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.
That's partly because on a number of occasions they were standing in seats with either formal or informal Unionist backing, particularly 1918 and 1922. As that was withdrawn or restored, so their ability to hold the seat fluctuated. Similarly, in 1931 even the Samuelite Liberals would have won many fewer seats without tacit Conservative support for the Samuelite Liberals.
It's also partly because of the inefficiency of the party organisation, which tended to put up candidates where they were available rather than where they had a realistic chance of winning. The major exception was 1923 which was the closest they came to fielding a full slate of candidates. But even in 1924 they gained ten seats even as they lost 126 others.
One reason for that was of course that with the changes in the electorate their target seats were changing but they were rather slow to realise it. They were no longer the party of the workers, and instead needed to compete with the Tories for the middle. But they didn't, or at least, not very effectively.
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
Stephen McGann @StephenMcGann · 49m I suppose the same newspaper telling the world I pissed on dead football fans gave me a grounding in healthy media scepticism.
Stephen McGann @StephenMcGann · 49m I suppose the same newspaper telling the world I pissed on dead football fans gave me a grounding in healthy media scepticism.
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.
That's a plausible hypothesis, FU, but they also hired a top firm of lawyers. That doesn't quite pass the smell test as regards humble folk, frustrated by the Beeb's inertia.
I've had a 17 yo son go off the rails, and we had a man to man conversation in the pub at which a few basic principles were sorted out. Happily, it all got better but if it hadn't my attitude would have been 'you're seventeen now, on your own head be it'. I cannot imagine however making it anyone else's business.
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?
The Lib Dems had already built up strength in Devon and Cornwall, the Highlands of Scotland, and SW London, and did very well in those areas. I don't think there really were many surprises. The Lib Dems did well in areas of long-standing local government strength (apart from St. Albans and Watford).
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.
Complete nonsense. Di Caprio's distress call is what prompts Nostromo to investigate LV426.
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.
That's a plausible hypothesis, FU, but they also hired a top firm of lawyers. That doesn't quite pass the smell test as regards humble folk, frustrated by the Beeb's inertia.
I've had a 17 yo son go off the rails, and we had a man to man conversation in the pub at which a few basic principles were sorted out. Happily, it all got better but if it hadn't my attitude would have been 'you're seventeen now, on your own head be it'. I cannot imagine however making it anyone else's business.
Where it is reported the mother is represented by a top law firm? They probably are, especially now, but I presume the Sun would do that.
The young person is, but also remember its claimed the BBC presenter has been in contact with them on a number of occasions over the past few days.
Schofield reportedly paid for his former lover to be represented by a top law firm and the former lover isn't a very well connected person. He was just working in a pub when the scandal exploded.
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
A lot of people are particularly interested to see how they portray Feynman. He was only young and annoyed a fair few with his antics at Los Alamos but he was also massively highly regarded by most of the people at the top - hence being made group lead in the theoretical division and the fact Oppenheimer personally found a local sanatorium for his wife who had TB.
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
Good News! The BBC licence fee will be paid by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation until further notice!
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.
That's partly because on a number of occasions they were standing in seats with either formal or informal Unionist backing, particularly 1918 and 1922. As that was withdrawn or restored, so their ability to hold the seat fluctuated. Similarly, in 1931 even the Samuelite Liberals would have won many fewer seats without tacit Conservative support for the Samuelite Liberals.
It's also partly because of the inefficiency of the party organisation, which tended to put up candidates where they were available rather than where they had a realistic chance of winning. The major exception was 1923 which was the closest they came to fielding a full slate of candidates. But even in 1924 they gained ten seats even as they lost 126 others.
One reason for that was of course that with the changes in the electorate their target seats were changing but they were rather slow to realise it. They were no longer the party of the workers, and instead needed to compete with the Tories for the middle. But they didn't, or at least, not very effectively.
At the end of the day there was only going to be room for one main middle class party to take on Labour, the party of the newly enfranchised working classes. It ended up being the Conservatives not the Liberals who became the middle class party (albeit now age is more of a dividing line between the Conservatives and Labour than class but the LDs are still more of a middle class party as the Liberals were 100 years ago too)
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.
That's a plausible hypothesis, FU, but they also hired a top firm of lawyers. That doesn't quite pass the smell test as regards humble folk, frustrated by the Beeb's inertia.
I've had a 17 yo son go off the rails, and we had a man to man conversation in the pub at which a few basic principles were sorted out. Happily, it all got better but if it hadn't my attitude would have been 'you're seventeen now, on your own head be it'. I cannot imagine however making it anyone else's business.
Where it is reported the mother is represented by a top law firm? They probably are, especially now, but I presume the Sun would do that.
The young person is, but also remember its claimed the BBC presenter has been in contact with them on a number of occasions over the past few days.
Schofield reportedly paid for his former lover to be represented by a top law firm and the former lover isn't a very well connected person. He was just working in a pub when the scandal exploded.
My mistake, Francis. Apologies.
The point about how to deal with the situation stil stands though, doesn't it?
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.
That's a plausible hypothesis, FU, but they also hired a top firm of lawyers. That doesn't quite pass the smell test as regards humble folk, frustrated by the Beeb's inertia.
I've had a 17 yo son go off the rails, and we had a man to man conversation in the pub at which a few basic principles were sorted out. Happily, it all got better but if it hadn't my attitude would have been 'you're seventeen now, on your own head be it'. I cannot imagine however making it anyone else's business.
Where it is reported the mother is represented by a top law firm?
The young person is, but also remember its claimed the BBC presenter has been in contact with them on a number of occasions over the past few days.
It's possible that the story is substantially true, but both the young person and the presenter just want it to go away.
A perfect example of how not every bad person is entirely bad to their core, no matter how much we might like to think otherwise for simplicities sake.
