There’s a lot for the Tories to worry about in latest R&W poll – politicalbetting.com

System

There’s a lot for the Tories to worry about in latest R&W poll – politicalbetting.com

I very much like this R&W chart because it gets to the heart of what the next election will be about and Starmer continues to get markedly better ratings than Sunak.

Read the full story here

eek

First - and immediately offtopic

There is a comment in the previous thread about where the big money is in OnlyFans -this 13 minute video gives you a great overview of what has changed.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsK_6VSmlMI

Basically intimacy (even fake) is big money...

EPG

I wonder about these pollings. Surely these are at least heavily correlated, if not quite monocausal. By and large, if I decide I like Starmer, I won't be giving Sunak a higher score for tells the truth or cares about me.

FrancisUrquhart

eek said:

First - and immediately offtopic

There is a comment in the previous thread about where the big money is in OnlyFans -this 13 minute video gives you a great overview of what has changed.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsK_6VSmlMI

Basically intimacy (even fake) is big money...

Its the parasocial relationship with fake bf/gf experience than just getting to seeing tits and bits. I guess its just the latest evolution from the dirty chat lines through webcams to this even more personal form (all while pron has been available, these other "services" have made people a lot of money).

I presume it is also why some people are willing to pay stupid money for escorts to spend a whole evening with, rather than just doing the do with a prozzy in an hour slot.

Miklosvar

If threatened Sunak will counterthreaten an immediate GE. It may be a bluff but with his youth and wealth he has so many options beyond politics that it will be a highly credible bluff.

EPG

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Well, it's a good development on the theme, even if I'm not sure what I think of it. There's some 2010-type world where the LDs are doing better and it's not necessarily a vote proxy. But at the moment I think it is.

kle4

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

I think so. Maybe there's some value in particular strengths and weaknesses which stand out, maybe, but even then the party brand can ensure that even a successful Tory leader might not rate as highly on 'cares about people like me' or whatever. So on the whole it's more just a complicated way of saying Starmer is better liked than Sunak.

I note Sunak rates highest for being in good health, working well with foreign leaders, and building a strong economy. In fairness, two of those he has demonsrated to some degree.

And you may have been beaten to it, but since I had to scroll up, I saw yours first anyway.

dixiedean

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

FrancisUrquhart

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I think Starmer looks pretty good for somebody who is 60 and in a high flying role. You could easily think he was 10 years younger.

5 years a PM, will undoubtedly age him, as it does with all leaders.

Benpointer

EPG said:

I wonder about these pollings. Surely these are at least heavily correlated, if not quite monocausal. By and large, if I decide I like Starmer, I won't be giving Sunak a higher score for tells the truth or cares about me.

True but that just underscores the fact that Sunak is not cutting through. He may have stopped the Tory ship capsizing but it's still taking on water and likely to sink next year.

kle4

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

60 and a bit paunchy? No wonder Starmer connects so well with the key voting demographic.

Stuartinromford

Panicking might be a very rational response by Conservative MPs.

But to dump Sunak, they need to identify, preferably agree on, someone who will do better. And that someone needs to be willing to sign up for an unpleasant eighteen months at the top before an almost inevitable defeat.

Not impossible to find someone like that, but who?

Sunil_Prasannan

FrancisUrquhart said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I think Starmer looks pretty good for somebody who is 60 and in a high flying role. You could easily think he was 10 years younger.

5 years a PM, will undoubtedly age him, as it does with all leaders.

dixiedean

Farooq said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I have to say I'm genuinely surprised to learn Starmer is 60. I hadn't ever really thought about it before reading your post, but I'd have guessed he was early 50s.

If he wins the election any time after October 10 2024 and serves five years, he'll be the oldest sitting PM since MacMillan.

Nigelb

Best wishes to @TimS and his broken ribs FPT.

dixiedean

Meanwhile the USA seems determined to have an election between two people who are similar ages to Major and Kinnock.

kle4

Farooq said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I have to say I'm genuinely surprised to learn Starmer is 60. I hadn't ever really thought about it before reading your post, but I'd have guessed he was early 50s.

Less than 10 years younger than Blair. Which says more about how youthful Blair was when he was in power.

Looking at the list we haven't had a PM who came to power over the age of 60 since Callahan, just shy of 50 years ago.

Even with Pitt the Younger skewing things it does appear the early PMs had a lot of 40-50s in general, before the Victorians carried on a trend of 50-60 or even older on first taking office, before the end of the 20th century saw a return to younger PMs.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age

solarflare

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I have to say I'm genuinely surprised to learn Starmer is 60. I hadn't ever really thought about it before reading your post, but I'd have guessed he was early 50s.

If he wins the election any time after October 10 2024 and serves five years, he'll be the oldest sitting PM since MacMillan.

What about if he's standing?

FrancisUrquhart

dixiedean said:

Meanwhile the USA seems determined to have an election between two people who are similar ages to Major and Kinnock.

