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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
”Pretty obvious that drug laws have been broken” ?
All we have is the estranged parent’s testimony that drug laws have been broken & that the police declined to investigate when the parents complained to them.
For me at least, that doesn’t rise to the threshold of “pretty obvious”. Possible? Sure. But it’s equally easy to conceive of a scenario where this is something dreamt up by the parents to justify their need to interfere in their adult child’s life choices.
Yes - that's a fair point. I assumed that because no-one has denied this aspect it was given. But you are right. I withdraw that. It is possible that no laws of any kind have been broken.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
If it had the wit to do so, the government has a good tale to tell on employment and economic inactivity rates.
And if it had the wit to do so, on wages potentially soon too.
Instead it seems the government is desperate to have any good news be identified as happening despite them, not because of them.
The government spent years saying it wanted a higher wage economy, then when wages are still less than inflation they're now apparently too high. Makes all the high wage economy stuff sound like the complete codswallop it probably always was.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I'll put Persuasion at the top of my 'to read' pile. I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time during the Easter holidays and loved it.
You'll love Austen. And then at some point, could be S&S, could even be P&P you will find her the most boring writer on the planet. If I were you I'd read Northanger Abbey and have done with it.
Disraeli read Pride and Prejudice more or less every year. So do I. Doesn't everyone?
The readable novelists of universalist hope are a rare species and should be treasured.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
I have one pair of black shoes to wear with a suit and one pair of brown shoes to wear with other work clothes, both Clarks. I have some suede trainers (vans or converse, I can't remember which) that I wear on the weekends. I have a pair of Nike trainers that I wear for cycling and other exercising. I have some walking boots (Decathlon) for walking. I have some wellies for when it's raining. I have some dress shoes with long laces that I wear with my kilt. Each of these shoes is at least five years old. My main concern with shoes is that they don't give me blisters and that I don't own any more than are strictly necessary.
Two posters I respect... Who to believe?
I think we may have found another passionate and unresolvable PB debate. The TERFs (Totally Excessive Regarding Footwear) against the TRAs (Trainers Really Ancient).
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
Is a standard half-windsor acceptable?
IAMFI.
That's the question Meghan is mulling over right now.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I had a friend to stay this last weekend. Spouse died three years ago dropped dead of a heart attack. Left them and their now 16-yr old child. Both still deeply traumatised. The child developed all kinds of anxieties but also a profound interest in gardening. We went to a garden exhibition (actually exhibition of several gardens) and there was not a name, English, latin, slang, that he didn't know; nor a behaviour or habitat or preference of each plant he was unfamiliar with.
Gardening bores the pants off me save for appreciating a pretty one but this child really brought it alive. I even asked them to choose some shrubs for me to plant (sea holly, mock orange, something else) which I will keep an eye on in the coming months and years.
That's a lovely story.
Gardening is used as therapy for patients with OCD at the Maudsley.
I love it but I have certainly found that I needed it and was drawn to it - before I came to love it, if that makes sense - in troubling times. It chose me.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
If it had the wit to do so, the government has a good tale to tell on employment and economic inactivity rates.
They tried that on R4 this morning but I can’t be the only one who raised an eyebrow at the motivation being to undermine wage increases that are still below the inflation rate.
I noticed that this morning. The government has no plans to tell us that on average Joe Public is getting poorer; what is a bit of a mystery is why presenters are not putting the point to them - 10% inflation and 7% pay rise = UK getting poorer.
In the same way no-one plans to tell us that if powerful unions (medics, nurses, railworkers) get inflation + X % rises, then those who don't get relatively poorer still so that the powerful can get richer. Ditto of course the protected pensioners (of which I am one).
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
I have one pair of black shoes to wear with a suit and one pair of brown shoes to wear with other work clothes, both Clarks. I have some suede trainers (vans or converse, I can't remember which) that I wear on the weekends. I have a pair of Nike trainers that I wear for cycling and other exercising. I have some walking boots (Decathlon) for walking. I have some wellies for when it's raining. I have some dress shoes with long laces that I wear with my kilt. Each of these shoes is at least five years old. My main concern with shoes is that they don't give me blisters and that I don't own any more than are strictly necessary.
Even that sounds like a lot of shoes to me.
I have one pair of black shoes to go with my suit, one pair of 'everyday' shoes if I'm not wearing a suit, one pair of trainers, and a pair of flip flops for the beach.
My main concern with shoes is they're comfortable and if they develop a hole then I'll replace them.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I'll put Persuasion at the top of my 'to read' pile. I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time during the Easter holidays and loved it.
You'll love Austen. And then at some point, could be S&S, could even be P&P you will find her the most boring writer on the planet. If I were you I'd read Northanger Abbey and have done with it.
Disraeli read Pride and Prejudice more or less every year. So do I. Doesn't everyone?
The readable novelists of universalist hope are a rare species and should be treasured.
I re-read the Count of Monte Cristo. There are many layers in that story that are easily missed.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
I do not have 'over 3000 pairs of shoes:' I have precisely 1060 pairs.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
I have one pair of black shoes to wear with a suit and one pair of brown shoes to wear with other work clothes, both Clarks. I have some suede trainers (vans or converse, I can't remember which) that I wear on the weekends. I have a pair of Nike trainers that I wear for cycling and other exercising. I have some walking boots (Decathlon) for walking. I have some wellies for when it's raining. I have some dress shoes with long laces that I wear with my kilt. Each of these shoes is at least five years old. My main concern with shoes is that they don't give me blisters and that I don't own any more than are strictly necessary.
Even that sounds like a lot of shoes to me.
I have one pair of black shoes to go with my suit, one pair of 'everyday' shoes if I'm not wearing a suit, one pair of trainers, and a pair of flip flops for the beach.
My main concern with shoes is they're comfortable and if they develop a hole then I'll replace them.
I think Cyclefree and I are at different ends of the shoe spectrum. I discovered years ago that form and size of shoe X (black and boring) acquired on Amazon was fine and have not been in a shoe shop since. A major victory for us shop haters.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
If your business employment model involves substantial elements of training are you allowed to consider younger people in general learn skills faster than older people?
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
Age is not relevant. More specific issues are. As the law will tell you.
