So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Could Starmer do the Tories what Labour did to the Liberals in the 20th century?
No, as only around 10-15% of 2019 Conservative voters are voting Starmer Labour, more back RefUK or are DK than have switched to Labour.
Whereas Labour took most Liberal votes in the early 20th century, helped too by winning lots of new working class voters who could vote for the first time from 1918.
The only party which could overtake the Tories is ReformUK, as Labour was the only party which could overtake the Liberals
You seem quite comfortable with Refuk displacing the Tories. Why?
It was clear early today something wasn't quite as reported as quite a lot of in the know media types were being uncommonly "understanding" e.g. kelvin McKenzie.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
"Inappropriate" is a very relative term; others may think that what you or I may think is 'inappropriate' is absolutely fine, and vice versa. To complicate matters, there is a legal side to it, and then the moral - the latter of which we can all disagree on.
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
I guess the mother is claiming a crime took place when the person was 17 and therefore a child in relation to the particular law at the time it took place and that gives her some standing?
Am I right in that the presenter having sex with a 17 year old would have been legal, but paying for the photo would not have been? If so such age limits should surely be merged - why are they different and why that way around?
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
Yup suspecting mother and son had a falling out, son moved out and mother misses her meal ticket so trying to get a payout. Don't however see a case if accused and supposed victim both agree nothing improper happened
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
The Sun made it clear in basically article the mother did not demand nor was paid a fee.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Supposedly she said the money was going on drugs, most people would be rather upset about that
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
The Sun made it clear in basically article the mother did not demand nor was paid a fee.
So her motive is what if her son is saying he wasnt exploited?
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
The Sun made it clear in basically article the mother did not demand nor was paid a fee.
I know of one case where no fee was paid but the interviewee was put up in a four star hotel for a week.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
SUN said she took nothing for the story so does not sound like it.
"Inappropriate" is a very relative term; others may think that what you or I may think is 'inappropriate' is absolutely fine, and vice versa. To complicate matters, there is a legal side to it, and then the moral - the latter of which we can all disagree on.
Also, what looks like a family in a mess. A mother who doesn't approve of their grown up children's choices and needs someone to blame.
Tale as old as time, and not one that ends well.
Though is The Sun have terminally messed up on a story, there will be schadenfreude for all. I don't think "Sorry Elton!" will wash this time.
Could Starmer do the Tories what Labour did to the Liberals in the 20th century?
18 months out yet.
Are you trying to lull lefties into a false sense of security so they don't bother to turnout and you get another magnificent majority?
Should also be pointed out it was really the expansion of the franchise that saw the Liberals fall to 3rd.
As soon as all working class men could vote in 1918 and by 1930 all working class women too then the Labour Party overtook them as the Liberals were unable to appeal much beyond the middle classes who could already mostly vote by 1918 to the newly enfranchised working class.
The Tories were however able to appeal to some of the working classes on a platform of patriotic nationalism and increased prosperity while Labour became the party for most of the working class on a platform of redistribution of wealth and the support of the Trades Unions.
The Liberals unfortunately for them were never able to appeal to working class voters in sufficient numbers to remain in the top 2 parties and even lost some of their middle class voters to the Conservatives to keep out Labour socialism.
Even now the Liberal Democrats seats today are mainly middle class areas like Bath, Richmond Park, West Oxford, Chesham and Amersham, St Albans and West Edinburgh. Their vote in working class areas like Bolsover, West Bromwich, Sedgefield, Stoke and Basildon and Thanet is neglible
It was clear early today something wasn't quite as reported as quite a lot of in the know media types were being uncommonly "understanding" e.g. kelvin McKenzie.
But I sincerely hope we can continue to kick the BBC for not 'acting' without our having any actual clear knowledge of the situation. It just wouldn't be right otherwise.
Or perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, we could just hold fire a little.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
If this was my 17 year old son, and [redacted], I'd be bloody livid irrespective of the 17 yo's view of the matter. I wouldn't go to the Sun, obv, but I would probably send a pretty stiff letter to the editor of the Spectator.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
Yup suspecting mother and son had a falling out, son moved out and mother misses her meal ticket so trying to get a payout. Don't however see a case if accused and supposed victim both agree nothing improper happened
The Sun
'We have reported a story about two concerned parents who made complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of presenter and the welfare of their child
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
Yup suspecting mother and son had a falling out, son moved out and mother misses her meal ticket so trying to get a payout. Don't however see a case if accused and supposed victim both agree nothing improper happened
The Sun
'We have reported a story about two concerned parents who made complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of presenter and the welfare of their child
Plus if he's spending the dosh on crack that is very regrettable but not particularly the paying party's fault.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
SUN said she took nothing for the story so does not sound like it.
So just complete and utter stupidity by the mother then...
"Inappropriate" is a very relative term; others may think that what you or I may think is 'inappropriate' is absolutely fine, and vice versa. To complicate matters, there is a legal side to it, and then the moral - the latter of which we can all disagree on.
You absolutely do not want me judging what is appropriate and inappropriate.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
SUN said she took nothing for the story so does not sound like it.
So just complete and utter stupidity by the mother then...
Well the reports are the young person is a drug addict, which would drive any parent to the edge.
The general story of pay for play can be true, while nothing illegal / inappropriate, as in the young person did this as a job post 18 only OnlyFans or they were in a relationship and the young person doesn't believe they were exploited in any way.
And the mother has fallen out with their child and got wrong edge of the stick.
Its going to have to be put up or shut up from Sun.
SirNorfolkPassmore said: "John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.
He had a lot going for him, but it was a pretty reckless move."
Perhaps 1 percent of Americans would agree with me, but I think Noemie Emery had it right in 2008, when she said that both Obama and Palin had promise -- but that neither was ready to be president. (Sadly, the unfair treatment Palin received from much of our media seems to have stunted her growth. And Obama seems to have learned little from his failures.)
I think you can argue Obama got it too early. But putting him in the same category as Palin, and saying the media coverage "stunted her growth" is crackers.
She was 48 years old when she ran for VP. She'd been a governor for six years. She was just a really bad candidate who had a poor grasp of the national issues and couldn't hack it, and McCain f***ed up the due diligence. Even after the campaign, she could've salvaged her reputation through a swift return to office, but choose to mess about on the media and a messy personal life, before botching her comeback last year, losing to a Democrat in a deep red state. Ultimately, she was and is a bit of a fool, rather than someone who simply should've been left to marinate for a few more years.
It's notable that Republicans decrying Obama's unfitness for the presidency gloss over the fitness - and legacy - of his predecessor. Iraq was a foreign policy disaster well beyond the (undoubted) mistakes made by Obama, As were other aspects of the Bush legacy.