200 million people to choose from and they are going to go for two OAPs who are out of their minds.

kle4

kle4 said:

Farooq said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I have to say I'm genuinely surprised to learn Starmer is 60. I hadn't ever really thought about it before reading your post, but I'd have guessed he was early 50s.

Less than 10 years younger than Blair. Which says more about how youthful Blair was when he was in power.

Looking at the list we haven't had a PM who came to power over the age of 60 since Callahan, just shy of 50 years ago.

Even with Pitt the Younger skewing things it does appear the early PMs had a lot of 40-50s in general, before the Victorians carried on a trend of 50-60 or even older on first taking office, before the end of the 20th century saw a return to younger PMs.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age

By contrast, US presidents are very consistent it seems - they were even trendy younger until Trump and Biden!


In my head Teddy Roosevelt must have been 60+ when he was in office. Nope.

Nigelb

Unusually, no window involved.

Stanislav Rzhitsky, who also commanded a Black Sea Fleet submarine, was shot four times while jogging on the morning of July 10 and died at the scene.
https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/1678502744389468160

FrancisUrquhart

Nigelb said:

Unusually, no window involved.

Stanislav Rzhitsky, who also commanded a Black Sea Fleet submarine, was shot four times while jogging on the morning of July 10 and died at the scene.
https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/1678502744389468160

Can get the staff these days who are willing to do the job properly.

dixiedean

Farooq said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I have to say I'm genuinely surprised to learn Starmer is 60. I hadn't ever really thought about it before reading your post, but I'd have guessed he was early 50s.

He's more than four years older than David Cameron.

Phil

Nigelb said:

Unusually, no window involved.

Stanislav Rzhitsky, who also commanded a Black Sea Fleet submarine, was shot four times while jogging on the morning of July 10 and died at the scene.
https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/1678502744389468160

That’s because it was probably the Ukranians. Looks like they’re following the Mossad playbook.

edmundintokyo

Nigelb said:

Unusually, no window involved.

Stanislav Rzhitsky, who also commanded a Black Sea Fleet submarine, was shot four times while jogging on the morning of July 10 and died at the scene.
https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/1678502744389468160

Sharing his location in real time on a fitness app, allegedly.

kle4

edmundintokyo said:

Nigelb said:

Unusually, no window involved.

Stanislav Rzhitsky, who also commanded a Black Sea Fleet submarine, was shot four times while jogging on the morning of July 10 and died at the scene.
https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/1678502744389468160

Sharing his location in real time on a fitness app, allegedly.

Gotta keep fit, sloth is a real killer.

kle4

dixiedean said:

Meanwhile the USA seems determined to have an election between two people who are similar ages to Major and Kinnock.

In a way I love it - Major and Kinnock haven't been relevant (despite their best efforts), for 25 years, and are younger than people vying for the most powerful job in the world.

Carter seems to have the edge for lasting post office for them, Addington (no, me neither) for us.

Malmesbury

Phil said:

Nigelb said:

Unusually, no window involved.

Stanislav Rzhitsky, who also commanded a Black Sea Fleet submarine, was shot four times while jogging on the morning of July 10 and died at the scene.
https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/1678502744389468160

That’s because it was probably the Ukranians. Looks like they’re following the Mossad playbook.

Apparently he was working in recruitment. And there have been a fair few attacks on recruiters and recruitment offices in Russia.

Nigelb

I'm more shocked than Captain Renault.

“Don’t Say Gay” Florida Republican Accused of Sexually Harassing Two Male Staffers
Florida state Representative Fabian Basabe has also been arrested for drunk driving, and accused of calling people the n-word and “a sand negro.”
https://newrepublic.com/post/174190/florida-republican-basabe-accused-sexually-harassing-two-male-staffers

viewcode

Farooq said:

Phil said:

Nigelb said:

Unusually, no window involved.

Stanislav Rzhitsky, who also commanded a Black Sea Fleet submarine, was shot four times while jogging on the morning of July 10 and died at the scene.
https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/1678502744389468160

That’s because it was probably the Ukranians. Looks like they’re following the Mossad playbook.

I approve of this kind of warfare. If you can take out the senior people instead of the poor sods tricked or drafted into fighting, so much the better.
Outside of a war situation, very bad.

(Deleted)

kle4

Nigelb said:

I'm more shocked than Captain Renault.

“Don’t Say Gay” Florida Republican Accused of Sexually Harassing Two Male Staffers
Florida state Representative Fabian Basabe has also been arrested for drunk driving, and accused of calling people the n-word and “a sand negro.”
https://newrepublic.com/post/174190/florida-republican-basabe-accused-sexually-harassing-two-male-staffers

But not a "sand n-word"? Odd place for them to draw the line.

viewcode

@TimS

What happened???

Andy_JS

"The BBC presenter at the centre of the sexual images storm faces being named in the House of Commons by MPs, it emerged last night.