Not sure what that means? Are you suggesting learning skills do not diminish by age? Or that a business cannot lawfully consider that? Or that a business can consider it, but has to be based very specifically on learning skills rather than age as a proxy for learning skills.
Might be a peculiarity of my field, but it has never crossed my mind to link age with learning skills. Perhaps academia is different in that 'life-long learning' is more than just a buzzword phrase - we are all learning new things/techniques/ideas/approaches all the time, but I haven't seen any evidence of a link. Even if inate learning ability does decrease, the more experienced person (which generally, but not always, correlates with age) will likely have more related/close experience that will aid the learning (and the past experience of learning new techniques will likely make them good at learning new techniques).
We really don't consider age, but experience in combination with likelihood to stay does come into it a bit. Your person who has just finished a PhD in a slightly different area will likely bring less initially than a more experienced person, so one might look for indications of real interest in the subject area that means an investment of time in that person will be worthwhile. The more experienced person can likely slot in and if they only stay 1-2 years for the duration of the project will still add plenty of value. A person who has just finished a PhD in a very close/relevant area may however look an even better fit.
ETA: I changed field quite drastically after my PhD. My hiring line manage later told me that one of the main things they were interested in at interview was whether I had a real interest in the field or was just looking for a stop-gap job/job in a particular location as I would clearly have some learning to do before really getting to grips with the subject area. I considered that perfectly fair.
Different skills peak at different ages, on average of course.
And yes of course, those who are used to life long learning have an advantage in future learning over those who tend to stick mostly with what they already know.
This study for example has:
Information Processing 18-19 Short Term Memory 25-35 Emotional Intelligence 40-60 Vocabulary 70
I wonder how much the individual variation is, compared to the age variation - i.e. what the predictive power of age is for any of those traits.
I'd say my information processing is much better now (~40) than it was in late teens, but maybe my understanding of that term is different to that intended by the study.
I do accept, as a general rule, that it's probably easier to train your recent school leaver up as e.g. a BT telephone line installer than your 55 year old who has been making (non-phone line related) widgets all his life, but I'd put that down to the more recent experience of learning, mostly.
The study looks (from the summary) to be x-sectional. I do wonder whether there is also a generational thing in addition to an age thing. Today's 20 year olds have had a very different experience in first 20 years compared to today's 50 year olds. Longitudinal studies would be interesting, but we'd have to wait 30 years for the results (although various of the big cohort studies may also have looked at this).
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
I don't really understand aftershave. I've never understood the link between shaving and smelling of something. It's basically perfume for men, and perfume is a woman thing. And how would I know what I was supposed to smell of? As a man, my function is to be as unobtrusive as possible. You shouldn't notice me and you certainly shouldn't be able to smell me.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
I have one pair of black shoes to wear with a suit and one pair of brown shoes to wear with other work clothes, both Clarks. I have some suede trainers (vans or converse, I can't remember which) that I wear on the weekends. I have a pair of Nike trainers that I wear for cycling and other exercising. I have some walking boots (Decathlon) for walking. I have some wellies for when it's raining. I have some dress shoes with long laces that I wear with my kilt. Each of these shoes is at least five years old. My main concern with shoes is that they don't give me blisters and that I don't own any more than are strictly necessary.
Two posters I respect... Who to believe?
I think we may have found another passionate and unresolvable PB debate. The TERFs (Totally Excessive Regarding Footwear) against the TRAs (Trainers Really Ancient).
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I'll put Persuasion at the top of my 'to read' pile. I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time during the Easter holidays and loved it.
You'll love Austen. And then at some point, could be S&S, could even be P&P you will find her the most boring writer on the planet. If I were you I'd read Northanger Abbey and have done with it.
Disraeli read Pride and Prejudice more or less every year. So do I. Doesn't everyone?
The readable novelists of universalist hope are a rare species and should be treasured.
As soon as I start to read her this socking great weight bears down on me and I run a mile. Perhaps stems from having covered S&S for A-Level. Although for other books on the curriculum it instilled a lifelong interest in them so no. It's not me. It's her. She is a boring writer.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
I have one pair of black shoes to wear with a suit and one pair of brown shoes to wear with other work clothes, both Clarks. I have some suede trainers (vans or converse, I can't remember which) that I wear on the weekends. I have a pair of Nike trainers that I wear for cycling and other exercising. I have some walking boots (Decathlon) for walking. I have some wellies for when it's raining. I have some dress shoes with long laces that I wear with my kilt. Each of these shoes is at least five years old. My main concern with shoes is that they don't give me blisters and that I don't own any more than are strictly necessary.
Even that sounds like a lot of shoes to me.
I have one pair of black shoes to go with my suit, one pair of 'everyday' shoes if I'm not wearing a suit, one pair of trainers, and a pair of flip flops for the beach.
My main concern with shoes is they're comfortable and if they develop a hole then I'll replace them.
I have a pair of Loakes with a small hole where the leather has cracked. I still use them. But not in the rain.
I recently bought my first pair of shoes in over 20 years. My old trainers are getting very tatty, and there's a dinner thing I am compelled by social obligations to attend in September (bought them way ahead of time in case they didn't fit).
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
I think the issue might have been the offences around sexually explicit material for people under 18yrs old?
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
I have one pair of black shoes to wear with a suit and one pair of brown shoes to wear with other work clothes, both Clarks. I have some suede trainers (vans or converse, I can't remember which) that I wear on the weekends. I have a pair of Nike trainers that I wear for cycling and other exercising. I have some walking boots (Decathlon) for walking. I have some wellies for when it's raining. I have some dress shoes with long laces that I wear with my kilt. Each of these shoes is at least five years old. My main concern with shoes is that they don't give me blisters and that I don't own any more than are strictly necessary.
Even that sounds like a lot of shoes to me.
I have one pair of black shoes to go with my suit, one pair of 'everyday' shoes if I'm not wearing a suit, one pair of trainers, and a pair of flip flops for the beach.
My main concern with shoes is they're comfortable and if they develop a hole then I'll replace them.
You should not be wearing the same pair day in day out. Shoes need to be aired. It is also bad for your feet. You risk fungal infections. And your feet need a change, especially in different types of weathers and temperatures.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I'll put Persuasion at the top of my 'to read' pile. I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time during the Easter holidays and loved it.