A fateful summit 15 years ago hangs over the NATO meeting in Vilnius https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/10/bucharest-2008-nato-summit-history-vilnius-putin-georgia-ukraine-membership/ The antecedents to the Russian invasion of Ukraine arguably lie in a NATO summit 15 years ago. Leaders at the 2008 meeting of the Western military alliance in the Romanian capital, Bucharest, failed to find unanimity on whether to grant membership to former Soviet republics Georgia and Ukraine. The two countries were offered a vague commitment of entering the alliance at some point in the future, with no established plan regarding how or when that could be achieved.
The halfhearted gesture reflected division within the West at the time. On one side, you had the administration of President George W. Bush, deeply unpopular abroad after the ruinous war in Iraq and eking out its final year in office, which sought to offer the two countries a formal NATO “Membership Action Plan.” On the other, a clutch of Western European governments, led by Germany and its chancellor, Angela Merkel, believed that neither Georgia nor Ukraine were politically ready to enter the alliance and looked askance at initiatives that may “poke the bear” of the Kremlin.
Their disagreement yielded an outcome that satisfied few. Depending on who you listen to, the summit in Bucharest made Georgia and Ukraine targets for Russian invasion either because it provoked Russian President Vladimir Putin into taking action against the threat of NATO on his border or because it precisely failed to clearly extend NATO’s collective security protections to these states. Just a few months later, Russian forces seized the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, installing puppet regimes that few outside Moscow recognize to this day. In 2014, after protests brought down a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv, Ukraine, Russia illegally annexed Crimea and backed a separatist insurgency in Ukraine’s southeast.
Fifteen years ago, Putin was present in Bucharest, on NATO’s invitation, and is said to have privately told Bush then that he didn’t see Ukraine as a “real nation-state.” In a speech he delivered to the NATO crowd, he described membership in the alliance for Georgia and Ukraine as a “direct threat” to Russia. He also spoke of Ukraine as a Soviet invention and cast doubt on its sovereignty, suggesting a major chunk of its population were simply “Russians” and that Crimea itself was almost exclusively Russian...
Really not sure why you are using this example as a means to criticise Bush. According to that excerpt,. Bush was very much in favour oif moving Ukraine and Georgia towards NATO membership and it was the European allies who were opposed. In that instance in my eyes Bush was absolutely right.
Everyone seems to forget that back in 2004 the pro-Russian candidate tried to steal the Ukrainian election, whilst the pro-western one was poisoned. Naturally Putin was seen celebrating with the fake winner.
Just as the Ukrainian population did not want an association agreement with Russia in 2013, it isn't clear that there would have been much support for joining Nato in 2008.
The Kremlin had been interfering in Ukrainian affairs ever since 1991. It's almost as though they didn't believe it was an independent country. They finally threw their toys out of the pram when it became clear the Ukrainian population had had enough of their interference.
32% for Sunak still higher than most of the current Tory voteshares though
Never change, HYUFD, never change. The world would lose a unique voice.
Getting more unique by the week, if the polls are to be believed.
Things are either unique, or they are not. They cannot be somewhat unique.
#pedanticbetting.com
Could you explain that more simply, using less words?
Just like you can't be more dead, you can't be more unique.
Joke (less invites correction to fewer)
Never been convinced about this anyway. Leaving aside subatomic particles everything that exists is unique if you specify its location at time T, so the word is useless. Conversely if you ask who is more unique out of me and Jeanne Louise Calment, you would get pretty much 100% convergence on one answer rather than the other.
Relevant to the discussions on the previous thread? Possibly: "A person's biological sex can likely be detected from their hand odor, researchers at Florida International University (FIU) found in a recent study.
Why it matters: The research could be applied to forensic investigations and eventually be developed into a rapid-testing device for crime scenes."
Enough of the odor for the test lasts for about a day, in lab conditions.
"Inappropriate" is a very relative term; others may think that what you or I may think is 'inappropriate' is absolutely fine, and vice versa. To complicate matters, there is a legal side to it, and then the moral - the latter of which we can all disagree on.
You absolutely do not want me judging what is appropriate and inappropriate.
Could Starmer do the Tories what Labour did to the Liberals in the 20th century?
But Lab and the Liberals were both left wing parties. if the Cons were going to be replaced, it would surely be by another right wing party.
Starmer gobbles up centrist Tories as the Tories move further right in opposition.
Or worse than that, Starmer gobbles up the social conservatives in the red wall and Ed Davey feasts on the wealthy liberals in the blue wall.
The triumph of 2019 was holding both those groups in the blue tent at once. The disaster of 2024 (and maybe 2029) is based on managing to repulse both groups simultaneously.
Once you fall from second place to third, FPTP is brutal. I don't see it happening this time, but there's far too big a risk of it happening next time.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
Yup suspecting mother and son had a falling out, son moved out and mother misses her meal ticket so trying to get a payout. Don't however see a case if accused and supposed victim both agree nothing improper happened
"Suspecting"
There're issues here; AIUI some of the Rochdale / Rotherham victims did not understand what was going on until they were much older. Some complained, nothing happened, so they assumed it was okay.
Also don't assume that the alleged victim does not expect a payment for his comments; or see his income strand reduced.
But my assumption is that it's a much lesser situation than the Schofield one.
Could Starmer do the Tories what Labour did to the Liberals in the 20th century?
But Lab and the Liberals were both left wing parties. if the Cons were going to be replaced, it would surely be by another right wing party.
Starmer gobbles up centrist Tories as the Tories move further right in opposition.
Or worse than that, Starmer gobbles up the social conservatives in the red wall and Ed Davey feasts on the wealthy liberals in the blue wall.
The triumph of 2019 was holding both those groups in the blue tent at once. The disaster of 2024 (and maybe 2029) is based on managing to repulse both groups simultaneously.
Once you fall from second place to third, FPTP is brutal. I don't see it happening this time, but there's far too big a risk of it happening next time.
Liberals 1924 - 116 seats lost, or just about 75% of the parliamentary party.
They haven't topped seventy seats since, and only twice gone above 60.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
Yup suspecting mother and son had a falling out, son moved out and mother misses her meal ticket so trying to get a payout. Don't however see a case if accused and supposed victim both agree nothing improper happened
"Suspecting"
There're issues here; AIUI some of the Rochdale / Rotherham victims did not understand what was going on until they were much older. Some complained, nothing happened, so they assumed it was okay.
Also don't assume that the alleged victim does not expect a payment for his comments; or see his income strand reduced.
But my assumption is that it's a much lesser situation than the Schofield one.
Schofield's lover didn't ever cash in nor appeared to want to get back at him. Rather sounds like he was heartbroken rather than feeling of being exploited or anything inappropriate happened.
Don't think IDing the correct person as the subject of the story is too much to worry about, if the story then changed a bit. Plus I haven't seen the right person named on twitter.
"Inappropriate" is a very relative term; others may think that what you or I may think is 'inappropriate' is absolutely fine, and vice versa. To complicate matters, there is a legal side to it, and then the moral - the latter of which we can all disagree on.