Senior politicians say they are considering making his identity public domain as the row engulfs the corporation."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011783/bbc-presenter-sex-pics-named-by-mps/

viewcode

solarflare said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I have to say I'm genuinely surprised to learn Starmer is 60. I hadn't ever really thought about it before reading your post, but I'd have guessed he was early 50s.

If he wins the election any time after October 10 2024 and serves five years, he'll be the oldest sitting PM since MacMillan.

What about if he's standing?

No. You stand for election, unless you are American, when you run. When you win you sit. It's a seat.

FrancisUrquhart

The claim on the last thread was why didn't the family just go to the police...

Emails seen by The Sun show the stepfather told the Beeb on May 19 of bank statements detailing huge payments from the star.

“I told the BBC I had gone to the police in desperation but they couldn’t do anything as they said it wasn’t illegal.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011826/family-bbc-star-testimony-ignored/

Nigelb

This is remarkable.

Human Breast Cell Atlas reveals all cells in human breast tissue, with some surprises

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/research/human-breast-cell-atlas-reveals-all-cells-human-breast-tissue-some-surprises
...Among the most surprising findings was the number of immune cells present in the breasts, including many subtypes of B cells, T cells and myeloid cells. Together they made up around 17% of tissue, much more than the researchers had expected...

FrancisUrquhart

Andy_JS said:

"The BBC presenter at the centre of the sexual images storm faces being named in the House of Commons by MPs, it emerged last night.

Senior politicians say they are considering making his identity public domain as the row engulfs the corporation."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011783/bbc-presenter-sex-pics-named-by-mps/

I think it would be very stupid of an MP to do that. There doesn't appear to be any illegality or a cover-up (in the sense that people are now investigating the claims), so it seems hard to justify.

Just like when John Hemming was naming and shaming people seemingly every week.

kle4

Looking at the Presidents list again it seems as though if Biden were to win a second term and serve it out hr'd be older than all but 7 of his predecessors were when they died (albeit there's 5 still living and who knows how long they might last).

Harrison through to Coolidge seems to have been a brutal period for ex Presidents in terms of life expectancy.

kle4

Andy_JS said:

"The BBC presenter at the centre of the sexual images storm faces being named in the House of Commons by MPs, it emerged last night.

Senior politicians say they are considering making his identity public domain as the row engulfs the corporation."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011783/bbc-presenter-sex-pics-named-by-mps/

Can't really see the justification for that. It's coming out soon anyway, I am sure.

kyf_100

And to think, it was only a few weeks ago certain PB posters were accusing me of a prurient interest in the Schofield story, and to stop talking about it. To them I say: What's wrong with an anonymous, rich older man on the beeb payroll (allegedly) paying a 17 year old 35k to fund their crack habit? Surely there's nothing institutionally wrong at the BBC...

Cyclefree

The Tories are headed for a really disastrous election result.

Changing PM at this stage would just turn them into an even bigger joke than they currently are. They seem to have given up on governing with even a basic level of competence. Sunak has done some good things trying to sort out the NI protocol but many of his appointments are poor and some disastrous. He is not really a leader and no-one in the party can articulate what they are for. The attacks on our democratic institutions by the Tories have been appalling and are the single biggest reason why they need to go.

I have some serious doubts about Starmer but he has cleaned up his party after Corbyn. He has the right ideas on housing at least and does not seem obviously corrupt or incompetent. After 13 years that will be enough for very many people.

Stuartinromford

FrancisUrquhart said:

Andy_JS said:

"The BBC presenter at the centre of the sexual images storm faces being named in the House of Commons by MPs, it emerged last night.

Senior politicians say they are considering making his identity public domain as the row engulfs the corporation."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011783/bbc-presenter-sex-pics-named-by-mps/

I think it would be very stupid of an MP to do that. There doesn't appear to be any illegality or a cover-up (in the sense that people are now investigating the claims).

So pretty much inevitable, then.

Andy_JS

FPT

Barnesian said:

darkage said:

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?

Or perhaps it refers to non-white people.

FrancisUrquhart

The more bits and pieces that come out about the BBC presenter story, it does sound like the young individual life has spiralled into drug addiction, feeding that addiction via sex work and that has become estranged from clearly a very worried / upset family.

What is totally unclear is if the BBC presenter knew any of this or just thought they were buying mucky pics off the internet.

FrancisUrquhart

Oh giddy eye, Newsnight is going to need editing.

Jim_Miller

kle4 said: "Harrison through to Coolidge seems to have been a brutal period for ex Presidents in terms of life expectancy."

Assuming you mean the first Harrison, then you should know that three of the presidents (Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley) during that period were assassinated -- which did cut down on their life expectancy.

(The first Harrison was the 9th president, William Henry; the second, his grandson Benjamin, the 23rd.)

Stuartinromford

FrancisUrquhart said:

The claim on the last thread was why didn't the family just go to the police...

Emails seen by The Sun show the stepfather told the Beeb on May 19 of bank statements detailing huge payments from the star.