It doesn't change my overall view of, or opposition to, Trump one bit but it does please me that he shows a small amount of humanity and understanding of people.
It does reconfirm what an utter scumbag DeSantis is though.
It reminds me a bit of how people use the same half dozen bad anecdotes to suggest Boris is a complete racist, when his political appointments for one would seem strong evidence he doesn't give two shits about race, and I don't really see how the former can be true given the latter. At worst he uses offensive terms sometimes, and lord knows he's awful enough in other ways, but is he a genuine wrong 'un on race? It seems doubtful.
BREAKING: Rishi Sunak will not take part in the debate and potential vote on the Privilege Committee report suggesting seven of his MPs may have been in contempt of Parliament.
His spokesman declines to tell me what the PM's view is on the report or if he has even yet read it.
The report is four and a half pages long plus an even shorter annex with details of the tweets, emails etc. Sunak also required Goldsmith to apologise over its contents (which he didn't and resigned).
So this obfuscation over whether the PM has read it is ludicrous - if he hasn't, he's got no excuse for it really.
He should stand up and make clear it is bullshit. Politicians have a right to state their opposition to reports and actions by committees. Trying to sanction them for doing so is a massive infrignement of freedom of speech and sets an extremely denagerous precedent.
And I say that as someone who fully suported the committee over the Johnson report. I don't agree with those who campaigned against it but I certainly don't support the efforts to suppress their views.
Don't think I agree (it was a live case and MPs were effectively the jury), and something similar goes for Sunak here; "I've read the report but want to hear what MPs have to say first" would be sort of legit. Except for two things.
One is that Rishi is developing Macavity tendencies, and if he never tries to deal with awkwardness he will never get any good at it.
The other (bigger) one is that Rishi knows enough about what went on to demand that Zac Goldsmith apologise or resign. So the "I/He hasn't read it" line doesn't really hold.
Remember when the plan was to make the PM's Spokesman's breifings public and televised? What were they thinking?
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.
That's a plausible hypothesis, FU, but they also hired a top firm of lawyers. That doesn't quite pass the smell test as regards humble folk, frustrated by the Beeb's inertia.
I've had a 17 yo son go off the rails, and we had a man to man conversation in the pub at which a few basic principles were sorted out. Happily, it all got better but if it hadn't my attitude would have been 'you're seventeen now, on your own head be it'. I cannot imagine however making it anyone else's business.
Where it is reported the mother is represented by a top law firm? They probably are, especially now, but I presume the Sun would do that.
The young person is, but also remember its claimed the BBC presenter has been in contact with them on a number of occasions over the past few days.
Schofield reportedly paid for his former lover to be represented by a top law firm and the former lover isn't a very well connected person. He was just working in a pub when the scandal exploded.
My mistake, Francis. Apologies.
The point about how to deal with the situation stil stands though, doesn't it?
I don't have kids, so I am not really in a position to know...but I certainly have a couple of friends who are at their wits end with their teenage kids who after COVID have got into a lot of trouble and no amount of talking to them makes any difference.
If you thought a rich famous person was the individual paying for their crack habit, you report them, nothing changes, I can see how somebody rings the tip line on a newspaper.
As I said down thread (and a number of people observed earlier) if the young person got into doing OnlyFans to fund their drug habit, and the presenter is a member, then mother finds out...she blames rich person for being a big tipper and thus blames them for it.
That would also tie in with not inappropriate, in that mucky pictures were offered on subscription site, mucky pictures were paid for, but not illegal or even abuse of power ala Schofield. And that the BBC report a "dossier" of evidence was handed over to BBC management at the weekend.
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.
I think that this story is probably best understood as representing a widespread general social panic about pornography, there is a constant search for an outlet for these emotions. The thing is though, that they are about to be superseded by AI.
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
I liked that bit at the end of Chernobyl where it goes "There were dozens of scientists working alongside the main character. The character of Y was invented to represent them all". Probably the best way they could acknowledge the need for narrative coherence trimming the cast down.
Still one of the best pieces of television in decades.
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
Sounds like Sun attempting to set up a public interest defence.
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?
Did Labour have "no hope" of nabbing Enfield Southgate? It was definitely a stretch target but was a seat in a Council Labour had taken control of in 1994 (with a good majority). Plenty of polls showed Labour with a 20%+ lead not long before the election which would have seen it go simply on an average swing, and the final 12.5% margin was actually towards the lower end of polling in the campaign.
So Labour would have been pleasantly surprised to get it, and a fair few others. But it's not like they weren't campaigning on the ground and the signs didn't look quite encouraging - doubtless they did dare, not unreasonably, to dream. I'd suggest it was more of a shock if you weren't from the area because of who Portillo was - I have little doubt, on the ground, that Labour were campaigning seriously and their campaign team thought "we're genuinely in this, lads".
Similarly with the Lib Dems they won some they'd have been disappointed not to pick up, and some stretch targets.
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
Good News! The BBC licence fee will be paid by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation until further notice!
I doubt a sudden influx of riches will stop tge BBC trying to rinse us for all it can!
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.
That's a plausible hypothesis, FU, but they also hired a top firm of lawyers. That doesn't quite pass the smell test as regards humble folk, frustrated by the Beeb's inertia.
I've had a 17 yo son go off the rails, and we had a man to man conversation in the pub at which a few basic principles were sorted out. Happily, it all got better but if it hadn't my attitude would have been 'you're seventeen now, on your own head be it'. I cannot imagine however making it anyone else's business.
Where it is reported the mother is represented by a top law firm? They probably are, especially now, but I presume the Sun would do that.
The young person is, but also remember its claimed the BBC presenter has been in contact with them on a number of occasions over the past few days.
Schofield reportedly paid for his former lover to be represented by a top law firm and the former lover isn't a very well connected person. He was just working in a pub when the scandal exploded.