You absolutely do not want me judging what is appropriate and inappropriate.
Except for pizzas.
I was talking about moral hygiene in that contest.
Could Starmer do the Tories what Labour did to the Liberals in the 20th century?
But Lab and the Liberals were both left wing parties. if the Cons were going to be replaced, it would surely be by another right wing party.
Starmer gobbles up centrist Tories as the Tories move further right in opposition.
Or worse than that, Starmer gobbles up the social conservatives in the red wall and Ed Davey feasts on the wealthy liberals in the blue wall.
The triumph of 2019 was holding both those groups in the blue tent at once. The disaster of 2024 (and maybe 2029) is based on managing to repulse both groups simultaneously.
Once you fall from second place to third, FPTP is brutal. I don't see it happening this time, but there's far too big a risk of it happening next time.
The Tories are currently losing 18% of their 2019 voters to RefUK with Yougov and only 17% to Starmer Labour, so if anything social conservatives are going more to Reform than Labour.
Under Sunak the Tories have actually gained 3% of 2019 LDs but only lost 4% to the LDs, so little difference
As I said and people on here continue to ignore the ONLY party that can replace the Tories, certainly on voteshare, is Reform UK.
Just look at the trend currently in Europe, from the AfD to Le Pen's Party to Meloni's to Vox to the Sweden Democrats, even the Farmers in the Netherlands not to mention Trump in the US (or the populist Reform in Canada when they overtook the Canadian Tories in 1993).
The only party which could and would replace the Tories is a nastier, harder right, more nationalist, firmer anti immigrant party reaching even further into the white working classes in particular.
"Inappropriate" is a very relative term; others may think that what you or I may think is 'inappropriate' is absolutely fine, and vice versa. To complicate matters, there is a legal side to it, and then the moral - the latter of which we can all disagree on.
You absolutely do not want me judging what is appropriate and inappropriate.
Except for pizzas.
Well TSE has already judged inappropriately as to what constitutes a Christmas film. Yippee ki-yay.
Jon Sopel @jonsopel . @TheSun has made the most serious allegations about a BBC presenter. Now needs to provide evidence or potentially face the mother of all libel actions
Jon Sopel @jonsopel . @TheSun has made the most serious allegations about a BBC presenter. Now needs to provide evidence or potentially face the mother of all libel actions
BBC News website reports the Sun / family handed over a dossier of evidence to the BBC management at the weekend.
Could Starmer do the Tories what Labour did to the Liberals in the 20th century?
But Lab and the Liberals were both left wing parties. if the Cons were going to be replaced, it would surely be by another right wing party.
Starmer gobbles up centrist Tories as the Tories move further right in opposition.
Or worse than that, Starmer gobbles up the social conservatives in the red wall and Ed Davey feasts on the wealthy liberals in the blue wall.
The triumph of 2019 was holding both those groups in the blue tent at once. The disaster of 2024 (and maybe 2029) is based on managing to repulse both groups simultaneously.
Once you fall from second place to third, FPTP is brutal. I don't see it happening this time, but there's far too big a risk of it happening next time.
The Tories are currently losing 18% of their 2019 voters to RefUK and only 17% to Starmer Labour, so if anything social conservatives are going more to Reform than Labour.
Under Sunak the Tories have actually gained 3% of 2019 LDs but only lost 4% to the LDs, so little difference
As I said and people on here continue to ignore the ONLY party that can replace the Tories, certainly on voteshare, is Reform UK.
Just look at the trend currently in Europe, from the AfD to Le Pen's Party to Meloni's to Vox to the Sweden Democrats, even the Farmers in the Netherlands not to mention Trump in the US.
The only party which could and would replace the Tories is a nastier, harder right, more nationalist harder anti immigrant party.
It certainly ain't going to be the LDs
Do you really want that? I don't.
I may not be a fan of the Tories, but back in the day they were a whole lot more palatable that the Franco-lite alternative you seem to be promoting.
Jon Sopel @jonsopel . @TheSun has made the most serious allegations about a BBC presenter. Now needs to provide evidence or potentially face the mother of all libel actions
Given everything News Corp went through with phone hacking, you'd think they would be super careful before publishing a story like this.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
Yup suspecting mother and son had a falling out, son moved out and mother misses her meal ticket so trying to get a payout. Don't however see a case if accused and supposed victim both agree nothing improper happened
Could Starmer do the Tories what Labour did to the Liberals in the 20th century?
But Lab and the Liberals were both left wing parties. if the Cons were going to be replaced, it would surely be by another right wing party.
Starmer gobbles up centrist Tories as the Tories move further right in opposition.
Or worse than that, Starmer gobbles up the social conservatives in the red wall and Ed Davey feasts on the wealthy liberals in the blue wall.
The triumph of 2019 was holding both those groups in the blue tent at once. The disaster of 2024 (and maybe 2029) is based on managing to repulse both groups simultaneously.
Once you fall from second place to third, FPTP is brutal. I don't see it happening this time, but there's far too big a risk of it happening next time.
Liberals 1924 - 116 seats lost, or just about 75% of the parliamentary party.
They haven't topped seventy seats since, and only twice gone above 60.
A curious feature of the Liberals is between 1918-29 they won 303 seats at least once, but couldn’t defend more than 120 or so often.
Could Starmer do the Tories what Labour did to the Liberals in the 20th century?
But Lab and the Liberals were both left wing parties. if the Cons were going to be replaced, it would surely be by another right wing party.
Starmer gobbles up centrist Tories as the Tories move further right in opposition.
Or worse than that, Starmer gobbles up the social conservatives in the red wall and Ed Davey feasts on the wealthy liberals in the blue wall.
The triumph of 2019 was holding both those groups in the blue tent at once. The disaster of 2024 (and maybe 2029) is based on managing to repulse both groups simultaneously.
Once you fall from second place to third, FPTP is brutal. I don't see it happening this time, but there's far too big a risk of it happening next time.
The Tories are currently losing 18% of their 2019 voters to RefUK and only 17% to Starmer Labour, so if anything social conservatives are going more to Reform than Labour.
Under Sunak the Tories have actually gained 3% of 2019 LDs but only lost 4% to the LDs, so little difference
As I said and people on here continue to ignore the ONLY party that can replace the Tories, certainly on voteshare, is Reform UK.
Just look at the trend currently in Europe, from the AfD to Le Pen's Party to Meloni's to Vox to the Sweden Democrats, even the Farmers in the Netherlands not to mention Trump in the US.
The only party which could and would replace the Tories is a nastier, harder right, more nationalist harder anti immigrant party.
It certainly ain't going to be the LDs
Do you really want that? I don't.
I may not be a fan of the Tories, but back in the day they were a whole lot more palatable that the Franco-lite alternative you seem to be promoting.