“I told the BBC I had gone to the police in desperation but they couldn’t do anything as they said it wasn’t illegal.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011826/family-bbc-star-testimony-ignored/

And that's the heart of the tragedy. I can understand any parent being at their wit's end.

But what did they want the BBC to do? Make it stop I guess, but how?

Malmesbury

Farooq said:

Phil said:

Nigelb said:

Unusually, no window involved.

Stanislav Rzhitsky, who also commanded a Black Sea Fleet submarine, was shot four times while jogging on the morning of July 10 and died at the scene.
https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/1678502744389468160

That’s because it was probably the Ukranians. Looks like they’re following the Mossad playbook.

I approve of this kind of warfare. If you can take out the senior people instead of the poor sods tricked or drafted into fighting, so much the better.
Outside of a war situation, very bad.

During WWII, serious consideration was given to using Commandos and/or French Resistance to kill German aircrew and ground crew in France. IIRC one operation got as far as planning - a road block to stop buses bringing a shift change at a major airbase followed by a massacre.

Paddy Mayne’s hobbies in the Desert Campaign, were a version of this, on occasion.

HYUFD

Gold Standard Survation however has the Tories back up to 30% and Starmer's lead as preferred PM cut to 2%

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426101452873729?s=20
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426099716333570?s=20

FrancisUrquhart

Stuartinromford said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The claim on the last thread was why didn't the family just go to the police...

Emails seen by The Sun show the stepfather told the Beeb on May 19 of bank statements detailing huge payments from the star.

“I told the BBC I had gone to the police in desperation but they couldn’t do anything as they said it wasn’t illegal.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011826/family-bbc-star-testimony-ignored/

And that's the heart of the tragedy. I can understand any parent being at their wit's end.

But what did they want the BBC to do? Make it stop I guess, but how?

Perhaps they thought that the presenter didn't realise where all this money was going and they could make them aware?

Peck

Agreed, that's an excellently designed poll - answer A or B to each question, rather than e.g. pick the 3 issues that are most important to you. It's a tiny bit biased towards Starmer, though, in that "Represents change" is there, but not "Represents security". Sunak isn't doing very well, is he?

DougSeal

HYUFD said:

Gold Standard Survation however has the Tories back up to 30% and Starmer's lead as preferred PM cut to 2%

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426101452873729?s=20
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426099716333570?s=20

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

viewcode

HYUFD said:

Gold Standard Survation however has the Tories back up to 30% and Starmer's lead as preferred PM cut to 2%

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426101452873729?s=20
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426099716333570?s=20

There is no gold standard. Reliability in predicting the last election is unfortunately no guarantee in predicting the next one.

Andy_JS

Kemi Badenoch is probably next Tory leader. It's just a question of whether she wants the job before or after the next election.

Peck

FrancisUrquhart said:

The more bits and pieces that come out about the BBC presenter story, it does sound like the young individual life has spiralled into drug addiction, feeding that addiction via sex work and that has become estranged from clearly a very worried / upset family.

What is totally unclear is if the BBC presenter knew any of this or just thought they were buying mucky pics off the internet.

The £35000 figure reminds me of 350 million and may turn out to be no more solidly based.

Peck

Stuartinromford said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Andy_JS said:

"The BBC presenter at the centre of the sexual images storm faces being named in the House of Commons by MPs, it emerged last night.

Senior politicians say they are considering making his identity public domain as the row engulfs the corporation."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011783/bbc-presenter-sex-pics-named-by-mps/

I think it would be very stupid of an MP to do that. There doesn't appear to be any illegality or a cover-up (in the sense that people are now investigating the claims).

So pretty much inevitable, then.

Won't happen if it's only the Scum saying so.

Nigelb

Peck said:

Stuartinromford said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Andy_JS said:

"The BBC presenter at the centre of the sexual images storm faces being named in the House of Commons by MPs, it emerged last night.

Senior politicians say they are considering making his identity public domain as the row engulfs the corporation."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011783/bbc-presenter-sex-pics-named-by-mps/

I think it would be very stupid of an MP to do that. There doesn't appear to be any illegality or a cover-up (in the sense that people are now investigating the claims).

So pretty much inevitable, then.

Won't happen if it's only the Scum saying so.

Who knows ?
But if one were concerned about a child in such circumstances, The Sun is perhaps the least sensible place to turn

HYUFD

Andy_JS said:

Kemi Badenoch is probably next Tory leader. It's just a question of whether she wants the job before or after the next election.

The right will let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for defeat, then try and take over the party in opposition.

I still think Barclay is more likely to be next leader than Badenoch, though if she got to the members Badenoch would likely win it

HYUFD

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

Gold Standard Survation however has the Tories back up to 30% and Starmer's lead as preferred PM cut to 2%

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426101452873729?s=20
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426099716333570?s=20

There is no gold standard. Reliability in predicting the last election is unfortunately no guarantee in predicting the next one.

Survation got 2015 and 2017 right and was near spot on in 2019 too

Nigelb

Thoughts and prayers for kitchencabinet.