My mistake, Francis. Apologies.
The point about how to deal with the situation stil stands though, doesn't it?
I don't have kids, so I am not really in a position to know...but I certainly have a couple of friends who are at their wits end with their teenage kids who after COVID have got into a lot of trouble and no amount of talking to them makes any difference.
If you thought a rich famous person was the individual paying for their crack habit, you report them, nothing changes, I can see how somebody rings the tip line on a newspaper.
In the end, Francis, everyone has the right to screw up their own lives. My son got through it and is now a lecturer in agricultural economics.
My daughter, by contrast, had an exemplary school and University record but then went hopelessly off the rails and wound up as a lawyer.
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
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.
That's a plausible hypothesis, FU, but they also hired a top firm of lawyers. That doesn't quite pass the smell test as regards humble folk, frustrated by the Beeb's inertia.
I've had a 17 yo son go off the rails, and we had a man to man conversation in the pub at which a few basic principles were sorted out. Happily, it all got better but if it hadn't my attitude would have been 'you're seventeen now, on your own head be it'. I cannot imagine however making it anyone else's business.
Where it is reported the mother is represented by a top law firm? They probably are, especially now, but I presume the Sun would do that.
The young person is, but also remember its claimed the BBC presenter has been in contact with them on a number of occasions over the past few days.
Schofield reportedly paid for his former lover to be represented by a top law firm and the former lover isn't a very well connected person. He was just working in a pub when the scandal exploded.
My mistake, Francis. Apologies.
The point about how to deal with the situation stil stands though, doesn't it?
I don't have kids, so I am not really in a position to know...but I certainly have a couple of friends who are at their wits end with their teenage kids who after COVID have got into a lot of trouble and no amount of talking to them makes any difference.
If you thought a rich famous person was the individual paying for their crack habit, you report them, nothing changes, I can see how somebody rings the tip line on a newspaper.
As I said down thread (and a number of people observed earlier) if the young person got into doing OnlyFans to fund their drug habit, and the presenter is a member, then mother finds out...she blames rich person for being a big tipper and thus blames them for it.
That would also tie in with not inappropriate, in that mucky pictures were offered on subscription site, mucky pictures were paid for, but not illegal or even abuse of power ala Schofield. And that the BBC report a "dossier" of evidence was handed over to BBC management at the weekend.
There’s a fairly long history of people getting nowhere with complaints to police/ organisations and resorting to the newspapers.
Indeed, this is how a lot of scandals end up in the press.
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Both Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' remarks and his 'bright light into the body' remarks were actually fairly sound ideas as potential experimental treatments for Covid.
Experimental? Yes, certainly. Effecacious? No.
I'm pretty sure the Presidency is not the place for reckons.
Efficacious? Well, perhaps. Depends upon your perspective.
If you drink poison (which is what bleach is), then you can say that it won't be Covid that kills you.
It is a bit like trying to get rid of a migraine and blowing your head off as an experimental treatment. You won't be suffering from the migraine afterwards.
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Both Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' remarks and his 'bright light into the body' remarks were actually fairly sound ideas as potential experimental treatments for Covid.
Experimental? Yes, certainly. Effecacious? No.
I'm pretty sure the Presidency is not the place for reckons.
Efficacious? Well, perhaps. Depends upon your perspective.
If you drink poison (which is what bleach is), then you can say that it won't be Covid that kills you.
It is a bit like trying to get rid of a migraine and blowing your head off as an experimental treatment. You won't be suffering from the migraine afterwards.
Yes - on that basis I can cure all diseases. In a few microseconds.
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
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
Sounds like Sun attempting to set up a public interest defence.
By pretending the story was about BBC complaint processes, not that the the BBC is protecting a morally delinquent presenter.
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.
That's a plausible hypothesis, FU, but they also hired a top firm of lawyers. That doesn't quite pass the smell test as regards humble folk, frustrated by the Beeb's inertia.
I've had a 17 yo son go off the rails, and we had a man to man conversation in the pub at which a few basic principles were sorted out. Happily, it all got better but if it hadn't my attitude would have been 'you're seventeen now, on your own head be it'. I cannot imagine however making it anyone else's business.
Where it is reported the mother is represented by a top law firm? They probably are, especially now, but I presume the Sun would do that.
The young person is, but also remember its claimed the BBC presenter has been in contact with them on a number of occasions over the past few days.
Schofield reportedly paid for his former lover to be represented by a top law firm and the former lover isn't a very well connected person. He was just working in a pub when the scandal exploded.
My mistake, Francis. Apologies.
The point about how to deal with the situation stil stands though, doesn't it?
I don't have kids, so I am not really in a position to know...but I certainly have a couple of friends who are at their wits end with their teenage kids who after COVID have got into a lot of trouble and no amount of talking to them makes any difference.
If you thought a rich famous person was the individual paying for their crack habit, you report them, nothing changes, I can see how somebody rings the tip line on a newspaper.
In the end, Francis, everyone has the right to screw up their own lives. My son got through it and is now a lecturer in agricultural economics.
My daughter, by contrast, had an exemplary school and University record but then went hopelessly off the rails and wound up as a lawyer.
You can't win them all.
You took a punt on two kids and one worked out, that's not a bad win ratio for some.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Roger, need I remind you of what you've said with respect to the 'rights' of talent in the past, and how it might just be a little hypocritical of you to opine on this topic?
For those of us who actually have a moral compass, it's clear that the police have a difficult job in discerning the 'truth', but have made some absolute howling mistakes in the past, mistakes that haunt victims to this day. I would not blame people for not trusting them in this type of situation, even if I would.
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Both Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' remarks and his 'bright light into the body' remarks were actually fairly sound ideas as potential experimental treatments for Covid.
Experimental? Yes, certainly. Effecacious? No.