I am not promoting it but that is what you will get if a party overtakes the Tories as the main alternative to Labour. It will be a harder white, nationalist more working class party of the right and unashamedly populist and you won't like it at all and would soon even be missing the Sunak Tories deeply
Jon Sopel @jonsopel . @TheSun has made the most serious allegations about a BBC presenter. Now needs to provide evidence or potentially face the mother of all libel actions
Given everything News Corp went through with phone hacking, you'd think they would be super careful before publishing a story like this.
How can they be accused of libelling someone anonymously?
Jon Sopel @jonsopel . @TheSun has made the most serious allegations about a BBC presenter. Now needs to provide evidence or potentially face the mother of all libel actions
Given everything News Corp went through with phone hacking, you'd think they would be super careful before publishing a story like this.
Where it could be very "problematic" is young person does OnlyFans, BBC preseneter has memberships, so gets to see murky pictures. Now the claim from mother was sharing of images at 17, which is illegal. However if the young person did it from 18, BBC presenter paid for personalised images, its not illegal or inappropriate.
Then mother goes to the Currant Bun and aays see BBC preseneter is a member, look these murky pictures were sent back and forth.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
Yup suspecting mother and son had a falling out, son moved out and mother misses her meal ticket so trying to get a payout. Don't however see a case if accused and supposed victim both agree nothing improper happened
"Suspecting"
There're issues here; AIUI some of the Rochdale / Rotherham victims did not understand what was going on until they were much older. Some complained, nothing happened, so they assumed it was okay.
Also don't assume that the alleged victim does not expect a payment for his comments; or see his income strand reduced.
But my assumption is that it's a much lesser situation than the Schofield one.
Schofield's lover didn't ever cash in nor appeared to want to get back at him. Rather sounds like he was heartbroken rather than feeling of being exploited or anything inappropriate happened.
The problem is that there was a power differential. Schofield was a rich and powerful man, admired by many. The boy was quite the opposite. Perhaps - and I really doubt it - Schofield's motivations were as pure as snow that has not been near a reindeer. But the power differential was there, and so was a massive potential for abuse.
No level of tactical voting will give the party on 9% more seats than the party on 28%.
2019 General Election:
SNP 3.9%, 48 seats Lib Dems 11.6%, 11 seats
That's an extreme example, sure. But FPTP puts a huge premium on how concentrated your vote is in certain seats. (See also the way that a smallish fall in SNP vote share utterly kippers them in seats.)
32% for Sunak still higher than most of the current Tory voteshares though
Never change, HYUFD, never change. The world would lose a unique voice.
Getting more unique by the week, if the polls are to be believed.
Things are either unique, or they are not. They cannot be somewhat unique.
#pedanticbetting.com
Could you explain that more simply, using less words?
Just like you can't be more dead, you can't be more unique.
Joke (less invites correction to fewer)
Never been convinced about this anyway. Leaving aside subatomic particles everything that exists is unique if you specify its location at time T, so the word is useless. Conversely if you ask who is more unique out of me and Jeanne Louise Calment, you would get pretty much 100% convergence on one answer rather than the other.
I thought I heard a faint whooshing noise.
I suppose if you want to be really pedantic, everything in the universe is unique.
Even entangled quantum particles have different locations (probably).
Could Starmer do the Tories what Labour did to the Liberals in the 20th century?
But Lab and the Liberals were both left wing parties. if the Cons were going to be replaced, it would surely be by another right wing party.
Starmer gobbles up centrist Tories as the Tories move further right in opposition.
Or worse than that, Starmer gobbles up the social conservatives in the red wall and Ed Davey feasts on the wealthy liberals in the blue wall.
The triumph of 2019 was holding both those groups in the blue tent at once. The disaster of 2024 (and maybe 2029) is based on managing to repulse both groups simultaneously.
Once you fall from second place to third, FPTP is brutal. I don't see it happening this time, but there's far too big a risk of it happening next time.
The Tories are currently losing 18% of their 2019 voters to RefUK and only 17% to Starmer Labour, so if anything social conservatives are going more to Reform than Labour.
Under Sunak the Tories have actually gained 3% of 2019 LDs but only lost 4% to the LDs, so little difference
As I said and people on here continue to ignore the ONLY party that can replace the Tories, certainly on voteshare, is Reform UK.
Just look at the trend currently in Europe, from the AfD to Le Pen's Party to Meloni's to Vox to the Sweden Democrats, even the Farmers in the Netherlands not to mention Trump in the US.
The only party which could and would replace the Tories is a nastier, harder right, more nationalist harder anti immigrant party.
It certainly ain't going to be the LDs
Do you really want that? I don't.
I may not be a fan of the Tories, but back in the day they were a whole lot more palatable that the Franco-lite alternative you seem to be promoting.
I am not promoting it but that is what you will get if a party overtakes the Tories as the main alternative to Labour. It will be a harder white, nationalist more working class party of the right and unashamedly populist and you won't like it at all and would soon even be missing the Sunak Tories deeply
Even though this Government is s***e do you advocate we vote for them anyway to keep those with even more intolerant policies than Suella at bay?
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
SUN said she took nothing for the story so does not sound like it.
And we’re supposed to believe the Suns version of events .
Can you libel someone if you don't name them or provide sufficient clues as to identity?
It's a question of fact and the identification does not have to be to the general public. The claimant must prove that the words complained of were published about him/her. The publication does not have to name the person being defamed only that s/he could be identified by some people acquainted with the claimant. If identification, or reference, is disputed, the general test is whether reasonable people (even just some reasonable people) would understand the words to refer to the claimant. The test is an objective one. Whether the publisher intended to refer to the claimant is irrelevant.
I fucking hate the word "claimant". Will never forgive Woolf for dumping "plaintiff".
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
Yup suspecting mother and son had a falling out, son moved out and mother misses her meal ticket so trying to get a payout. Don't however see a case if accused and supposed victim both agree nothing improper happened
"Suspecting"
There're issues here; AIUI some of the Rochdale / Rotherham victims did not understand what was going on until they were much older. Some complained, nothing happened, so they assumed it was okay.
Also don't assume that the alleged victim does not expect a payment for his comments; or see his income strand reduced.
But my assumption is that it's a much lesser situation than the Schofield one.
Schofield's lover didn't ever cash in nor appeared to want to get back at him. Rather sounds like he was heartbroken rather than feeling of being exploited or anything inappropriate happened.
The problem is that there was a power differential. Schofield was a rich and powerful man, admired by many. The boy was quite the opposite. Perhaps - and I really doubt it - Schofield's motivations were as pure as snow that has not been near a reindeer. But the power differential was there, and so was a massive potential for abuse.
Grooming exists.
Yes understand. My point was what the young man would have said & actually seems like they never wanted the story coming out... certainly not interested talking to the newspapers or cashing in.
Could Starmer do the Tories what Labour did to the Liberals in the 20th century?
But Lab and the Liberals were both left wing parties. if the Cons were going to be replaced, it would surely be by another right wing party.