The "missing" Hunter Biden witness the GOP was promising for a while there was just charged by the DOJ with being a Chinese spy.
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1678532420935602176

kle4

Nigelb said:

Thoughts and prayers for kitchencabinet.

The "missing" Hunter Biden witness the GOP was promising for a while there was just charged by the DOJ with being a Chinese spy.
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1678532420935602176

I believe the GOP response thesedays is to say being charged with a crime by the DOJ is evidence in itself that the DOJ is fitting you up or engaging in political harrassment.

Nigelb

Malmesbury said:

Phil said:

Nigelb said:

Unusually, no window involved.

Stanislav Rzhitsky, who also commanded a Black Sea Fleet submarine, was shot four times while jogging on the morning of July 10 and died at the scene.
https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/1678502744389468160

That’s because it was probably the Ukranians. Looks like they’re following the Mossad playbook.

Apparently he was working in recruitment. And there have been a fair few attacks on recruiters and recruitment offices in Russia.

Meanwhile, a rogue senator is sabotaging the military leadership of the US by blocking Senate approval of military promotions.

https://twitter.com/connorobrienNH/status/1678504096385449984
Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed says he had CRS look at how long it would take to confirm all 251 military promotions. (Tuberville says he's forcing votes, not blocking anyone.)

Reed says it would take 668 hours, or 84 days if the Senate spends 8 hours a day on promotions.

kle4

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

Phil said:

Nigelb said:

Unusually, no window involved.

Stanislav Rzhitsky, who also commanded a Black Sea Fleet submarine, was shot four times while jogging on the morning of July 10 and died at the scene.
https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/1678502744389468160

That’s because it was probably the Ukranians. Looks like they’re following the Mossad playbook.

Apparently he was working in recruitment. And there have been a fair few attacks on recruiters and recruitment offices in Russia.

Meanwhile, a rogue senator is sabotaging the military leadership of the US by blocking Senate approval of military promotions.

https://twitter.com/connorobrienNH/status/1678504096385449984
Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed says he had CRS look at how long it would take to confirm all 251 military promotions. (Tuberville says he's forcing votes, not blocking anyone.)

Reed says it would take 668 hours, or 84 days if the Senate spends 8 hours a day on promotions.

The Christopher Chope of the Senate, only much more disruptive.

Nigelb

Nottingham maternity scandal set to be biggest in NHS - as 'disregarded' families demand apology
More than 1,700 cases of possible harm to newborn babies and mothers are being examined in Nottingham, as the independent midwife leading the investigation said families were "simply not listened to" and were "pushed away".
https://news.sky.com/story/nottingham-maternity-scandal-set-to-be-biggest-in-nhs-as-disregarded-families-demand-apology-12918737

Possibly not confined to Nottingham, since something like 2 in 5 maternity department are rated as requiring improvement.

kle4

Nigelb said:

Nottingham maternity scandal set to be biggest in NHS.

Happy 75th birthday.

Cyclefree

Nigelb said:

Nottingham maternity scandal set to be biggest in NHS - as 'disregarded' families demand apology
More than 1,700 cases of possible harm to newborn babies and mothers are being examined in Nottingham, as the independent midwife leading the investigation said families were "simply not listened to" and were "pushed away".
https://news.sky.com/story/nottingham-maternity-scandal-set-to-be-biggest-in-nhs-as-disregarded-families-demand-apology-12918737

Possibly not confined to Nottingham, since something like 2 in 5 maternity department are rated as requiring improvement.

From last March - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/03/19/not-again/

Maternity services seem to be a real weakness in the NHS.

Richard_Tyndall

Andy_JS said:

"The BBC presenter at the centre of the sexual images storm faces being named in the House of Commons by MPs, it emerged last night.

Senior politicians say they are considering making his identity public domain as the row engulfs the corporation."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011783/bbc-presenter-sex-pics-named-by-mps/

Poor. It is of course their right but it is an abuse of that right in my view. There is no public interest to be served through this. They should let things take their course and then see what happens.

Andy_JS

Richard_Tyndall said:

Andy_JS said:

"The BBC presenter at the centre of the sexual images storm faces being named in the House of Commons by MPs, it emerged last night.

Senior politicians say they are considering making his identity public domain as the row engulfs the corporation."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011783/bbc-presenter-sex-pics-named-by-mps/

Poor. It is of course their right but it is an abuse of that right in my view. There is no public interest to be served through this. They should let things take their course and then see what happens.

I'd be surprised if this actually happens.

Peck

Andy_JS said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Andy_JS said:

"The BBC presenter at the centre of the sexual images storm faces being named in the House of Commons by MPs, it emerged last night.

Senior politicians say they are considering making his identity public domain as the row engulfs the corporation."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011783/bbc-presenter-sex-pics-named-by-mps/

Poor. It is of course their right but it is an abuse of that right in my view. There is no public interest to be served through this. They should let things take their course and then see what happens.

I'd be surprised if this actually happens.