I'm pretty sure the Presidency is not the place for reckons.
Efficacious? Well, perhaps. Depends upon your perspective.
If you drink poison (which is what bleach is), then you can say that it won't be Covid that kills you.
It is a bit like trying to get rid of a migraine and blowing your head off as an experimental treatment. You won't be suffering from the migraine afterwards.
Yes - on that basis I can cure all diseases. In a few microseconds.
If Putin does send some nukes our way, it would cut the NHS waiting list.
Lots of jumping to conclusions on here re the BBC story.
There simply isn’t enough information to form an informed opinion on what has gone on here. All we know now is one of the individuals concerned isn’t supportive of the actions of the parent and disputes the narrative. Beyond that it is all conjecture at this point.
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.
That's a plausible hypothesis, FU, but they also hired a top firm of lawyers. That doesn't quite pass the smell test as regards humble folk, frustrated by the Beeb's inertia.
I've had a 17 yo son go off the rails, and we had a man to man conversation in the pub at which a few basic principles were sorted out. Happily, it all got better but if it hadn't my attitude would have been 'you're seventeen now, on your own head be it'. I cannot imagine however making it anyone else's business.
Where it is reported the mother is represented by a top law firm?
The young person is, but also remember its claimed the BBC presenter has been in contact with them on a number of occasions over the past few days.
It's possible that the story is substantially true, but both the young person and the presenter just want it to go away.
Even if that were the case the evidence may be lacking for any legal or disciplinary cases.
In which case the story goes away as no one wants to be sued.
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Both Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' remarks and his 'bright light into the body' remarks were actually fairly sound ideas as potential experimental treatments for Covid.
Experimental? Yes, certainly. Effecacious? No.
I'm pretty sure the Presidency is not the place for reckons.
Efficacious? Well, perhaps. Depends upon your perspective.
If you drink poison (which is what bleach is), then you can say that it won't be Covid that kills you.
It is a bit like trying to get rid of a migraine and blowing your head off as an experimental treatment. You won't be suffering from the migraine afterwards.
Yes - on that basis I can cure all diseases. In a few microseconds.
If Putin does send some nukes our way, it would cut the NHS waiting list.
Nuclear weapons - is there a problem they can’t fix?
Edit: no one every answered my question - If Putin nukes Slough, who pays the CGT on the massive improvement in property values?
Not much between Deltapoll and Redfield & Wilton this evening. The Conservatives seem to have plateaued in the mid to high 20s. Deltapollm has a 3-point rise and R&W a 1-point fall so nothing of much significance.
R&W's England sub smaple has Labour 48%, Conservative 29%, Liberal Democrat 12% so a 16% swing from Conservative to Labour which suggests Selby & Ainsty will be close. As we're seeing and it's of course more noticeable with the bigger samples, the Conservatives "seem" to be doing worse in the south and west than in the Midlands for example.
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
I liked that bit at the end of Chernobyl where it goes "There were dozens of scientists working alongside the main character. The character of Y was invented to represent them all". Probably the best way they could acknowledge the need for narrative coherence trimming the cast down.
Still one of the best pieces of television in decades.
What is the cost of lies, indeed?
I heard a similar story about the Apollo 13 film. One of the involved astronauts did a talk after the film was released, and someone came up to him saying their granddad had been in the control room helping getting them home. But as he had not been mentioned in the film, the child's friends did not believe the child.
The astronaut said that ever since, he was careful to explain there were shifts at the control room, and the film crew had reasonably decided to pretend there was just one team on duty at the critical moments - to stop having too many characters.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms, when the whole thing is racialised).
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Your own views on these matters are established as being ... unenlightened.
People you dislike may have a reasonable case against people you like.
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms.
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
Well third world , developing , BAME Global South is now racist too....
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Both Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' remarks and his 'bright light into the body' remarks were actually fairly sound ideas as potential experimental treatments for Covid.
Experimental? Yes, certainly. Effecacious? No.
I'm pretty sure the Presidency is not the place for reckons.
Efficacious? Well, perhaps. Depends upon your perspective.
If you drink poison (which is what bleach is), then you can say that it won't be Covid that kills you.
It is a bit like trying to get rid of a migraine and blowing your head off as an experimental treatment. You won't be suffering from the migraine afterwards.
Yes - on that basis I can cure all diseases. In a few microseconds.
If Putin does send some nukes our way, it would cut the NHS waiting list.
Nuclear weapons - is there a problem they can’t fix?
Edit: no one every answered my question - If Putin nukes Slough, who pays the CGT on the massive improvement in property values?
"Some people might think that's a bad thing. Others might quite like the idea."
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms, when the whole thing is racialised).
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
What is a "global majority" in any case? It could mean people who are not black.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms.
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
Well third world , developing , BAME Global South is now racist too....
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms, when the whole thing is racialised).
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
What is a "global majority" in any case? It could mean people who are not black.
Is the new PC term for BAME, because BAME is now deemed racist / offensive.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms, when the whole thing is racialised).
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
What is a "global majority" in any case? It could mean people who are not black.
Europe is being swallowed up by the right. Only Brexit Britain stands alone against the tide."
Not sure that's entirely true. Many of these "right" parties aren't of the right at all - they are strongly interventionist and pro-State - the bulk of their hostility is towards cultural opponents and outsiders as well as most supra-national institutions.
They are nationalist, socialist and populist saying all the things they think the people want to hear. The problem comes when they are in power and forced to live up to their rhetoric.
Europe is being swallowed up by the right. Only Brexit Britain stands alone against the tide."
The point I've been making for a while.
When we left the EU the number of BAME MEPs dropped substanially.
Right now, the UK, Scotland, and London are led by men of colour who antecedents came from India and Pakistan, that is something to very proud about.