Starmer gobbles up centrist Tories as the Tories move further right in opposition.
Or worse than that, Starmer gobbles up the social conservatives in the red wall and Ed Davey feasts on the wealthy liberals in the blue wall.
The triumph of 2019 was holding both those groups in the blue tent at once. The disaster of 2024 (and maybe 2029) is based on managing to repulse both groups simultaneously.
Once you fall from second place to third, FPTP is brutal. I don't see it happening this time, but there's far too big a risk of it happening next time.
The Tories are currently losing 18% of their 2019 voters to RefUK and only 17% to Starmer Labour, so if anything social conservatives are going more to Reform than Labour.
Under Sunak the Tories have actually gained 3% of 2019 LDs but only lost 4% to the LDs, so little difference
As I said and people on here continue to ignore the ONLY party that can replace the Tories, certainly on voteshare, is Reform UK.
Just look at the trend currently in Europe, from the AfD to Le Pen's Party to Meloni's to Vox to the Sweden Democrats, even the Farmers in the Netherlands not to mention Trump in the US.
The only party which could and would replace the Tories is a nastier, harder right, more nationalist harder anti immigrant party.
It certainly ain't going to be the LDs
Do you really want that? I don't.
I may not be a fan of the Tories, but back in the day they were a whole lot more palatable that the Franco-lite alternative you seem to be promoting.
Unfortunately @HYUFD has gone all RefUK in both his leanings and his narrative, but where he thinks REfUK will see a tidal wave of support comes from, other than his own hopes and desires, beats me
The conservative party post GE24 has a choice, move to the centre or become as popular as Corbyn is today
Jon Sopel @jonsopel . @TheSun has made the most serious allegations about a BBC presenter. Now needs to provide evidence or potentially face the mother of all libel actions
Given everything News Corp went through with phone hacking, you'd think they would be super careful before publishing a story like this.
Where it could be very "problematic" is young person does OnlyFans, BBC preseneter has memberships, so gets to see murky pictures. Now the claim from mother was sharing of images at 17, which is illegal. However if the young person did it from 18, BBC presenter paid for personalised images, its not illegal or inappropriate.
Then mother goes to the Currant Bun and aays see BBC preseneter is a member, look these murky pictures were sent back and forth.
Potentially it can be inappropriate if the BBC presenter used his position to get something else. "Look, I'm a famous star. I know you don't do (insert as applicable), but I can get you into some *great* parties if you send me some pics like that...
Whereas if the BBC presenter was just another punter, and the boy was over age, there's much less of a problem.
We just don't know enough. But always be wary of power differentials.
No level of tactical voting will give the party on 9% more seats than the party on 28%.
2019 General Election:
SNP 3.9%, 48 seats Lib Dems 11.6%, 11 seats
That's an extreme example, sure. But FPTP puts a huge premium on how concentrated your vote is in certain seats. (See also the way that a smallish fall in SNP vote share utterly kippers them in seats.)
Last week we had polls showing a Labour majority of over 400 or near as damnit with the Tories on 50 seats.
If that happens the Tories could finish fourth in seats behind the SNP and Lib Dems due to tactical voting.
Good news! The trailer for Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAZWXUkrjPc Bad news! It looks washed out, over color-corrected, the script appears clunky and Phoenix underplays him, which is [checks notes] bad. I have fond memories of Rod Steiger overacting in "Waterloo", and Phoenix is just wrong
On a happier note, the trailer for Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon is out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIH1FHykKRY . It looks a shit-ton better than Scott's and if we're lucky we may even get a good performance from "need to pay the alimony" era DeNiro.
A lot of classic directors are entering their last film period, where we are all praying they don't fuck it up. Hitchcock didn't do it well (was it Frenzy?), Spielberg didn't either (Fabelmans), Scott may misfire on Napoleon and I am really hoping for a good Megalopolis from Coppola, but hopefully - hopefully - end Scorsese will be good Scorsese.
Is Fableman's Spielbrg's last film?
The good news of course is that there are plenty of younger Directors already well established to replace the old guard. Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve being two examples.
Is Fableman's Spielberg's last film? - Dunno. I assumed given the loss he made, his age, and he appears to have aged out of the times, that he would not be given another film. Looking at Wikipedia, the last five years have been covid or abandoning projects, with only "Masters of the Air" coming out on TV.
Having said that he is only 76, which is still viable in director terms. So he may be able to pull out another rabbit.
Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve - we will never agree on Anderson, tho I'll cheerfully give you Denis Villeneuve and add Christopher Nolan into the mix as a bonus.
I really don't rate Nolan - although I am willing to change my view somewhat if Oppenheimer lives up to the hype. Inception, Interstellar and Tenet all failed to engage me.
Good news! The trailer for Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAZWXUkrjPc Bad news! It looks washed out, over color-corrected, the script appears clunky and Phoenix underplays him, which is [checks notes] bad. I have fond memories of Rod Steiger overacting in "Waterloo", and Phoenix is just wrong
On a happier note, the trailer for Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon is out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIH1FHykKRY . It looks a shit-ton better than Scott's and if we're lucky we may even get a good performance from "need to pay the alimony" era DeNiro.
A lot of classic directors are entering their last film period, where we are all praying they don't fuck it up. Hitchcock didn't do it well (was it Frenzy?), Spielberg didn't either (Fabelmans), Scott may misfire on Napoleon and I am really hoping for a good Megalopolis from Coppola, but hopefully - hopefully - end Scorsese will be good Scorsese.
Is Fableman's Spielbrg's last film?
The good news of course is that there are plenty of younger Directors already well established to replace the old guard. Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve being two examples.
Is Fableman's Spielberg's last film? - Dunno. I assumed given the loss he made, his age, and he appears to have aged out of the times, that he would not be given another film. Looking at Wikipedia, the last five years have been covid or abandoning projects, with only "Masters of the Air" coming out on TV.
Having said that he is only 76, which is still viable in director terms. So he may be able to pull out another rabbit.
Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve - we will never agree on Anderson, tho I'll cheerfully give you Denis Villeneuve and add Christopher Nolan into the mix as a bonus.
I really don't rate Nolan - although I am willing to change my view somewhat if Oppenheimer lives up to the hype. Inception, Interstellar and Tenet all failed to engage me.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
Yup suspecting mother and son had a falling out, son moved out and mother misses her meal ticket so trying to get a payout. Don't however see a case if accused and supposed victim both agree nothing improper happened
"Suspecting"
There're issues here; AIUI some of the Rochdale / Rotherham victims did not understand what was going on until they were much older. Some complained, nothing happened, so they assumed it was okay.
Also don't assume that the alleged victim does not expect a payment for his comments; or see his income strand reduced.
But my assumption is that it's a much lesser situation than the Schofield one.
Schofield's lover didn't ever cash in nor appeared to want to get back at him. Rather sounds like he was heartbroken rather than feeling of being exploited or anything inappropriate happened.