It might be e.g. the BBC or Sun's way of getting the name out, by using a friendly MP, rather than the MP thinking what a great idea it would be. More likely, it's just the Sun printing lies, as they do every day.

Am I right that possession of certain back issues of the Sun, such as the one showing Samantha Fox topless when she was 16, is a crime under child pornography law now?

williamglenn

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stuartinromford said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The claim on the last thread was why didn't the family just go to the police...

Emails seen by The Sun show the stepfather told the Beeb on May 19 of bank statements detailing huge payments from the star.

“I told the BBC I had gone to the police in desperation but they couldn’t do anything as they said it wasn’t illegal.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23011826/family-bbc-star-testimony-ignored/

And that's the heart of the tragedy. I can understand any parent being at their wit's end.

But what did they want the BBC to do? Make it stop I guess, but how?

Perhaps they thought that the presenter didn't realise where all this money was going and they could make them aware?

I’m speculating but I can imagine the son taunting his mother about getting money from someone famous as a way of showing her that she has no control, and that’s why she became fixated on bringing him down.

Sunil_Prasannan

viewcode said:

solarflare said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I have to say I'm genuinely surprised to learn Starmer is 60. I hadn't ever really thought about it before reading your post, but I'd have guessed he was early 50s.

If he wins the election any time after October 10 2024 and serves five years, he'll be the oldest sitting PM since MacMillan.

What about if he's standing?

No. You stand for election, unless you are American, when you run. When you win you sit. It's a seat.

Never got the hang of musical chairs...

Peck

eek said:

First - and immediately offtopic

There is a comment in the previous thread about where the big money is in OnlyFans -this 13 minute video gives you a great overview of what has changed.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsK_6VSmlMI

Basically intimacy (even fake) is big money...

Thanks for that link. Interesting. I never realised Starbucks had such great service.

Andy_JS

"@Nigel_Farage

I now have proof of being lied to by @CouttsandCo over PEP status.
They are dishonest in the extreme and above all else breached privacy. I am considering my options."

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1678490692505731073

DougSeal

Andy_JS said:

"@Nigel_Farage

I now have proof of being lied to by @CouttsandCo over PEP status.
They are dishonest in the extreme and above all else breached privacy. I am considering my options."

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1678490692505731073

Nigel Farage’s bank account. The topic on the lips of Britons everywhere.

Peck

Andy_JS said:

"@Nigel_Farage

I now have proof of being lied to by @CouttsandCo over PEP status.
They are dishonest in the extreme and above all else breached privacy. I am considering my options."

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1678490692505731073

Sympathy with him if they've done the dirty on him, but he should know the rule: when you hafta shoot, shoot - don't talk.

SeaShantyIrish2

kle4 said:

kle4 said:

Farooq said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I have to say I'm genuinely surprised to learn Starmer is 60. I hadn't ever really thought about it before reading your post, but I'd have guessed he was early 50s.

Less than 10 years younger than Blair. Which says more about how youthful Blair was when he was in power.

Looking at the list we haven't had a PM who came to power over the age of 60 since Callahan, just shy of 50 years ago.

Even with Pitt the Younger skewing things it does appear the early PMs had a lot of 40-50s in general, before the Victorians carried on a trend of 50-60 or even older on first taking office, before the end of the 20th century saw a return to younger PMs.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age

By contrast, US presidents are very consistent it seems - they were even trendy younger until Trump and Biden!


In my head Teddy Roosevelt must have been 60+ when he was in office. Nope.

Roosevelt the First was the youngest American president - up to his time - when he first took office in 1901.

viewcode

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

kle4 said:

kle4 said:

Farooq said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I have to say I'm genuinely surprised to learn Starmer is 60. I hadn't ever really thought about it before reading your post, but I'd have guessed he was early 50s.

Less than 10 years younger than Blair. Which says more about how youthful Blair was when he was in power.

Looking at the list we haven't had a PM who came to power over the age of 60 since Callahan, just shy of 50 years ago.

Even with Pitt the Younger skewing things it does appear the early PMs had a lot of 40-50s in general, before the Victorians carried on a trend of 50-60 or even older on first taking office, before the end of the 20th century saw a return to younger PMs.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age

By contrast, US presidents are very consistent it seems - they were even trendy younger until Trump and Biden!


In my head Teddy Roosevelt must have been 60+ when he was in office. Nope.

Roosevelt the First was the youngest American president - up to his time - when he first took office in 1901.

If that graphic is right, he still is

Andy_JS

Already mentioned on here earlier, but congratulations to the New Statesman for putting this as their main headline, when it must be annoying to a lot of their most loyal readers.

"Britain is the last liberal nation in Europe
Europe is being swallowed up by the right. Only Brexit Britain stands alone against the tide.
By Philip Cunliffe"

https://www.newstatesman.com/

viewcode

Andy_JS said:

"@Nigel_Farage

I now have proof of being lied to by @CouttsandCo over PEP status.
They are dishonest in the extreme and above all else breached privacy. I am considering my options."

