are facing a shortage of people prepared to work for minimum wage (or even less - see piece work). They may even be faced with investing in automation. See all the lunch places which are installing big screen self service tills in London etc…
Bart would come along and demand all the businesses pay lots of wages or go bust - the will of the market. And he's right in the theoretical application of this. But in practice?
There is minimal automation that can remove jobs from manual labour roles, whether they be picking fruit or picking orders or caring for our unwanted elderly or making you a twatty coffee in Starbucks. What there is can't be afforded by these businesses.
So we wither find them low wage labour or we lose all these businesses. "Just pay more" is fine, except that smashes prices ever higher and people can't afford stuff as it is.
We need a wholesale redrawing of the corporate taxation map. Only give companies low taxes if they pay and invest more. But we can't do that as socialism or whatever. So we let Starbucks both pay starvation wages and pay no taxes.
In theory and in practice, yes.
Most businesses fail. The idea that no business can be allowed to fail is complete balderdash, in fact in practice not just a minority, not just a majority, but actually three quarters of businesses go out of business before their 15th anniversary.
If the most productive businesses, the ones willing and able to invest in automation, are the ones which survive then that's how we get a more productive future and are able to afford better wages and generate more taxes for the public sector too.
The end of this match is going to annoyingly coincide with the Grand Prix.
I am sure the eco-fascists will delay it in some way, so you should be ok.
The motorsport community has made it very clear, that they should keep away from SIlverstone today.
They’ve beefed up security, including a lot of plain clothes, and many of the fans attending have been somewhat forthright, as to what fate awaits any soap-dodgers that try and disrupt their afternoon. Let’s just say that they are less than happy, that the judge gave suspended sentences to last year’s lot of idiots.
Why is the BBC continuing to have an unnamed star accused of being a sexual predator on air a much bigger story than the Tories allowing an unnamed MP accused of rape to be a candidate at the next GE? Both seem equally appalling to me.
Why is the BBC continuing to have an unnamed star accused of being a sexual predator on air a much bigger story than the Tories allowing an unnamed MP accused of rape to be a candidate at the next GE? Both seem equally appalling to me.
Reason 1: The BBC loves nothing more than talking about the BBC.
So let me get this straight we imposed draconian economic sanctions on ourselves to specifically rid the nation of young EU migrant workers. And it worked like a dream. And now we want to encourage young EU workers back to the UK without reinstating any of the benefits we as a nation and as citizens of Europe cherished and lost by voting to specifically get rid of young migrant workers from the EU.
It’s about discovering Stuart Rose spoke the (unacceptable) truth.
Low end jobs had their wages suppressed by low/zero skill immigration.
Now companies are facing a shortage of people prepared to work for minimum wage (or even less - see piece work). They may even be faced with investing in automation. See all the lunch places which are installing big screen self service tills in London etc…
Bart would come along and demand all the businesses pay lots of wages or go bust - the will of the market. And he's right in the theoretical application of this. But in practice?
There is minimal automation that can remove jobs from manual labour roles, whether they be picking fruit or picking orders or caring for our unwanted elderly or making you a twatty coffee in Starbucks. What there is can't be afforded by these businesses.
So we wither find them low wage labour or we lose all these businesses. "Just pay more" is fine, except that smashes prices ever higher and people can't afford stuff as it is.
We need a wholesale redrawing of the corporate taxation map. Only give companies low taxes if they pay and invest more. But we can't do that as socialism or whatever. So we let Starbucks both pay starvation wages and pay no taxes.
In theory and in practice, yes.
Most businesses fail. The idea that no business can be allowed to fail is complete balderdash, in fact in practice not just a minority, not just a majority, but actually three quarters of businesses go out of business before their 15th anniversary.
If the most productive businesses, the ones willing and able to invest in automation, are the ones which survive then that's how we get a more productive future and are able to afford better wages and generate more taxes for the public sector too.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest.
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
Day 4 pitch, 100 runs to go, six wickets left. Should be easy, right?
Right?
Well its a good job England bat deep ;-)
Again that 50 Australia got for the last 2 wickets is absolutely crucial. Blown through those for 10 and we would be talking about England needing 60 now.
Once again may I recommend a small investment on the tie at 85/1. It has to be close, and at the very least it will relieve the tedium of watching Stokes trying to get them in sixes.
Well, it’s a dishonest question, designed to elicit sympathy for an exploiter, because he’s gay.
A producer who acted like this towards a 17 year old girl would certainly be in hot water, if caught.
If the allegations are vaguely like those claimed (see the news reports for details), then what happened wasn’t a relationship between an adult and a 17 year old. It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person.
If you want to accuse people of being dishonest, without any basis, that says something about you.
But what you still seem to be missing - pretty inexplicably - is that the question is not whether "It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person", which may or may not be the case (partly depending on whether you take everything the tabloids say as gospel truth), but whether whatever happened is being judged differently because it was a male celebrity and a male 17-20-year-old, as oppose to a male celebrity and a female 17-20-year old.
In other words, hypocrisy and prejudice.
Yes, it was judged very differently. This is how the BBC reported the story:
Note the missing bit about the young intern, which no-one reported on at the time.
TV presenter Phillip Schofield has received an outpouring of support after revealing he is gay. The 57-year-old, who has two daughters with wife Stephanie Lowe, made the announcement via a statement on Instagram. "Huge respect and admiration for our friend Schofe," tweeted fellow ITV presenters Ant and Dec. "Sending love to you P, and your 3 lovely girls ❤️." Dermot O'Leary, David Walliams and James Corden also applauded him. "Takes a lot of guts to do this, not least when you're a very public figure and know it will all be dissected in a very public way," said Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan. "Sending my very best to Schofe and his family." Schofield, who has been married to Lowe for 27 years, said in his statement: "Today, quite rightly, being gay is a reason to celebrate and be proud. … "[Coming out] is my decision. This is absolutely my decision. It was something I knew that I had to do. I don't know what the world will be like now. I don't know how this will be taken or what people will think." But Schofield said he is not ready yet for a relationship with a man.