The problem is that there was a power differential. Schofield was a rich and powerful man, admired by many. The boy was quite the opposite. Perhaps - and I really doubt it - Schofield's motivations were as pure as snow that has not been near a reindeer. But the power differential was there, and so was a massive potential for abuse.
Grooming exists.
Yes understand. My point was what the young man would have said & actually seems like they never wanted the story coming out... certainly not interested talking to the newspapers or cashing in.
He had already cashed in on it, hadn't he? He got a job working at the studios, and all that screen trial nonsense.
If Schofield wouldn't have done that for a rando, then it's trading a relationship for advantage.
Good news! The trailer for Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAZWXUkrjPc Bad news! It looks washed out, over color-corrected, the script appears clunky and Phoenix underplays him, which is [checks notes] bad. I have fond memories of Rod Steiger overacting in "Waterloo", and Phoenix is just wrong
On a happier note, the trailer for Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon is out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIH1FHykKRY . It looks a shit-ton better than Scott's and if we're lucky we may even get a good performance from "need to pay the alimony" era DeNiro.
A lot of classic directors are entering their last film period, where we are all praying they don't fuck it up. Hitchcock didn't do it well (was it Frenzy?), Spielberg didn't either (Fabelmans), Scott may misfire on Napoleon and I am really hoping for a good Megalopolis from Coppola, but hopefully - hopefully - end Scorsese will be good Scorsese.
Is Fableman's Spielbrg's last film?
The good news of course is that there are plenty of younger Directors already well established to replace the old guard. Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve being two examples.
Is Fableman's Spielberg's last film? - Dunno. I assumed given the loss he made, his age, and he appears to have aged out of the times, that he would not be given another film. Looking at Wikipedia, the last five years have been covid or abandoning projects, with only "Masters of the Air" coming out on TV.
Having said that he is only 76, which is still viable in director terms. So he may be able to pull out another rabbit.
Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve - we will never agree on Anderson, tho I'll cheerfully give you Denis Villeneuve and add Christopher Nolan into the mix as a bonus.
I really don't rate Nolan - although I am willing to change my view somewhat if Oppenheimer lives up to the hype. Inception, Interstellar and Tenet all failed to engage me.
Inception was overhyped cr@p, loved by people who have never seen Primer.
So the accused says nothing inappropriate, so does the apparent victim? This seems bizarre as to why the mother is even getting involved or is that just me?
Wonga?
Yup suspecting mother and son had a falling out, son moved out and mother misses her meal ticket so trying to get a payout. Don't however see a case if accused and supposed victim both agree nothing improper happened
"Suspecting"
There're issues here; AIUI some of the Rochdale / Rotherham victims did not understand what was going on until they were much older. Some complained, nothing happened, so they assumed it was okay.
Also don't assume that the alleged victim does not expect a payment for his comments; or see his income strand reduced.
But my assumption is that it's a much lesser situation than the Schofield one.
Schofield's lover didn't ever cash in nor appeared to want to get back at him. Rather sounds like he was heartbroken rather than feeling of being exploited or anything inappropriate happened.
The problem is that there was a power differential. Schofield was a rich and powerful man, admired by many. The boy was quite the opposite. Perhaps - and I really doubt it - Schofield's motivations were as pure as snow that has not been near a reindeer. But the power differential was there, and so was a massive potential for abuse.
Grooming exists.
Yes understand. My point was what the young man would have said & actually seems like they never wanted the story coming out... certainly not interested talking to the newspapers or cashing in.
He had already cashed in on it, hadn't he? He got a job working at the studios, and all that screen trial nonsense.
If Schofield wouldn't have done that for a rando, then it's trading a relationship for advantage.
Yes i know. But clearly he moved on from the industry and i bet was offered megabucks to give the lowdown on Schofield affair, but didn't.
Could Starmer do the Tories what Labour did to the Liberals in the 20th century?
But Lab and the Liberals were both left wing parties. if the Cons were going to be replaced, it would surely be by another right wing party.
Starmer gobbles up centrist Tories as the Tories move further right in opposition.
Or worse than that, Starmer gobbles up the social conservatives in the red wall and Ed Davey feasts on the wealthy liberals in the blue wall.
The triumph of 2019 was holding both those groups in the blue tent at once. The disaster of 2024 (and maybe 2029) is based on managing to repulse both groups simultaneously.
Once you fall from second place to third, FPTP is brutal. I don't see it happening this time, but there's far too big a risk of it happening next time.
Liberals 1924 - 116 seats lost, or just about 75% of the parliamentary party.
They haven't topped seventy seats since, and only twice gone above 60.
It was the expanded working class vote in 1918 which killed them, exacerbated by Liberal division.
In 1918 Asquith's Liberals lost 236 seats and held just 36 winning only 13% of the vote, while Labour overtook them with 57, reaching 21% of the vote compared to just 6% in Dec 1910.
By 1924 as you say Labour completed their destruction of the Liberals, winning 142 seats and 29.7% of the vote.
While Asquith's Liberals collapsed to just 62 seats and 18% of the vote with Lloyd George's Coalition Liberals winning 53 MPs.
By 1945 Labour reached 45% and 393 seats with the Liberals on just 9% and 12 seats and the National Liberals on 11
Good news! The trailer for Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAZWXUkrjPc Bad news! It looks washed out, over color-corrected, the script appears clunky and Phoenix underplays him, which is [checks notes] bad. I have fond memories of Rod Steiger overacting in "Waterloo", and Phoenix is just wrong
On a happier note, the trailer for Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon is out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIH1FHykKRY . It looks a shit-ton better than Scott's and if we're lucky we may even get a good performance from "need to pay the alimony" era DeNiro.
A lot of classic directors are entering their last film period, where we are all praying they don't fuck it up. Hitchcock didn't do it well (was it Frenzy?), Spielberg didn't either (Fabelmans), Scott may misfire on Napoleon and I am really hoping for a good Megalopolis from Coppola, but hopefully - hopefully - end Scorsese will be good Scorsese.
Is Fableman's Spielbrg's last film?
The good news of course is that there are plenty of younger Directors already well established to replace the old guard. Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve being two examples.
Is Fableman's Spielberg's last film? - Dunno. I assumed given the loss he made, his age, and he appears to have aged out of the times, that he would not be given another film. Looking at Wikipedia, the last five years have been covid or abandoning projects, with only "Masters of the Air" coming out on TV.
Having said that he is only 76, which is still viable in director terms. So he may be able to pull out another rabbit.
Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve - we will never agree on Anderson, tho I'll cheerfully give you Denis Villeneuve and add Christopher Nolan into the mix as a bonus.
I really don't rate Nolan - although I am willing to change my view somewhat if Oppenheimer lives up to the hype. Inception, Interstellar and Tenet all failed to engage me.
Inception was overhyped cr@p, loved by people who have never seen Primer.