You'll love Austen. And then at some point, could be S&S, could even be P&P you will find her the most boring writer on the planet. If I were you I'd read Northanger Abbey and have done with it.
Disraeli read Pride and Prejudice more or less every year. So do I. Doesn't everyone?
The readable novelists of universalist hope are a rare species and should be treasured.
As soon as I start to read her this socking great weight bears down on me and I run a mile. Perhaps stems from having covered S&S for A-Level. Although for other books on the curriculum it instilled a lifelong interest in them so no. It's not me. It's her. She is a boring writer.
There are Austenites & non-Austenites and never the twain shall meet.
As an adult returning to Austen I’ve found her dry line of humour hilarious. But chacun à son goût: it would be boring if we were all the same.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I had a friend to stay this last weekend. Spouse died three years ago dropped dead of a heart attack. Left them and their now 16-yr old child. Both still deeply traumatised. The child developed all kinds of anxieties but also a profound interest in gardening. We went to a garden exhibition (actually exhibition of several gardens) and there was not a name, English, latin, slang, that he didn't know; nor a behaviour or habitat or preference of each plant he was unfamiliar with.
Gardening bores the pants off me save for appreciating a pretty one but this child really brought it alive. I even asked them to choose some shrubs for me to plant (sea holly, mock orange, something else) which I will keep an eye on in the coming months and years.
That's a lovely story.
Gardening is used as therapy for patients with OCD at the Maudsley.
I love it but I have certainly found that I needed it and was drawn to it - before I came to love it, if that makes sense - in troubling times. It chose me.
Alistair Darling said something similar about gardening.
The day he was told about those missing CDs with all the sensitive data on them, he was about to go into the garden at his place in Edinburgh as he finds weeding therapeutic.
He got the phone call and was told to rush back to London.
Before he did, he decided to spend an hour in the garden.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
I think the issue might have been the offences around sexually explicit material for people under 18yrs old?
Sure, but the BBC has strongly implied that this was not part of the original complaint. In which case, it’s hard to see what else they were supposed to do.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
I'm no fan of the Beeb, but I think that they've handled this just fine.
Initial complaint was investigated, determined nothing wrong, so investigation closed. Nothing wrong with that.
More serious complaint escalated, passed on to authorities and suspension pending investigation. Nothing wrong with that.
What's funny is those rushing to judgment one way or another. "There's definitely nothing going on" on one extreme, or "there's definitely something wrong" on the other. How about we let this run its course, but that's boring for those who want 24/7 entertainment on this.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Mrs Al, the Imelda Marcos of the south, is absolutely with you - though even more shoes than you. Every outfit merits different shoes. So many, in fact, that they are the main hazard in our house as I keep tripping over them. I suspect they breed.
I recently bought my first pair of shoes in over 20 years. My old trainers are getting very tatty, and there's a dinner thing I am compelled by social obligations to attend in September (bought them way ahead of time in case they didn't fit).
Now that's going the other way. How have your shoes not fallen apart? In my experience, any pair of shoes becomes functionally unwearable (holes, sole wears through, etc.) after about 400 days of wear.
My gripe - as it is with the whole clothing industry - is that I can't simply buy exactly the same product I bought last time, because the attention spans of the people who make this product no longer exists and has been replaced by something else. I don't think I am unusual in men in being perfectly happy with the way I dressed at the age of about 21 and wishing I could simply keep that exact set of clothes, replacing new for old when something wore out.
Dr. Martens are good in this respect. Haven't changed in about 40 years.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Mrs Al, the Imelda Marcos of the south, is absolutely with you - though even more shoes than you. So many, in fact, that they are the main hazard in our house as I keep tripping over them. I suspect they breed.
If you trip over a shoe, as the sole hazard, does that make you down at heels?
Today I am going to the dentist and later for a pedicure. I have a choice of some beautiful orange sandals to go with outfit A or some green sandals to go with outfit B - both dresses. They are recent acquisitions and so beautiful and comfortable. I have even had people come up to me to ask where I got them.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
I don't know how to do the strikethrough thing - but I would replace the word 'barbarian' above with 'man'.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
If your business employment model involves substantial elements of training are you allowed to consider younger people in general learn skills faster than older people?
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
Age is not relevant. More specific issues are. As the law will tell you.
Not sure what that means? Are you suggesting learning skills do not diminish by age? Or that a business cannot lawfully consider that? Or that a business can consider it, but has to be based very specifically on learning skills rather than age as a proxy for learning skills.
Might be a peculiarity of my field, but it has never crossed my mind to link age with learning skills. Perhaps academia is different in that 'life-long learning' is more than just a buzzword phrase - we are all learning new things/techniques/ideas/approaches all the time, but I haven't seen any evidence of a link. Even if inate learning ability does decrease, the more experienced person (which generally, but not always, correlates with age) will likely have more related/close experience that will aid the learning (and the past experience of learning new techniques will likely make them good at learning new techniques).
We really don't consider age, but experience in combination with likelihood to stay does come into it a bit. Your person who has just finished a PhD in a slightly different area will likely bring less initially than a more experienced person, so one might look for indications of real interest in the subject area that means an investment of time in that person will be worthwhile. The more experienced person can likely slot in and if they only stay 1-2 years for the duration of the project will still add plenty of value. A person who has just finished a PhD in a very close/relevant area may however look an even better fit.
ETA: I changed field quite drastically after my PhD. My hiring line manage later told me that one of the main things they were interested in at interview was whether I had a real interest in the field or was just looking for a stop-gap job/job in a particular location as I would clearly have some learning to do before really getting to grips with the subject area. I considered that perfectly fair.
Different skills peak at different ages, on average of course.
And yes of course, those who are used to life long learning have an advantage in future learning over those who tend to stick mostly with what they already know.
This study for example has:
Information Processing 18-19 Short Term Memory 25-35 Emotional Intelligence 40-60 Vocabulary 70
I wonder how much the individual variation is, compared to the age variation - i.e. what the predictive power of age is for any of those traits.
I'd say my information processing is much better now (~40) than it was in late teens, but maybe my understanding of that term is different to that intended by the study.
I do accept, as a general rule, that it's probably easier to train your recent school leaver up as e.g. a BT telephone line installer than your 55 year old who has been making (non-phone line related) widgets all his life, but I'd put that down to the more recent experience of learning, mostly.