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1678490692505731073

Let me guess. Hes going to take his money elsewhere in protest?

viewcode

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

Gold Standard Survation however has the Tories back up to 30% and Starmer's lead as preferred PM cut to 2%

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426101452873729?s=20
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426099716333570?s=20

There is no gold standard. Reliability in predicting the last election is unfortunately no guarantee in predicting the next one.

Survation got 2015 and 2017 right and was near spot on in 2019 too

I think I was unclear (translate: wrong). To rephrase, the fact that a pollster is (among) the best in predicting the last election is no guarantee that they will be (among) the best in predicting the next. There is an element of regression to the mean here.

However, to resolve the issue, here is a little trick for you. If you see a pattern, note it and see if it recurs next time. If it does, then it may be predictive. If not, then not.

viewcode

Peck said:

Andy_JS said:

"@Nigel_Farage

I now have proof of being lied to by @CouttsandCo over PEP status.
They are dishonest in the extreme and above all else breached privacy. I am considering my options."

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1678490692505731073

Sympathy with him if they've done the dirty on him, but he should know the rule: when you hafta shoot, shoot - don't talk.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrYtD7gSWsI

viewcode

Andy_JS said:

Already mentioned on here earlier, but congratulations to the New Statesman for putting this as their main headline, when it must be annoying to a lot of their most loyal readers.

"Britain is the last liberal nation in Europe
Europe is being swallowed up by the right. Only Brexit Britain stands alone against the tide.
By Philip Cunliffe"

https://www.newstatesman.com/

Thank you for that, but I got sidetracked by this article: https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https://www.newstatesman.com/business/economics/2023/07/algorithms-stoking-inflation

SeaShantyIrish2

viewcode said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

kle4 said:

kle4 said:

Farooq said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

I'm sceptical about this sort of thing. I mean "is in good mental and physical health". Surely you'd have to say yes to Sunak, and probably yes for Starmer. And they get 33% and 37% respectively?

These are largely just proxies for who people are going to vote for, really, aren't they?

EDIT: beaten to it by seconds by EPG

Given that one is 43 and extremely slim and the other 60 and a little paunchy (though no worse than the average), for physical health certainly Sunak should score better.
Mental health?
You'd need to be a professional and sit with each for a good few hours to know.

I have to say I'm genuinely surprised to learn Starmer is 60. I hadn't ever really thought about it before reading your post, but I'd have guessed he was early 50s.

Less than 10 years younger than Blair. Which says more about how youthful Blair was when he was in power.

Looking at the list we haven't had a PM who came to power over the age of 60 since Callahan, just shy of 50 years ago.

Even with Pitt the Younger skewing things it does appear the early PMs had a lot of 40-50s in general, before the Victorians carried on a trend of 50-60 or even older on first taking office, before the end of the 20th century saw a return to younger PMs.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age

By contrast, US presidents are very consistent it seems - they were even trendy younger until Trump and Biden!


In my head Teddy Roosevelt must have been 60+ when he was in office. Nope.

Roosevelt the First was the youngest American president - up to his time - when he first took office in 1901.

If that graphic is right, he still is

Did not look at the chart, just remembering what I learned circa 5th grade.

Theodore Roosevelt was youngest president upon taking office, in his case, after assassination and death of William McKinley, TR being WMcK's VP.

John F Kennedy was the youngest president elected in his own right.

williamglenn

More signs that Newsom is running.

https://twitter.com/gavinnewsom/status/1678539189246148613

SeaShantyIrish2

Is it just me, but re: Nigel Farage's disappearing bank account, would seem that

> maybe 50% of UKers who have heard about it, believe NF is being done wrong by bankers?

> perhaps 90% who have heard about it, now assume that NF is having financial issues?

Suggestion - NF might find green(back)er pastures on my side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific)?

Surely his great friend Donald Trump could use his little Brit buddy at his campaign rallies from sea to shining sea? Nice comic turn as "international statesman" to help burnish DJT's foreign "policy" cred.

OR could also be of use to Trumpworld, by working other side of street on behalf of . . . wait for it . . . Robert F Kennedy, Jr.

Who I just found out that RFK the Younger (and Stranger) has hired as HIS campaign manager, none other than Dennis Kucinich, once the (failed) Boy Mayor of Cleveland, former (finally defeated) congressman, previous (failed) candidate for president and Ohio governor, who is generally bullish on . . . Donald Trump.

Nigelb

I like this, in response to a story about Biden's temper.

https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1678556179486879744
Every single president, ever, has been shorter-tempered off camera than they are in public.

THAT IS HOW THEY GOT TO BE PRESIDENT.

Seriously ...



....Yes, even Jimmy Carter.

williamglenn

Nigelb said:

I like this, in response to a story about Biden's temper.

https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1678556179486879744
Every single president, ever, has been shorter-tempered off camera than they are in public.

THAT IS HOW THEY GOT TO BE PRESIDENT.