Inception is the sequel to Titanic.
It starts where Titanic ended with Leonardo Di Caprio in the ocean.
Relevant to the discussions on the previous thread? Possibly: "A person's biological sex can likely be detected from their hand odor, researchers at Florida International University (FIU) found in a recent study.
Why it matters: The research could be applied to forensic investigations and eventually be developed into a rapid-testing device for crime scenes."
Enough of the odor for the test lasts for about a day, in lab conditions.
I fucking hate the word "claimant". Will never forgive Woolf for dumping "plaintiff".
Why?!
I assume because "Claimant" implies they are after some sort of reward. "Plaintiff" implies they are seeking redress for a harm done. At least that is how I view the two words.
With apologies to Doug if that was not what he was meaning.
No level of tactical voting will give the party on 9% more seats than the party on 28%.
2019 General Election:
SNP 3.9%, 48 seats Lib Dems 11.6%, 11 seats
That's an extreme example, sure. But FPTP puts a huge premium on how concentrated your vote is in certain seats. (See also the way that a smallish fall in SNP vote share utterly kippers them in seats.)
In that case, the SNP only stood in 50 seats, winning 46% on average in those seats, whereas the Lib Dems stood in 650. Even in their best 50 seats, the Lib Dems were not close to winning 46%.
Edrogan trolling now - offers to vote in favour of Sweden joining NATO, if the EU votes to allow Turkey to join.
The rejection of Turkey by the EU was a big factor in the rise of Edrogan in Turkey - he doesn’t want to join the EU. He just wants to wave a flag with “Hypocrites” on it.
I fucking hate the word "claimant". Will never forgive Woolf for dumping "plaintiff".
Why?!
I assume because "Claimant" implies they are after some sort of reward. "Plaintiff" implies they are seeking redress for a harm done. At least that is how I view the two words.
With apologies to Doug if that was not what he was meaning.
No level of tactical voting will give the party on 9% more seats than the party on 28%.
2019 General Election:
SNP 3.9%, 48 seats Lib Dems 11.6%, 11 seats
That's an extreme example, sure. But FPTP puts a huge premium on how concentrated your vote is in certain seats. (See also the way that a smallish fall in SNP vote share utterly kippers them in seats.)
Last week we had polls showing a Labour majority of over 400 or near as damnit with the Tories on 50 seats.
If that happens the Tories could finish fourth in seats behind the SNP and Lib Dems due to tactical voting.
Good news! The trailer for Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAZWXUkrjPc Bad news! It looks washed out, over color-corrected, the script appears clunky and Phoenix underplays him, which is [checks notes] bad. I have fond memories of Rod Steiger overacting in "Waterloo", and Phoenix is just wrong
On a happier note, the trailer for Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon is out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIH1FHykKRY . It looks a shit-ton better than Scott's and if we're lucky we may even get a good performance from "need to pay the alimony" era DeNiro.
A lot of classic directors are entering their last film period, where we are all praying they don't fuck it up. Hitchcock didn't do it well (was it Frenzy?), Spielberg didn't either (Fabelmans), Scott may misfire on Napoleon and I am really hoping for a good Megalopolis from Coppola, but hopefully - hopefully - end Scorsese will be good Scorsese.
Is Fableman's Spielbrg's last film?
The good news of course is that there are plenty of younger Directors already well established to replace the old guard. Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve being two examples.
Is Fableman's Spielberg's last film? - Dunno. I assumed given the loss he made, his age, and he appears to have aged out of the times, that he would not be given another film. Looking at Wikipedia, the last five years have been covid or abandoning projects, with only "Masters of the Air" coming out on TV.
Having said that he is only 76, which is still viable in director terms. So he may be able to pull out another rabbit.
Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve - we will never agree on Anderson, tho I'll cheerfully give you Denis Villeneuve and add Christopher Nolan into the mix as a bonus.
I really don't rate Nolan - although I am willing to change my view somewhat if Oppenheimer lives up to the hype. Inception, Interstellar and Tenet all failed to engage me.
What about his Batman trilogy?
If you didn’t like that I worry about you.
I enjoyed it for its subject matter and tone. I am not sure at all that it could not have been done better by other Directors.
No level of tactical voting will give the party on 9% more seats than the party on 28%.
2019 General Election:
SNP 3.9%, 48 seats Lib Dems 11.6%, 11 seats
That's an extreme example, sure. But FPTP puts a huge premium on how concentrated your vote is in certain seats. (See also the way that a smallish fall in SNP vote share utterly kippers them in seats.)
Last week we had polls showing a Labour majority of over 400 or near as damnit with the Tories on 50 seats.
If that happens the Tories could finish fourth in seats behind the SNP and Lib Dems due to tactical voting.
The new gold standard Survation gives Labour 409, Conservatives 177, SNP 25, LDs 17.
So Labour landslide but Tories still easily second and main opposition. Other pollsters are mainly giving too high Reform shares.
I fucking hate the word "claimant". Will never forgive Woolf for dumping "plaintiff".
Why?!
I assume because "Claimant" implies they are after some sort of reward. "Plaintiff" implies they are seeking redress for a harm done. At least that is how I view the two words.
With apologies to Doug if that was not what he was meaning.
Broadly yes
I don't see the difference. You go to court to ask for something, plaintiff sounds too much like plaintive, and a statement of claim was always called that.
No level of tactical voting will give the party on 9% more seats than the party on 28%.
2019 General Election:
SNP 3.9%, 48 seats Lib Dems 11.6%, 11 seats
That's an extreme example, sure. But FPTP puts a huge premium on how concentrated your vote is in certain seats. (See also the way that a smallish fall in SNP vote share utterly kippers them in seats.)
Last week we had polls showing a Labour majority of over 400 or near as damnit with the Tories on 50 seats.
If that happens the Tories could finish fourth in seats behind the SNP and Lib Dems due to tactical voting.
Question for veterans of '97...
Labour definitely won seats they had no hope of nabbing, such as Enfield Southgate. The national swing was just too huge.
Did the same apply to the Lib Dems? Did their wins go beyond the ones that they hoped to win itn a brilliant year and had been working to death?
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
Comments
#pedanticbetting.com
Claims made by the mother at the heart of the BBC presenter scandal are "rubbish", a lawyer representing the young person has said.
In a letter to the BBC, the lawyer makes claims that throw doubt on the story that has dominated front pages through the weekend.
It says the young person sent a denial to the Sun on Friday evening saying there was "no truth to it".
However, the "inappropriate article" was still published, the lawyer said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66159357
Am I right in that the presenter having sex with a 17 year old would have been legal, but paying for the photo would not have been? If so such age limits should surely be merged - why are they different and why that way around?
Tale as old as time, and not one that ends well.
Though is The Sun have terminally messed up on a story, there will be schadenfreude for all. I don't think "Sorry Elton!" will wash this time.