The study looks (from the summary) to be x-sectional. I do wonder whether there is also a generational thing in addition to an age thing. Today's 20 year olds have had a very different experience in first 20 years compared to today's 50 year olds. Longitudinal studies would be interesting, but we'd have to wait 30 years for the results (although various of the big cohort studies may also have looked at this).
Information processing would be the ability to learn new skills.
For example, a flying school will tell you that it usually takes about 10 hours plus your age in hours, to get the skills required for a pilot’s licence. So a 15-year-old kid can do it in 25 hours or so, and a 60-year-old is more likely about 70 hours. Rule of thumb, with a fair bit of individual variation, but it’s been studied in some depth.
See also learning a new language - whether that’s a foreign means of communication, or a way of programming a computer.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
I think the issue might have been the offences around sexually explicit material for people under 18yrs old?
Which is further complicated that possessing such material is a crime.
So emailing the evidence to someone makes them a criminal etc.
Some years ago, at a reprographics firm, an employee was caught with horrible stuff on his machine. The owner called the police, had them take everything away. He refused to accept the computers back when the case was over - he (probably rightly) was concerned that the police would have only deleted the files, not scrubbed them from the drives properly. So even having them back in the building was a risk.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
I don't think she really thinks you are a barbarian. I think she is using a rhetorical flourish.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Mrs Al, the Imelda Marcos of the south, is absolutely with you - though even more shoes than you. So many, in fact, that they are the main hazard in our house as I keep tripping over them. I suspect they breed.
If you trip over a shoe, as the sole hazard, does that make you down at heels?
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
The answer about case law is Yes. Employment law is gigantic, boring and for some highly lucrative. It is relevant of course to mainstream courts and also has its own staggeringly dull tribunal system. No-one tends to know anything at all about it unless they are in HR (but never ever trust what any HR or safeguarding person says about law), or an expensive employment law specialist.
BTW, SFAICS, the BBC, who will employ lots of employment specialist lawyers and have their own huge legal department for which you and I pay, have done nothing wrong.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
I think the issue might have been the offences around sexually explicit material for people under 18yrs old?
Which is further complicated that possessing such material is a crime.
So emailing the evidence to someone makes them a criminal etc.
Some years ago, at a reprographics firm, an employee was caught with horrible stuff on his machine. The owner called the police, had them take everything away. He refused to accept the computers back when the case was over - he (probably rightly) was concerned that the police would have only deleted the files, not scrubbed them from the drives properly. So even having them back in the building was a risk.
Having CP, or anything that even might arouse suspicions that it could possibly be, turn up on a company computer or server, is the sort of thing that keeps the Head of IT awake at night.
Don’t look, don’t move or copy anything, just switch it off and call in the specialist police and lawyers. Anything else can land you, the IT guy, in prison.
And yeah, we don’t want the computers back afterwards thanks. The industrial shredder is over there…
Over thirty years ago, I was on my way into uni on the tube during rush hour. Unfortunately, I was on crutches. A smartly-dressed woman glared at me and asked me: "Do you have to use those things on the tube?"
Because, obviously, my using crutches was only to inconvenience her. I said nothing, but my female friend tore a few strips off her.
Just one example that smart clothes in no way mark value or worth.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
If your business employment model involves substantial elements of training are you allowed to consider younger people in general learn skills faster than older people?
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
Age is not relevant. More specific issues are. As the law will tell you.
Not sure what that means? Are you suggesting learning skills do not diminish by age? Or that a business cannot lawfully consider that? Or that a business can consider it, but has to be based very specifically on learning skills rather than age as a proxy for learning skills.
Might be a peculiarity of my field, but it has never crossed my mind to link age with learning skills. Perhaps academia is different in that 'life-long learning' is more than just a buzzword phrase - we are all learning new things/techniques/ideas/approaches all the time, but I haven't seen any evidence of a link. Even if inate learning ability does decrease, the more experienced person (which generally, but not always, correlates with age) will likely have more related/close experience that will aid the learning (and the past experience of learning new techniques will likely make them good at learning new techniques).
We really don't consider age, but experience in combination with likelihood to stay does come into it a bit. Your person who has just finished a PhD in a slightly different area will likely bring less initially than a more experienced person, so one might look for indications of real interest in the subject area that means an investment of time in that person will be worthwhile. The more experienced person can likely slot in and if they only stay 1-2 years for the duration of the project will still add plenty of value. A person who has just finished a PhD in a very close/relevant area may however look an even better fit.
ETA: I changed field quite drastically after my PhD. My hiring line manage later told me that one of the main things they were interested in at interview was whether I had a real interest in the field or was just looking for a stop-gap job/job in a particular location as I would clearly have some learning to do before really getting to grips with the subject area. I considered that perfectly fair.
Different skills peak at different ages, on average of course.
And yes of course, those who are used to life long learning have an advantage in future learning over those who tend to stick mostly with what they already know.
This study for example has:
Information Processing 18-19 Short Term Memory 25-35 Emotional Intelligence 40-60 Vocabulary 70
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Mrs Al, the Imelda Marcos of the south, is absolutely with you - though even more shoes than you. So many, in fact, that they are the main hazard in our house as I keep tripping over them. I suspect they breed.
If you trip over a shoe, as the sole hazard, does that make you down at heels?
Oh dear. That pun should get the boot.
Which one?
By the way, two per post is the upper limit. We don't want posts laced with puns.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
You then have the second issue - OnlyFans is the party that is responsible for the due diligence that everyone is over the age of 18.
Given that everything seems to have been conducted via OnlyFans I'm at a loss as to how any crime has knowingly occurred.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
I have one pair of black shoes to wear with a suit and one pair of brown shoes to wear with other work clothes, both Clarks. I have some suede trainers (vans or converse, I can't remember which) that I wear on the weekends. I have a pair of Nike trainers that I wear for cycling and other exercising. I have some walking boots (Decathlon) for walking. I have some wellies for when it's raining. I have some dress shoes with long laces that I wear with my kilt. Each of these shoes is at least five years old. My main concern with shoes is that they don't give me blisters and that I don't own any more than are strictly necessary.