Apart from Ireland, nobody else has come close to that in Europe.
Portugal has - and Mr Costa has actually been elected and I believe re-elected. Mayor Khan has also been - the leaders of the UK and Scotland have not been elected and it frankly doesn't look too good for either of them. I hope their ethnicity will not be the key reason for that but perhaps the UK should pause before patting itself on the back too often
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms, when the whole thing is racialised).
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
What is a "global majority" in any case? It could mean people who are not black.
It's a euphemism for not white.
Yet lumping everyone who is not white into one group is something we are often told is racist.
Europe is being swallowed up by the right. Only Brexit Britain stands alone against the tide."
It may well be that Britain's 'stand' against the tide is not what it seems. It could just be the case that, because of the FPTP system and limits on free speech a lot of public opinion on immigration doesn't have any political expression. Whereas in Europe there small parties can be effective in a proportional representation system. It isn't too difficult to see the dangers of such a situation for Britain.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms.
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
Well third world , developing , BAME Global South is now racist too....
Isn't everything?
In a weird way, I always suspect is as much about gatekeeping in places like academia, rather than any real attempt at reducing offense. Ohhhh you used the outdated terms for...you must be ignorant with the state of the art in our field.
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.
That's a plausible hypothesis, FU, but they also hired a top firm of lawyers. That doesn't quite pass the smell test as regards humble folk, frustrated by the Beeb's inertia.
I've had a 17 yo son go off the rails, and we had a man to man conversation in the pub at which a few basic principles were sorted out. Happily, it all got better but if it hadn't my attitude would have been 'you're seventeen now, on your own head be it'. I cannot imagine however making it anyone else's business.
Where it is reported the mother is represented by a top law firm? They probably are, especially now, but I presume the Sun would do that.
The young person is, but also remember its claimed the BBC presenter has been in contact with them on a number of occasions over the past few days.
Schofield reportedly paid for his former lover to be represented by a top law firm and the former lover isn't a very well connected person. He was just working in a pub when the scandal exploded.
My mistake, Francis. Apologies.
The point about how to deal with the situation stil stands though, doesn't it?
I don't have kids, so I am not really in a position to know...but I certainly have a couple of friends who are at their wits end with their teenage kids who after COVID have got into a lot of trouble and no amount of talking to them makes any difference.
If you thought a rich famous person was the individual paying for their crack habit, you report them, nothing changes, I can see how somebody rings the tip line on a newspaper.
In the end, Francis, everyone has the right to screw up their own lives. My son got through it and is now a lecturer in agricultural economics.
My daughter, by contrast, had an exemplary school and University record but then went hopelessly off the rails and wound up as a lawyer.
You can't win them all.
You took a punt on two kids and one worked out, that's not a bad win ratio for some.
Worked out a damn sight better than most of my punts!
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms, when the whole thing is racialised).
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
What is a "global majority" in any case? It could mean people who are not black.
It's a euphemism for not white.
I've never been clear if it does include what in the USA was called 'caucasian', encompassing a wide stretch of peoples across Europe, the Mahgreb and the Middle East.
But I was genuinely stunned to read that the term is meant to be non-racialised, when that's the whole point of it. No citation, so maybe that part of the definition was bollocks, as it is particularly stupid.
Not least because we all know Koreans, Zulu, Quecha, and Cree peoples are all the same.
RFK Jr is 12 for the DEM nomination and same price 12 for the WH. What's going on with that?
Incompetence?
Money laundering.
Talking of which, I took your advice and declined the cash sale for our land. The fella still wanted it, and it's going through our solicitors. For 10 grand less than the cash price, but still happy and less hassle than the risk of putting it through auction!
That large cash transaction was a nightmare.
You’ve saved yourself a world of grief.
Big cash is a huge issue, when I played cards for a living came back with 40k in cash. Friend that worked at a bank goes....dont even try and deposit that
My local sub-Post Office must read pb as they have a prominent notice warning of cash deposit limits.
Otoh, I've also listened to betting shop managers tell of paranoid walks from the bank to their shop carrying tens of thousands of pounds in a carrier bag to pay out successful punters.
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
Would you have said the same about the Mail naming the Stephen Lawrence culprits?
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Does it matter all that much whether or not the parents are nice people, or acting out of the purest of motives? They're not running a major national broadcaster, so their character is something of a second order question.
The reason the BBC is coming in for a lot of flak is that (and I don't think the BBC are denying this) allegations of a very serious nature were made to them and weeks passed without a robust and prompt assessment of credibility including bringing the celeb in and saying "look, we need chapter and verse right now about how you know this young person, if you do, and exactly what happened - and if a single aspect of your story doesn't check out, you're finished". The potentially criminal aspects should also have been escalated to the Police - lots of organisations have run into trouble treating alleged offences (particularly of a sexual nature) as an employment rather than criminal matter.
Now even if it turns out that the allegation is flat out untrue (it seems unlikely the young person was a stranger to the celeb, but maybe the story wasn't as the parents describe) there are serious questions over BBC handling of it - that isn't a functional system for dealing with serious allegations about top people.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
I assume "Global Majority" is another term for women, without getting into trouble with the Woke police?
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
Probably. But Oppenheimer’s story is nonetheless a very interesting one.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms, when the whole thing is racialised).
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
What is a "global majority" in any case? It could mean people who are not black.
It's a euphemism for not white.
I've never been clear if it does include what in the USA was called 'caucasian', encompassing a wide stretch of peoples across Europe, the Mahgreb and the Middle East.
But I was genuinely stunned to read that the term is meant to be non-racialised, when that's the whole point of it. No citation, so maybe that part of the definition was bollocks, as it is particularly stupid.
Not least because we all know Koreans, Zulu, Quecha, and Cree peoples are all the same.
And, according to Westminster council, preferable to someone who is white British. Why not just treat people equally?