What a lot of crap. Obviously that is a report of Schofield coming out, not a report about the relationship that led to his sacking.
When people lie so blatantly, it's a pretty reliable diagnostic of prejudice.
The whole point is that the coming out story was as a result of the affair with his colleague. It was turned around into a positive story, because the focus was on his coming out, rather than his wife finding out and divorcing him. Schofield was lying when he said it wasn’t a forced decision, because it was absolutely a forced decision.
We know about the timeline, because a comedian and some fringe media people did tell the whole story at the time, and Schofield’s people did a good job of keeping them mostly hiddden. I won’t link to it for legal reasons, but there’s a video on Youtube called “ The REAL reason Phillip Schofield came out as gay now (allegedly).” which tells the whole story as we now know it, but three years ago.
What happened this year, is that the knowledge of the story became more widely known, including to his employers.
Schofield took legal action / made complaints to the media regulators to stop any discussion.
Well, one has to say - when one sees a lot of featherbrains on the Internet trying, convicting and condemning someone on the basis of a single allegation in a tabloid newspaper, without any thought whatsoever about due process - perhaps there is something to be said for complaints about the media.
Comments
He survived just 15 balls
God has a bit of a breakdown and re-writes the entire manual on worshipping himself based on his sons ideas. Then hands the franchise to the biggest asshole among his sons buddies…
Does leave the tabloids with an aching expectation though.
In one previous case, a police officer was genuinely confused, when in court, it was suggested that this was leaking confidential information to the press. He honestly believed that calling the press was the next thing you did after getting the warrant. Standard procedure….
And when talking of growth in per capita income there is only one source, namely technological progress. But whether we need to push the technological frontier out ourselves is moot. Plenty of other countries get their growth by adopting best practice from advances made elsewhere. Indeed in the invention/innovation world there is often a first-mover disadvantage.
But what you still seem to be missing - pretty inexplicably - is that the question is not whether "It was a grotesque taking advantage of a vulnerable person", which may or may not be the case (partly depending on whether you take everything the tabloids say as gospel truth), but whether whatever happened is being judged differently because it was a male celebrity and a male 17-20-year-old, as oppose to a male celebrity and a female 17-20-year old.
In other words, hypocrisy and prejudice.
Note the missing bit about the young intern, which no-one reported on at the time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-51414010
TV presenter Phillip Schofield has received an outpouring of support after revealing he is gay.
The 57-year-old, who has two daughters with wife Stephanie Lowe, made the announcement via a statement on Instagram.
"Huge respect and admiration for our friend Schofe," tweeted fellow ITV presenters Ant and Dec. "Sending love to you P, and your 3 lovely girls ❤️."
Dermot O'Leary, David Walliams and James Corden also applauded him.
"Takes a lot of guts to do this, not least when you're a very public figure and know it will all be dissected in a very public way," said Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan. "Sending my very best to Schofe and his family."
Schofield, who has been married to Lowe for 27 years, said in his statement: "Today, quite rightly, being gay is a reason to celebrate and be proud.
…
"[Coming out] is my decision. This is absolutely my decision. It was something I knew that I had to do. I don't know what the world will be like now. I don't know how this will be taken or what people will think."
But Schofield said he is not ready yet for a relationship with a man.
If you look at red ball scores this summer, its all failed / old England players e.g. Vince, Jennings, Cook, Lees that scored the runs.
When people lie so blatantly, it's a pretty reliable diagnostic of prejudice.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7991617/Phillip-Schofield-STOPPED-Dancing-Ice-rehearsals-sexuality.html
The source added that Schofield would openly socialise with the other gay men on This Morning, often taking them 'under his wing'.
Schofield would support men struggling to cope with their sexuality, including one runner who he ended up mentoring.
"Just Stop Oil leader sitting on a pension worth £1m.
From Shell.
Of course he fucking is."
https://twitter.com/cold957/status/1677943038197518336?s=20
We know about the timeline, because a comedian and some fringe media people did tell the whole story at the time, and Schofield’s people did a good job of keeping them mostly hiddden. I won’t link to it for legal reasons, but there’s a video on Youtube called “ The REAL reason Phillip Schofield came out as gay now (allegedly).” which tells the whole story as we now know it, but three years ago.
What happened this year, is that the knowledge of the story became more widely known, including to his employers.
Right?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-clarkson-starmers-talking-out-of-his-oracy-teach-kids-to-change-a-tyre-zvbq7zq0b
Again that 50 Australia got for the last 2 wickets is absolutely crucial. Blown through those for 10 and we would be talking about England needing 60 now.
They didn't play much yesterday.
Day 3 pitch
Or six wickets.
But this is not normal
So everyone else needs to scrape 48. Between them
But if Stokes goes early...
Most businesses fail. The idea that no business can be allowed to fail is complete balderdash, in fact in practice not just a minority, not just a majority, but actually three quarters of businesses go out of business before their 15th anniversary.
If the most productive businesses, the ones willing and able to invest in automation, are the ones which survive then that's how we get a more productive future and are able to afford better wages and generate more taxes for the public sector too.
They’ve beefed up security, including a lot of plain clothes, and many of the fans attending have been somewhat forthright, as to what fate awaits any soap-dodgers that try and disrupt their afternoon. Let’s just say that they are less than happy, that the judge gave suspended sentences to last year’s lot of idiots.
Reason 2: See Reason 1.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest.
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
NEW THREAD