As soon as all working class men could vote in 1918 and by 1930 all working class women too then the Labour Party overtook them as the Liberals were unable to appeal much beyond the middle classes who could already mostly vote by 1918 to the newly enfranchised working class.
The Tories were however able to appeal to some of the working classes on a platform of patriotic nationalism and increased prosperity while Labour became the party for most of the working class on a platform of redistribution of wealth and the support of the Trades Unions.
The Liberals unfortunately for them were never able to appeal to working class voters in sufficient numbers to remain in the top 2 parties and even lost some of their middle class voters to the Conservatives to keep out Labour socialism.
Even now the Liberal Democrats seats today are mainly middle class areas like Bath, Richmond Park, West Oxford, Chesham and Amersham, St Albans and West Edinburgh. Their vote in working class areas like Bolsover, West Bromwich, Sedgefield, Stoke and Basildon and Thanet is neglible
Or perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, we could just hold fire a little.
'We have reported a story about two concerned parents who made complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of presenter and the welfare of their child
PtP [PB Professor of Pedantry.]
The general story of pay for play can be true, while nothing illegal / inappropriate, as in the young person did this as a job post 18 only OnlyFans or they were in a relationship and the young person doesn't believe they were exploited in any way.
And the mother has fallen out with their child and got wrong edge of the stick.
Its going to have to be put up or shut up from Sun.
Never been convinced about this anyway. Leaving aside subatomic particles everything that exists is unique if you specify its location at time T, so the word is useless. Conversely if you ask who is more unique out of me and Jeanne Louise Calment, you would get pretty much 100% convergence on one answer rather than the other.
"A person's biological sex can likely be detected from their hand odor, researchers at Florida International University (FIU) found in a recent study.
Why it matters: The research could be applied to forensic investigations and eventually be developed into a rapid-testing device for crime scenes."
Enough of the odor for the test lasts for about a day, in lab conditions.
source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/biological-sex-can-be-determined-from-hand-odor-fiu-scientists-find/ar-AA1dFgA7?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=d5e8e24f986d4c45925008cf5720ccbb&ei=112
At this moment, which of the following do Britons think would be the better Prime Minister for the UK? (9 July)
Keir Starmer 42% (+4)
Rishi Sunak 32% (-2)
Changes +/- 2 July
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1678436470367870976
Labour leads by 21%, the largest lead for Labour since 19 March.
Westminster VI (9 July):
Labour 48% (+2)
Conservative 27% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 11% (–)
Reform UK 5% (–)
Green 4% (-1)
Scottish National Party 3% (–)
Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 2 July
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1678433906088091648
The triumph of 2019 was holding both those groups in the blue tent at once. The disaster of 2024 (and maybe 2029) is based on managing to repulse both groups simultaneously.
Once you fall from second place to third, FPTP is brutal. I don't see it happening this time, but there's far too big a risk of it happening next time.
There're issues here; AIUI some of the Rochdale / Rotherham victims did not understand what was going on until they were much older. Some complained, nothing happened, so they assumed it was okay.
Also don't assume that the alleged victim does not expect a payment for his comments; or see his income strand reduced.
But my assumption is that it's a much lesser situation than the Schofield one.
They haven't topped seventy seats since, and only twice gone above 60.
Under Sunak the Tories have actually gained 3% of 2019 LDs but only lost 4% to the LDs, so little difference
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/oht4c3czaa/TheTimes_VI_230706_W.pdf.
As I said and people on here continue to ignore the ONLY party that can replace the Tories, certainly on voteshare, is Reform UK.
Just look at the trend currently in Europe, from the AfD to Le Pen's Party to Meloni's to Vox to the Sweden Democrats, even the Farmers in the Netherlands not to mention Trump in the US (or the populist Reform in Canada when they overtook the Canadian Tories in 1993).
The only party which could and would replace the Tories is a nastier, harder right, more nationalist, firmer anti immigrant party reaching even further into the white working classes in particular.
It certainly ain't going to be the LDs
@jonsopel
.
@TheSun
has made the most serious allegations about a BBC presenter. Now needs to provide evidence or potentially face the mother of all libel actions
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
No level of tactical voting will give the party on 9% more seats than the party on 28%.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-66147560
I may not be a fan of the Tories, but back in the day they were a whole lot more palatable that the Franco-lite alternative you seem to be promoting.
Then mother goes to the Currant Bun and aays see BBC preseneter is a member, look these murky pictures were sent back and forth.
Grooming exists.
SNP 3.9%, 48 seats
Lib Dems 11.6%, 11 seats
That's an extreme example, sure. But FPTP puts a huge premium on how concentrated your vote is in certain seats. (See also the way that a smallish fall in SNP vote share utterly kippers them in seats.)
I suppose if you want to be really pedantic, everything in the universe is unique.
Even entangled quantum particles have different locations (probably).
A fair point!
I fucking hate the word "claimant". Will never forgive Woolf for dumping "plaintiff".
That doesn't give Schofield a pass.
The conservative party post GE24 has a choice, move to the centre or become as popular as Corbyn is today
Whereas if the BBC presenter was just another punter, and the boy was over age, there's much less of a problem.
We just don't know enough. But always be wary of power differentials.
If that happens the Tories could finish fourth in seats behind the SNP and Lib Dems due to tactical voting.
If you didn’t like that I worry about you.
If Schofield wouldn't have done that for a rando, then it's trading a relationship for advantage.
In 1918 Asquith's Liberals lost 236 seats and held just 36 winning only 13% of the vote, while Labour overtook them with 57, reaching 21% of the vote compared to just 6% in Dec 1910.
By 1924 as you say Labour completed their destruction of the Liberals, winning 142 seats and 29.7% of the vote.
While Asquith's Liberals collapsed to just 62 seats and 18% of the vote with Lloyd George's Coalition Liberals winning 53 MPs.
By 1945 Labour reached 45% and 393 seats with the Liberals on just 9% and 12 seats and the National Liberals on 11
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
It starts where Titanic ended with Leonardo Di Caprio in the ocean.
I'd need to see a lot of evidence and research to back this claim up. Especially if it was to be used in court.
With apologies to Doug if that was not what he was meaning.
The rejection of Turkey by the EU was a big factor in the rise of Edrogan in Turkey - he doesn’t want to join the EU. He just wants to wave a flag with “Hypocrites” on it.
So Labour landslide but Tories still easily second and main opposition. Other pollsters are mainly giving too high Reform shares.
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426101452873729?s=20
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=30&LAB=45&LIB=11&Reform=3&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=18.5&SCOTLAB=31.5&SCOTLIB=7.8&SCOTReform=0&SCOTGreen=1.3&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=36.4&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
Labour definitely won seats they had no hope of nabbing, such as Enfield Southgate. The national swing was just too huge.
Did the same apply to the Lib Dems? Did their wins go beyond the ones that they hoped to win itn a brilliant year and had been working to death?
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.