That is broadly my approach, except I double up on everything so when one wears out I have another until I get round to buying a replacement. Shopping is somewhere only just above infinity on both my prioritised List of Things I Have To Do and even lower than that on the things I would like to spend my time doing.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
We are allowed opinions. You have judged me - most unfairly and hurtfully - on other topics.
Anyway if you have shoes that work for you given the state of your ankles, good for you. Just have plenty of them for different occasions. Imagine you must have a fair number of walking boots (as do I) and getting them right is most important.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
There was a cowboy boot shop on King's Road called RSoles (now online only I believe) and a million years ago I desperately wanted a pair of their finest; I finally picked up a pair last month. I sense that you may consider that there's a type of nominative determinism going on there, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
I don't think she really thinks you are a barbarian. I think she is using a rhetorical flourish.
Barbarians vary. Leading figures in 'The Barbarian West' as it used to be called would include Clovis, Pippen, Charles Martel, Edwin, Alfred and Charlemagne. Elegant shoe wearers to a man.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
If your business employment model involves substantial elements of training are you allowed to consider younger people in general learn skills faster than older people?
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
Age is not relevant. More specific issues are. As the law will tell you.
Not sure what that means? Are you suggesting learning skills do not diminish by age? Or that a business cannot lawfully consider that? Or that a business can consider it, but has to be based very specifically on learning skills rather than age as a proxy for learning skills.
Might be a peculiarity of my field, but it has never crossed my mind to link age with learning skills. Perhaps academia is different in that 'life-long learning' is more than just a buzzword phrase - we are all learning new things/techniques/ideas/approaches all the time, but I haven't seen any evidence of a link. Even if inate learning ability does decrease, the more experienced person (which generally, but not always, correlates with age) will likely have more related/close experience that will aid the learning (and the past experience of learning new techniques will likely make them good at learning new techniques).
We really don't consider age, but experience in combination with likelihood to stay does come into it a bit. Your person who has just finished a PhD in a slightly different area will likely bring less initially than a more experienced person, so one might look for indications of real interest in the subject area that means an investment of time in that person will be worthwhile. The more experienced person can likely slot in and if they only stay 1-2 years for the duration of the project will still add plenty of value. A person who has just finished a PhD in a very close/relevant area may however look an even better fit.
ETA: I changed field quite drastically after my PhD. My hiring line manage later told me that one of the main things they were interested in at interview was whether I had a real interest in the field or was just looking for a stop-gap job/job in a particular location as I would clearly have some learning to do before really getting to grips with the subject area. I considered that perfectly fair.
Different skills peak at different ages, on average of course.
And yes of course, those who are used to life long learning have an advantage in future learning over those who tend to stick mostly with what they already know.
This study for example has:
Information Processing 18-19 Short Term Memory 25-35 Emotional Intelligence 40-60 Vocabulary 70
I wonder how much the individual variation is, compared to the age variation - i.e. what the predictive power of age is for any of those traits.
I'd say my information processing is much better now (~40) than it was in late teens, but maybe my understanding of that term is different to that intended by the study.
I do accept, as a general rule, that it's probably easier to train your recent school leaver up as e.g. a BT telephone line installer than your 55 year old who has been making (non-phone line related) widgets all his life, but I'd put that down to the more recent experience of learning, mostly.
The study looks (from the summary) to be x-sectional. I do wonder whether there is also a generational thing in addition to an age thing. Today's 20 year olds have had a very different experience in first 20 years compared to today's 50 year olds. Longitudinal studies would be interesting, but we'd have to wait 30 years for the results (although various of the big cohort studies may also have looked at this).
Information processing would be the ability to learn new skills.
For example, a flying school will tell you that it usually takes about 10 hours plus your age in hours, to get the skills required for a pilot’s licence. So a 15-year-old kid can do it in 25 hours or so, and a 60-year-old is more likely about 70 hours. Rule of thumb, with a fair bit of individual variation, but it’s been studied in some depth.
See also learning a new language - whether that’s a foreign means of communication, or a way of programming a computer.
In innate learning ability, sure. But again, past experience counts. I learned SQL (properly - the very basics, e.g. reading a table in to something else, I'd had for a decade or so) a couple of years back in no time at all for a project (had a big data set with hundreds of millions of observations that I couldn't just load into memory and process). I learned that a hell of a lot quicker than I learned BASIC in first couple of years at uni.
But learning FORTRAN, Matlab, R, Stata, Python and a bit of C++ in the intervening period just means I'm better at learning programming.
Something entirely new, sure the younger brain is better. But something that builds on earlier experience, I don't think it's so simple.
So, I don't dispute your point/the studies at all. But when it comes to hiring (the original debate) the more experienced (often, but not always older) person might be better equipped to learn the new things they need to learn than the less experienced person. Or they may not. But age isn't a good proxy by itself, at least in my area.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
We are allowed opinions. You have judged me - most unfairly and hurtfully - on other topics.
Anyway if you have shoes that work for you given the state of your ankles, good for you. Just have plenty of them for different occasions. Imagine you must have a fair number of walking boots (as do I) and getting them right is most important.
The other week you said: ""Oh and I criticise both men and women for how they look and dress because I think that when people go out in public they should make an effort to be presentable at the very least and elegant at best. If you cannot be bothered to make that effort stay at home. "
I will judge you on your words - in the same way you seem very open to harshly and unfairly judge others.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
The answer about case law is Yes. Employment law is gigantic, boring and for some highly lucrative. It is relevant of course to mainstream courts and also has its own staggeringly dull tribunal system. No-one tends to know anything at all about it unless they are in HR (but never ever trust what any HR or safeguarding person says about law), or an expensive employment law specialist.
BTW, SFAICS, the BBC, who will employ lots of employment specialist lawyers and have their own huge legal department for which you and I pay, have done nothing wrong.
The head of their internal investigations team is an ex-Met detective who specialises in whistleblowing, sexual harassment and fraud, according to the BBC website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66147560.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
There was a cowboy boot shop on King's Road called RSoles (now online only I believe) and a million years ago I desperately wanted a pair of their finest; I finally picked up a pair last month. I sense that you may consider that there's a type of nominative determinism going on there, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.
Famously, in Brighton of course, there is a long-standing shop called Vegetarian Shoes. Some time ago, my daughter enquired "dad, who eats shoes?".