Seriously ...


....Yes, even Jimmy Carter.

So they'd all fail the Gordon Brown hot mic test?

Andy_JS

I can't imagine Jimmy Carter being angry in private, but I assume he must have been occasionally.

SeaShantyIrish2

Andy_JS said:

I can't imagine Jimmy Carter being angry in private, but I assume he must have been occasionally.

Carter was quite demanding when he wanted something done, or (especially) when something was NOT getting done.

He was a graduate (magna cum laude) of famous Hyman Rickover High Seas School of High Expectations.

Penddu2

The Sun has form for taking a provable fact - person X spent £100 on activity P.
Then spinning some context - this has been going on for N years.
Then stretching the story - if spending £100/day for N years this COULD be as much as say £35,000.
Story then gets widely spread as person X spent £35,000 on activity P.

The Sun is vile

felix

https://www.abc.es/espana/ganado-debate-cara-cara-sanchez-feijoo-20230710224433-nt.html

As polls tighten for Spain's GE the leaders had their only face to face debate yesterday. The only poll I can find suggests s clear win for the PP leader.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Not sure the last few words are needed in the headline. The hammer's coming down, it's just a question of how hard it hits the blues.

Heathener

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Not sure the last few words are needed in the headline. The hammer's coming down, it's just a question of how hard it hits the blues.

Good morning M_D. Indeed.

3 possible by-election losses next week wouldn't help Sunak's position but I doubt they will force another leadership change. But his position will be weakened all the more and the discontent among his own rank and file will spread. He has only ever been voted in by his Richmond constituents, who would vote in a donkey if it were wearing a blue rosette. In the leadership race his own party membership rejected him in favour of the most bizarre PM in history. And a significant wing of the party blame him for Boris' downfall.

I agree with Mike that it's likely he will have to wait until October.

So we have 15 more months of this, or effectively 13 months because of the campaign itself. It's a bloody long time when the result is inevitable.

Chris

Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.

So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?

DavidL

viewcode said:

Andy_JS said:

Already mentioned on here earlier, but congratulations to the New Statesman for putting this as their main headline, when it must be annoying to a lot of their most loyal readers.

"Britain is the last liberal nation in Europe
Europe is being swallowed up by the right. Only Brexit Britain stands alone against the tide.
By Philip Cunliffe"

https://www.newstatesman.com/

Thank you for that, but I got sidetracked by this article: https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https://www.newstatesman.com/business/economics/2023/07/algorithms-stoking-inflation

That's a really fascinating article. Thanks for the link. It certainly explains a lot about petrol and in particular diesel prices over the last 6 months when the price of oil has been generally low.

JosiasJessop

Chris said:

Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.

So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?

I'd argue you're wrong:

*) There is a massive power differential, in terms of age, wealth and influence. Where there are power differentials, there can all too easily be abuse of that differential.

*) The situation is as clear as mud.

Your argument seems to be the same one that has allowed loads of abuse to go on unremarked over the years. We don't want to go back to the 1950s in that way, either.

rcs1000

Nigelb said:

I like this, in response to a story about Biden's temper.

https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1678556179486879744
Every single president, ever, has been shorter-tempered off camera than they are in public.

THAT IS HOW THEY GOT TO BE PRESIDENT.

Seriously ...



....Yes, even Jimmy Carter.

Utter rubbish. Most of them got to be President because they got more electoral college votes than their opponent.

Heathener

Chris said:

Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.

So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?

I don't know. But there's an awful lot of people who seem to know the story inside-out, which they evidently don't, and who claim to have better legal insight into the person's position than, erm, the person themselves and their own lawyer.

I came off twitter when the story broke and glad I did. I didn't want to read endless speculation and misinformed rage. Bliss to be free of this stampeding rubbish. Sadly it has crept in on here (e.g. see below) from people who have little or know real knowledge of the situation. We seem to have stepped into an episode of Black Mirror.

I guess the one thing we're all agreed on is that The Sun is a salacious muckraking vile newspaper.

IanB2

EPG said:

I wonder about these pollings. Surely these are at least heavily correlated, if not quite monocausal. By and large, if I decide I like Starmer, I won't be giving Sunak a higher score for tells the truth or cares about me.

Remember that, even in the LibDem-depleted recent past, it’s still the case that half the people polled won’t be voting Tory or Labour…

Mexicanpete

Chris said:

Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.

So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?

Are we sure the "child" is male? There seems to have been a deliberate attempt to conceal the "child's" gender.

Back to the 1950s? Wasn't that the ultimate aim of Brexit?

Heathener

After the disgraceful scandal of Carl Beech and the police (and BBC) mishandling of complaints against VIPs including Leon Brittan (who died without knowing his name was cleared), Harvey Proctor, Lord Bramall, and of course also Cliff Richard ... it seems to me from my limited knowledge of this case that the beeb and police have acted fine.

Innocent until proven otherwise and that doesn't mean in the twittersphere or the pages of The Sun.