Yeah these fuckers are going to be bankrupt, again in the latter case.
Thank-you SO much for saying this, Piers. People think it's just sport with words. In fact the accusations levelled at us are the most serious that can be made about a person in our society. And people like @BreesAnna and Katie Hopkins know EXACTLY what they are doing.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms.
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
Well third world , developing , BAME Global South is now racist too....
Isn't everything?
In a weird way, I always suspect is as much about gatekeeping in places like academia, rather than any real attempt at reducing offense. Ohhhh you used the outdated terms for...you must not be up with the state of the art in our field.
I don't think there is really much doubt of that. Policing language seems to be a big part of it, and when a lot of the time the last 'new' term becomes unacceptable in turn, yet everyone confidentally jumps on a new trendy term as getting it this time, it begs for cynicism.
I remember having that argument with someone when they were coming up with a new term for NEETs (I don't recall if they ever did) as it was considered to come with a stigma, when if that is so the new term would eventually have the same thing happen.
Then there was LDC and MDCs, which became LEDCs, and MEDCs, then added NICs, and probably a lot more now.
Europe is being swallowed up by the right. Only Brexit Britain stands alone against the tide."
Not sure that's entirely true. Many of these "right" parties aren't of the right at all - they are strongly interventionist and pro-State - the bulk of their hostility is towards cultural opponents and outsiders as well as most supra-national institutions.
They are nationalist, socialist and populist saying all the things they think the people want to hear. The problem comes when they are in power and forced to live up to their rhetoric.
That's almost always the case though with the so-called 'far right'.
Many parties of the so-called 'right' have more to do with the likes of Oswald Mosley etc than they do Adam Smith.
Parties that are socialist and racist/nationalist get called 'right' or 'far right' regardless of the fact that they're nationalist socialists and not nationalist laissez faire right wingers.
Europe is being swallowed up by the right. Only Brexit Britain stands alone against the tide."
Not sure that's entirely true. Many of these "right" parties aren't of the right at all - they are strongly interventionist and pro-State - the bulk of their hostility is towards cultural opponents and outsiders as well as most supra-national institutions.
They are nationalist, socialist and populist saying all the things they think the people want to hear. The problem comes when they are in power and forced to live up to their rhetoric.
The global trend in most western nations electorally at the moment is towards parties which are economically statist and nationalist and socially conservative and tougher on immigration. Even Starmer Labour is more in that direction than New Labour was
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
The fact that the Sun poses as some kind of moral arbiter in matters such as these, a "newspaper" that used to carry pictures of topless teenage girls on its third page, is already pretty funny.
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
The fact that the Sun poses as some kind of moral arbiter in matters such as these, a "newspaper" that used to carry pictures of topless teenage girls on its third page, is already pretty funny.
It is the same paper which ran a countdown to when Charlotte Church would turn 16.
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.
Won't happen. The centre-right vote is too big.
Yes. The idea that Starmer can keep a centre right vote on board in perpetuity simply won't survive the experience of even one term in office. Same applies to the LDs as ex-Tory voters become clear what they stand for. 30-40% of voters are typically comfortable with a centre right party - the same in most democracies .
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
Probably. But Oppenheimer’s story is nonetheless a very interesting one.
I read - and enjoyed - the book very much. But if you want to go beyond Oppenheimer's role, then I would highly recommend The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Rhodes. Which also won the Pullitzer.
Europe is being swallowed up by the right. Only Brexit Britain stands alone against the tide."
The point I've been making for a while.
When we left the EU the number of BAME MEPs dropped substanially.
Right now, the UK, Scotland, and London are led by men of colour who antecedents came from India and Pakistan, that is something to very proud about.
Apart from Ireland, nobody else has come close to that in Europe.
Portugal has - and Mr Costa has actually been elected and I believe re-elected. Mayor Khan has also been - the leaders of the UK and Scotland have not been elected and it frankly doesn't look too good for either of them. I hope their ethnicity will not be the key reason for that but perhaps the UK should pause before patting itself on the back too often
I think the general increase in numbers of minority representation in the last 20 years has been remarkable and is a positive enough story, without getting overly smug about the specific people in the current top jobs.
More telling is there are other contenders who are not white, and that's no longer remarkable - if Sunak or Yousaf fall, it is not as though they are 1 in a 100 anymore.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality.
If living a legally virtuous life was the path to immortality it would have an ... interesting effect on society!
The evidence of 2000 years of Christianity is that the effect on society is somewhat exagerrated.
A truly bizarre delusion that virtue is a Christian invention. Plato and Aristotle and Confucius had plenty to say about what virtue is and why it is a good thing. Much more complete than the NT and without the self abasing rubbish about turning cheeks and going extra miles.
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
The fact that the Sun poses as some kind of moral arbiter in matters such as these, a "newspaper" that used to carry pictures of topless teenage girls on its third page, is already pretty funny.
It is the same paper which ran a countdown to when Charlotte Church would turn 16.
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
The fact that the Sun poses as some kind of moral arbiter in matters such as these, a "newspaper" that used to carry pictures of topless teenage girls on its third page, is already pretty funny.
It is the same paper which ran a countdown to when Charlotte Church would turn 16.
It didn't, though. Widely believed to have happened, but didn't happen.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
In all my years of business, and of hiring, I have never met two candidates of equal merit.
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
The fact that the Sun poses as some kind of moral arbiter in matters such as these, a "newspaper" that used to carry pictures of topless teenage girls on its third page, is already pretty funny.
It is the same paper which ran a countdown to when Charlotte Church would turn 16.
Yeah, it's always been a class act.
Liverpool has the right idea where the Sun is concerned.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
It does seem peculiarly worded, even ignoring that Global Majority is a pretty odd term in the first place (especially as the wikipedia definition claims it is an alterantive to 'racislised' terms, when the whole thing is racialised).