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
The answer about case law is Yes. Employment law is gigantic, boring and for some highly lucrative. It is relevant of course to mainstream courts and also has its own staggeringly dull tribunal system. No-one tends to know anything at all about it unless they are in HR (but never ever trust what any HR or safeguarding person says about law), or an expensive employment law specialist.
BTW, SFAICS, the BBC, who will employ lots of employment specialist lawyers and have their own huge legal department for which you and I pay, have done nothing wrong.
The head of their internal investigations team is an ex-Met detective who specialises in whistleblowing, sexual harassment and fraud, according to the BBC website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66147560.
He sounds a right charmer.
Unless a fairly significant 'investigating' should be inserted between 'in' and 'whistleblowing.'
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
There was a cowboy boot shop on King's Road called RSoles (now online only I believe) and a million years ago I desperately wanted a pair of their finest; I finally picked up a pair last month. I sense that you may consider that there's a type of nominative determinism going on there, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.
Famously, in Brighton of course, there is a long-standing shop called Vegetarian Shoes. Some time ago, my daughter enquired "dad, who eats shoes?".
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
The answer about case law is Yes. Employment law is gigantic, boring and for some highly lucrative. It is relevant of course to mainstream courts and also has its own staggeringly dull tribunal system. No-one tends to know anything at all about it unless they are in HR (but never ever trust what any HR or safeguarding person says about law), or an expensive employment law specialist.
BTW, SFAICS, the BBC, who will employ lots of employment specialist lawyers and have their own huge legal department for which you and I pay, have done nothing wrong.
The head of their internal investigations team is an ex-Met detective who specialises in whistleblowing, sexual harassment and fraud, according to the BBC website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66147560.
The latter two are general competencies of the Met, rather than specialisms, surely ?
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
I don't think she really thinks you are a barbarian. I think she is using a rhetorical flourish.
So much been happening that cartoongate is rapidly disappearing over the horizon. No need to worry in any case as 'It is the correct decision these facilities have the requisite decoration befitting their purpose'.
So much been happening that cartoongate is rapidly disappearing over the horizon. No need to worry in any case as 'It is the correct decision these facilities have the requisite decoration befitting their purpose'.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
We are allowed opinions. You have judged me - most unfairly and hurtfully - on other topics.
Anyway if you have shoes that work for you given the state of your ankles, good for you. Just have plenty of them for different occasions. Imagine you must have a fair number of walking boots (as do I) and getting them right is most important.
The other week you said: ""Oh and I criticise both men and women for how they look and dress because I think that when people go out in public they should make an effort to be presentable at the very least and elegant at best. If you cannot be bothered to make that effort stay at home. "
I will judge you on your words - in the same way you seem very open to harshly and unfairly judge others.
I do think that people should make an effort to look presentable. If you need specialist shoes there is no issue. Having specialist ones is not the same as having smelly old trainers which is bad for your feet and unappealing.
As for harsh and unfair judgments, you need to look at the beam in your eye. You have very harshly judged me in a way that has been extremely unjust and hurtful and which led me to leaving this site for a while. If I think about it again I will get very angry again at you and, believe me, this time I might say things you will not like.
So I won't and will concentrate on choosing my shoes for the day and getting on with it.
BTW I don't know if you've ever walked the coast path in the Lakes but if not you should. It is very beautiful. I have recently done part of it and it is quite enchanting.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
If your business employment model involves substantial elements of training are you allowed to consider younger people in general learn skills faster than older people?
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
Age is not relevant. More specific issues are. As the law will tell you.
Not sure what that means? Are you suggesting learning skills do not diminish by age? Or that a business cannot lawfully consider that? Or that a business can consider it, but has to be based very specifically on learning skills rather than age as a proxy for learning skills.
Might be a peculiarity of my field, but it has never crossed my mind to link age with learning skills. Perhaps academia is different in that 'life-long learning' is more than just a buzzword phrase - we are all learning new things/techniques/ideas/approaches all the time, but I haven't seen any evidence of a link. Even if inate learning ability does decrease, the more experienced person (which generally, but not always, correlates with age) will likely have more related/close experience that will aid the learning (and the past experience of learning new techniques will likely make them good at learning new techniques).
We really don't consider age, but experience in combination with likelihood to stay does come into it a bit. Your person who has just finished a PhD in a slightly different area will likely bring less initially than a more experienced person, so one might look for indications of real interest in the subject area that means an investment of time in that person will be worthwhile. The more experienced person can likely slot in and if they only stay 1-2 years for the duration of the project will still add plenty of value. A person who has just finished a PhD in a very close/relevant area may however look an even better fit.
ETA: I changed field quite drastically after my PhD. My hiring line manage later told me that one of the main things they were interested in at interview was whether I had a real interest in the field or was just looking for a stop-gap job/job in a particular location as I would clearly have some learning to do before really getting to grips with the subject area. I considered that perfectly fair.
Different skills peak at different ages, on average of course.
And yes of course, those who are used to life long learning have an advantage in future learning over those who tend to stick mostly with what they already know.
This study for example has:
Information Processing 18-19 Short Term Memory 25-35 Emotional Intelligence 40-60 Vocabulary 70
I wonder how much the individual variation is, compared to the age variation - i.e. what the predictive power of age is for any of those traits.
I'd say my information processing is much better now (~40) than it was in late teens, but maybe my understanding of that term is different to that intended by the study.
I do accept, as a general rule, that it's probably easier to train your recent school leaver up as e.g. a BT telephone line installer than your 55 year old who has been making (non-phone line related) widgets all his life, but I'd put that down to the more recent experience of learning, mostly.
The study looks (from the summary) to be x-sectional. I do wonder whether there is also a generational thing in addition to an age thing. Today's 20 year olds have had a very different experience in first 20 years compared to today's 50 year olds. Longitudinal studies would be interesting, but we'd have to wait 30 years for the results (although various of the big cohort studies may also have looked at this).
Information processing would be the ability to learn new skills.
For example, a flying school will tell you that it usually takes about 10 hours plus your age in hours, to get the skills required for a pilot’s licence. So a 15-year-old kid can do it in 25 hours or so, and a 60-year-old is more likely about 70 hours. Rule of thumb, with a fair bit of individual variation, but it’s been studied in some depth.
See also learning a new language - whether that’s a foreign means of communication, or a way of programming a computer.
In innate learning ability, sure. But again, past experience counts. I learned SQL (properly - the very basics, e.g. reading a table in to something else, I'd had for a decade or so) a couple of years back in no time at all for a project (had a big data set with hundreds of millions of observations that I couldn't just load into memory and process). I learned that a hell of a lot quicker than I learned BASIC in first couple of years at uni.
But learning FORTRAN, Matlab, R, Stata, Python and a bit of C++ in the intervening period just means I'm better at learning programming.
Something entirely new, sure the younger brain is better. But something that builds on earlier experience, I don't think it's so simple.
So, I don't dispute your point/the studies at all. But when it comes to hiring (the original debate) the more experienced (often, but not always older) person might be better equipped to learn the new things they need to learn than the less experienced person. Or they may not. But age isn't a good proxy by itself, at least in my area.
As you acquire skills during your life and career, it does indeed make learning new but related skills easier, as well as give you a level of experience that makes it easier to deal with those random unknowns that pop up.
So if you already know half a dozen languages, learning another one is relatively simple, as you have a greater knowledge of the structure and rules of language and code in general. The older employee doesn’t make the same mistakes as the younger one, mostly because he made those mistakes two decades back and learned from the experience.
On the other hand, I’ve been ‘learning’ Arabic and Russian for the last decade, and getting precisely nowhere!
Two quotes from instructors stand out, from my experience of learning to fly: 1. Right now you have an empty pot of skill and a full pot of luck. My job is to put as much into the first pot as possible, before the second one gets empty. 2. There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. But there are no old, bold pilots.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
If your business employment model involves substantial elements of training are you allowed to consider younger people in general learn skills faster than older people?
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
Age is not relevant. More specific issues are. As the law will tell you.
Not sure what that means? Are you suggesting learning skills do not diminish by age? Or that a business cannot lawfully consider that? Or that a business can consider it, but has to be based very specifically on learning skills rather than age as a proxy for learning skills.
Might be a peculiarity of my field, but it has never crossed my mind to link age with learning skills. Perhaps academia is different in that 'life-long learning' is more than just a buzzword phrase - we are all learning new things/techniques/ideas/approaches all the time, but I haven't seen any evidence of a link. Even if inate learning ability does decrease, the more experienced person (which generally, but not always, correlates with age) will likely have more related/close experience that will aid the learning (and the past experience of learning new techniques will likely make them good at learning new techniques).
We really don't consider age, but experience in combination with likelihood to stay does come into it a bit. Your person who has just finished a PhD in a slightly different area will likely bring less initially than a more experienced person, so one might look for indications of real interest in the subject area that means an investment of time in that person will be worthwhile. The more experienced person can likely slot in and if they only stay 1-2 years for the duration of the project will still add plenty of value. A person who has just finished a PhD in a very close/relevant area may however look an even better fit.
ETA: I changed field quite drastically after my PhD. My hiring line manage later told me that one of the main things they were interested in at interview was whether I had a real interest in the field or was just looking for a stop-gap job/job in a particular location as I would clearly have some learning to do before really getting to grips with the subject area. I considered that perfectly fair.
Different skills peak at different ages, on average of course.
And yes of course, those who are used to life long learning have an advantage in future learning over those who tend to stick mostly with what they already know.
This study for example has:
Information Processing 18-19 Short Term Memory 25-35 Emotional Intelligence 40-60 Vocabulary 70
I wonder how much the individual variation is, compared to the age variation - i.e. what the predictive power of age is for any of those traits.
I'd say my information processing is much better now (~40) than it was in late teens, but maybe my understanding of that term is different to that intended by the study.
I do accept, as a general rule, that it's probably easier to train your recent school leaver up as e.g. a BT telephone line installer than your 55 year old who has been making (non-phone line related) widgets all his life, but I'd put that down to the more recent experience of learning, mostly.
The study looks (from the summary) to be x-sectional. I do wonder whether there is also a generational thing in addition to an age thing. Today's 20 year olds have had a very different experience in first 20 years compared to today's 50 year olds. Longitudinal studies would be interesting, but we'd have to wait 30 years for the results (although various of the big cohort studies may also have looked at this).
This is interesting. Although I've done a lot of relatively informal workplace learning over the years, recently I have started to teach myself something tangible for the first time since I was at University. I'm learning a new language, and it's a very instructive experience on the way my learning ability has changed. I'm now in my mid-50s and this is what I am finding:
My short term memory is still fine. I can remember what I taught myself in the last few days easily (perhaps that's because as a Project Manager, I spend all my time dealing with urgent issues, then forgetting about them once done).
On the other hand I'm finding my medium term memory is terrible - I am forgetting vocab from 2 months ago almost entirely whereas when at school most of it would have stuck whether I used it or not. (It is a language very different to others I know so apart from some loan words mostly from French there is nothing for it but to memorise it).
My 'learned experience' is really beneficial - because I have learned a language before, I am picking the grammar up very quickly, can spot the similarities between other languages I know. I have developed techniques to remember stuff that suits me, and I know my best learning styles, which I didn't at school or University.
And because I have a good reason to learn, I am motivated, and experience of grinding through boring stuff all day for money makes it a pleasure, not a chore, by comparison.
And with that, break over and back to grinding through boring stuff for money...
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
There was a cowboy boot shop on King's Road called RSoles (now online only I believe) and a million years ago I desperately wanted a pair of their finest; I finally picked up a pair last month. I sense that you may consider that there's a type of nominative determinism going on there, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.
Famously, in Brighton of course, there is a long-standing shop called Vegetarian Shoes. Some time ago, my daughter enquired "dad, who eats shoes?".
Bought a pair there once to woo a (vegan) girl. They were awful. So was she, as it turned out
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
The answer about case law is Yes. Employment law is gigantic, boring and for some highly lucrative. It is relevant of course to mainstream courts and also has its own staggeringly dull tribunal system. No-one tends to know anything at all about it unless they are in HR (but never ever trust what any HR or safeguarding person says about law), or an expensive employment law specialist.
BTW, SFAICS, the BBC, who will employ lots of employment specialist lawyers and have their own huge legal department for which you and I pay, have done nothing wrong.
The head of their internal investigations team is an ex-Met detective who specialises in whistleblowing, sexual harassment and fraud, according to the BBC website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66147560.