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
What is a "global majority" in any case? It could mean people who are not black.
It's a euphemism for not white.
I've never been clear if it does include what in the USA was called 'caucasian', encompassing a wide stretch of peoples across Europe, the Mahgreb and the Middle East.
But I was genuinely stunned to read that the term is meant to be non-racialised, when that's the whole point of it. No citation, so maybe that part of the definition was bollocks, as it is particularly stupid.
Not least because we all know Koreans, Zulu, Quecha, and Cree peoples are all the same.
And, according to Westminster council, preferable to someone who is white British. Why not just treat people equally?
I thought it was the case that name bias can be a big barrier, and so blind shortlisting at the least is a good idea - once someone gets through to interview it is easier to avoid unconscious effects (though not eliminate them).
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
Turing really was a genius. The trouble with that film, apart from compressing what was really a code-breaking factory with thousands of people on site and many others around the world into half a dozen idiots squabbling in a hut, was not understanding its subject matter so that Turing's flash of inspiration at the end about how to use the bombes was in actual fact the reason he'd designed them in the beginning.
In one of the documentaries, the presenter (not that one!) asks the renowned statistician Jack Good, who'd worked at Bletchley Park, if they'd known Turing was gay. He replied it was lucky security never found out or they'd have sacked him and we might have lost the war.
I just read this in a job advert for Westminster Council.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
The general assumption these days is guilty until proven innocent and sometimes even in spite of being proven innocent.
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
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.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
The fact that the Sun poses as some kind of moral arbiter in matters such as these, a "newspaper" that used to carry pictures of topless teenage girls on its third page, is already pretty funny.
It is the same paper which ran a countdown to when Charlotte Church would turn 16.
It didn't, though. Widely believed to have happened, but didn't happen.
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
Probably. But Oppenheimer’s story is nonetheless a very interesting one.
I read - and enjoyed - the book very much. But if you want to go beyond Oppenheimer's role, then I would highly recommend The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Rhodes. Which also won the Pullitzer.
Leo Szilard is a particularly interesting character - for instance, he spent years working with Einstein on a refrigerator. He also penned the Einstein–Szilárd letter, which directly led to the Manhattan project.
Like Bletchley Park, it's really hard to single out one genius in the Manhattan Project over all the others. Doing so tends to debase the others; without whom the projects would not have succeeded.
It feels like I'm breaking some awful convention to say that Turing was just one noteworthy genius of many at BP; but it's true, and that should not take anything away from his achievements. And from what I've read about him, I'd suggest he'd agree with me. He might even disapprove of all the attention given him.
Comments
It's also partly because of the inefficiency of the party organisation, which tended to put up candidates where they were available rather than where they had a realistic chance of winning. The major exception was 1923 which was the closest they came to fielding a full slate of candidates. But even in 1924 they gained ten seats even as they lost 126 others.
One reason for that was of course that with the changes in the electorate their target seats were changing but they were rather slow to realise it. They were no longer the party of the workers, and instead needed to compete with the Tories for the middle. But they didn't, or at least, not very effectively.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
@StephenMcGann
·
49m
I suppose the same newspaper telling the world I pissed on dead football fans gave me a grounding in healthy media scepticism.
I've had a 17 yo son go off the rails, and we had a man to man conversation in the pub at which a few basic principles were sorted out. Happily, it all got better but if it hadn't my attitude would have been 'you're seventeen now, on your own head be it'. I cannot imagine however making it anyone else's business.
The young person is, but also remember its claimed the BBC presenter has been in contact with them on a number of occasions over the past few days.
Schofield reportedly paid for his former lover to be represented by a top law firm and the former lover isn't a very well connected person. He was just working in a pub when the scandal exploded.
Would a humble flint knapper be worth suing?
The point about how to deal with the situation stil stands though, doesn't it?
If you thought a rich famous person was the individual paying for their crack habit, you report them, nothing changes, I can see how somebody rings the tip line on a newspaper.
As I said down thread (and a number of people observed earlier) if the young person got into doing OnlyFans to fund their drug habit, and the presenter is a member, then mother finds out...she blames rich person for being a big tipper and thus blames them for it.
That would also tie in with not inappropriate, in that mucky pictures were offered on subscription site, mucky pictures were paid for, but not illegal or even abuse of power ala Schofield. And that the BBC report a "dossier" of evidence was handed over to BBC management at the weekend.
The thing is though, that they are about to be superseded by AI.
Still one of the best pieces of television in decades.
What is the cost of lies, indeed?
So Labour would have been pleasantly surprised to get it, and a fair few others. But it's not like they weren't campaigning on the ground and the signs didn't look quite encouraging - doubtless they did dare, not unreasonably, to dream. I'd suggest it was more of a shock if you weren't from the area because of who Portillo was - I have little doubt, on the ground, that Labour were campaigning seriously and their campaign team thought "we're genuinely in this, lads".
Similarly with the Lib Dems they won some they'd have been disappointed not to pick up, and some stretch targets.
My daughter, by contrast, had an exemplary school and University record but then went hopelessly off the rails and wound up as a lawyer.
You can't win them all.
A cash machine perhaps....
Indeed, this is how a lot of scandals end up in the press.
https://archive.ph/FFEgo
"Britain is the last liberal nation in Europe
Europe is being swallowed up by the right. Only Brexit Britain stands alone against the tide."
If you drink poison (which is what bleach is), then you can say that it won't be Covid that kills you.
It is a bit like trying to get rid of a migraine and blowing your head off as an experimental treatment. You won't be suffering from the migraine afterwards.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
"The Council is committed to achieving diverse shortlists to support our desire to increase the number of staff from underrepresented groups in our workforce. We especially encourage applications from a global majority background and, while the role is open to all applicants, we will utilise the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to appoint a candidate from a global majority background where there is a choice between two candidates of equal merit. If you are from a Global Majority background, you can self-declare this to the hiring manager as part of our positive action commitments."
I just wondered if this is really consistent with the Equality Act. Can it be used in such a way that gives an automatic preference to give a job to anyone who is part of a self declared 'Global Majority'?
For those of us who actually have a moral compass, it's clear that the police have a difficult job in discerning the 'truth', but have made some absolute howling mistakes in the past, mistakes that haunt victims to this day. I would not blame people for not trusting them in this type of situation, even if I would.
There simply isn’t enough information to form an informed opinion on what has gone on here. All we know now is one of the individuals concerned isn’t supportive of the actions of the parent and disputes the narrative. Beyond that it is all conjecture at this point.
In which case the story goes away as no one wants to be sued.
Edit: no one every answered my question - If Putin nukes Slough, who pays the CGT on the massive improvement in property values?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
Not much between Deltapoll and Redfield & Wilton this evening. The Conservatives seem to have plateaued in the mid to high 20s. Deltapollm has a 3-point rise and R&W a 1-point fall so nothing of much significance.
R&W's England sub smaple has Labour 48%, Conservative 29%, Liberal Democrat 12% so a 16% swing from Conservative to Labour which suggests Selby & Ainsty will be close. As we're seeing and it's of course more noticeable with the bigger samples, the Conservatives "seem" to be doing worse in the south and west than in the Midlands for example.
The astronaut said that ever since, he was careful to explain there were shifts at the control room, and the film crew had reasonably decided to pretend there was just one team on duty at the critical moments - to stop having too many characters.
I wonder if they would be disappointed if the wrong sort of Global Majority applied, and not enough visible diversity were achieved.
People you dislike may have a reasonable case against people you like.
third world,developing,BAMEGlobal South is now racist too....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny7nvnshhkg
When we left the EU the number of BAME MEPs dropped substanially.
Right now, the UK, Scotland, and London are led by men of colour who antecedents came from India and Pakistan, that is something to very proud about.
Apart from Ireland, nobody else has come close to that in Europe.
They are nationalist, socialist and populist saying all the things they think the people want to hear. The problem comes when they are in power and forced to live up to their rhetoric.
It could just be the case that, because of the FPTP system and limits on free speech a lot of public opinion on immigration doesn't have any political expression. Whereas in Europe there small parties can be effective in a proportional representation system.
It isn't too difficult to see the dangers of such a situation for Britain.
But I was genuinely stunned to read that the term is meant to be non-racialised, when that's the whole point of it. No citation, so maybe that part of the definition was bollocks, as it is particularly stupid.
Not least because we all know Koreans, Zulu, Quecha, and Cree peoples are all the same.
Otoh, I've also listened to betting shop managers tell of paranoid walks from the bank to their shop carrying tens of thousands of pounds in a carrier bag to pay out successful punters.
The reason the BBC is coming in for a lot of flak is that (and I don't think the BBC are denying this) allegations of a very serious nature were made to them and weeks passed without a robust and prompt assessment of credibility including bringing the celeb in and saying "look, we need chapter and verse right now about how you know this young person, if you do, and exactly what happened - and if a single aspect of your story doesn't check out, you're finished". The potentially criminal aspects should also have been escalated to the Police - lots of organisations have run into trouble treating alleged offences (particularly of a sexual nature) as an employment rather than criminal matter.
Now even if it turns out that the allegation is flat out untrue (it seems unlikely the young person was a stranger to the celeb, but maybe the story wasn't as the parents describe) there are serious questions over BBC handling of it - that isn't a functional system for dealing with serious allegations about top people.
But Oppenheimer’s story is nonetheless a very interesting one.
This rightly got a Pulitzer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Prometheus
Thank-you SO much for saying this, Piers. People think it's just sport with words. In fact the accusations levelled at us are the most serious that can be made about a person in our society. And people like @BreesAnna and Katie Hopkins know EXACTLY what they are doing.
https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1678438390495051776
I remember having that argument with someone when they were coming up with a new term for NEETs (I don't recall if they ever did) as it was considered to come with a stigma, when if that is so the new term would eventually have the same thing happen.
Then there was LDC and MDCs, which became LEDCs, and MEDCs, then added NICs, and probably a lot more now.
Many parties of the so-called 'right' have more to do with the likes of Oswald Mosley etc than they do Adam Smith.
Parties that are socialist and racist/nationalist get called 'right' or 'far right' regardless of the fact that they're nationalist socialists and not nationalist laissez faire right wingers.
More telling is there are other contenders who are not white, and that's no longer remarkable - if Sunak or Yousaf fall, it is not as though they are 1 in a 100 anymore.
It's a rebuttal from the person being smeared.
Jeremy Vine put them in his tweet.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/01/02/news-international-and-the-charlotte-church-countdown-clock/?sh=90dd71d2218c
Edit: I know Jeremy Vine, and I hope he sues those libellous f***ers into the ground.
So this plan seems the opposite of helpful.
In one of the documentaries, the presenter (not that one!) asks the renowned statistician Jack Good, who'd worked at Bletchley Park, if they'd known Turing was gay. He replied it was lucky security never found out or they'd have sacked him and we might have lost the war.
BBC stars often bad eggs
Hard for the uninformed to know what to believe.
Its as if the whole media is a cesspit.
Like Bletchley Park, it's really hard to single out one genius in the Manhattan Project over all the others. Doing so tends to debase the others; without whom the projects would not have succeeded.
It feels like I'm breaking some awful convention to say that Turing was just one noteworthy genius of many at BP; but it's true, and that should not take anything away from his achievements. And from what I've read about him, I'd suggest he'd agree with me. He might even disapprove of all the attention given him.