He sounds a right charmer.
Unless a fairly significant 'investigating' should be inserted between 'in' and 'whistleblowing.'
The phrase is from the BBC site. Copy editors, eh .... !
So much been happening that cartoongate is rapidly disappearing over the horizon. No need to worry in any case as 'It is the correct decision these facilities have the requisite decoration befitting their purpose'.
Rishi Sunak really needs to know there are times to completely ignore a stupid question...
And being asked about the BBC handling of what is a really complex legal matter is one of those times when the best thing to say is that it's an internal BBC issue and leave things there...
For instance I'm shocked and concerned about the allegation - but my shock and concern is attached to a very different set of parties. The BBC and the presenter both seem to have been placed in impossible situations by an set of parents and a newspaper both trying to score points.
Over thirty years ago, I was on my way into uni on the tube during rush hour. Unfortunately, I was on crutches. A smartly-dressed woman glared at me and asked me: "Do you have to use those things on the tube?"
Because, obviously, my using crutches was only to inconvenience her. I said nothing, but my female friend tore a few strips off her.
Just one example that smart clothes in no way mark value or worth.
That is just mind blowing. Not sure how one could survive in life without realising you are being mindbogglingly selfish with that attitude as I assume she will do similar things all the time.
When I broke both my legs last year I found everyone very considerate. I'm sure some thought I was a fraud as I would always be offered a seat (because of the crutches) but choose to stand.
So much been happening that cartoongate is rapidly disappearing over the horizon. No need to worry in any case as 'It is the correct decision these facilities have the requisite decoration befitting their purpose'.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
What about men who wear bow ties?
Again, asking for a friend.
The. Absolute. Worst. There is a whole episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm devoted to this subject.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
There was a cowboy boot shop on King's Road called RSoles (now online only I believe) and a million years ago I desperately wanted a pair of their finest; I finally picked up a pair last month. I sense that you may consider that there's a type of nominative determinism going on there, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.
I'm picturing Jon Voight in Midnight Cowboy, Hope you have a 'Rizzo' to hang out with on the mean streets of Glasgow.
...I learned SQL (properly - the very basics, e.g. reading a table in to something else, I'd had for a decade or so) a couple of years back in no time at all for a project (had a big data set with hundreds of millions of observations that I couldn't just load into memory and process). I learned that a hell of a lot quicker than I learned BASIC in first couple of years at uni.
But learning FORTRAN, Matlab, R, Stata, Python and a bit of C++...
FORTRAN? When was the last time you used that, if you don't mind me asking?
Over thirty years ago, I was on my way into uni on the tube during rush hour. Unfortunately, I was on crutches. A smartly-dressed woman glared at me and asked me: "Do you have to use those things on the tube?"
Because, obviously, my using crutches was only to inconvenience her. I said nothing, but my female friend tore a few strips off her.
Just one example that smart clothes in no way mark value or worth.
That is just mind blowing. Not sure how one could survive in life without realising you are being mindbogglingly selfish with that attitude as I assume she will do similar things all the time.
When I broke both my legs last year I found everyone very considerate. I'm sure some thought I was a fraud as I would always be offered a seat (because of the crutches) but choose to stand.
To be fair, you mostly see kindness - say 95% of the time. Most of the other 5% is just annoyances, but there are a few absolutely glaring ones such as the above. And sadly, they stick in the memory. Negative things always do.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
The answer about case law is Yes. Employment law is gigantic, boring and for some highly lucrative. It is relevant of course to mainstream courts and also has its own staggeringly dull tribunal system. No-one tends to know anything at all about it unless they are in HR (but never ever trust what any HR or safeguarding person says about law), or an expensive employment law specialist.
BTW, SFAICS, the BBC, who will employ lots of employment specialist lawyers and have their own huge legal department for which you and I pay, have done nothing wrong.
The head of their internal investigations team is an ex-Met detective who specialises in whistleblowing, sexual harassment and fraud, according to the BBC website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66147560.
He sounds a right charmer.
Unless a fairly significant 'investigating' should be inserted between 'in' and 'whistleblowing.'
The phrase is from the BBC site. Copy editors, eh .... !
My brother once reviewed an early version of an auditing company's "Money Laundering Guide". One of his comments was that they should add 'Anti-" at the start of the title.
Although, to be honest, I wonder if there would have been more lucrative sales under the original title...
So much been happening that cartoongate is rapidly disappearing over the horizon. No need to worry in any case as 'It is the correct decision these facilities have the requisite decoration befitting their purpose'.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
The answer about case law is Yes. Employment law is gigantic, boring and for some highly lucrative. It is relevant of course to mainstream courts and also has its own staggeringly dull tribunal system. No-one tends to know anything at all about it unless they are in HR (but never ever trust what any HR or safeguarding person says about law), or an expensive employment law specialist.
BTW, SFAICS, the BBC, who will employ lots of employment specialist lawyers and have their own huge legal department for which you and I pay, have done nothing wrong.
The head of their internal investigations team is an ex-Met detective who specialises in whistleblowing, sexual harassment and fraud, according to the BBC website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66147560.
He sounds a right charmer.
Unless a fairly significant 'investigating' should be inserted between 'in' and 'whistleblowing.'
The phrase is from the BBC site. Copy editors, eh .... !
My brother once reviewed an early version of an auditing company's "Money Laundering Guide". One of his comments was that they should add 'Anti-" at the start of the title.
Although, to be honest, I wonder if there would have been more lucrative sales under the original title...
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
I have one pair of black shoes to wear with a suit and one pair of brown shoes to wear with other work clothes, both Clarks. I have some suede trainers (vans or converse, I can't remember which) that I wear on the weekends. I have a pair of Nike trainers that I wear for cycling and other exercising. I have some walking boots (Decathlon) for walking. I have some wellies for when it's raining. I have some dress shoes with long laces that I wear with my kilt. Each of these shoes is at least five years old. My main concern with shoes is that they don't give me blisters and that I don't own any more than are strictly necessary.
Even that sounds like a lot of shoes to me.
I have one pair of black shoes to go with my suit, one pair of 'everyday' shoes if I'm not wearing a suit, one pair of trainers, and a pair of flip flops for the beach.
My main concern with shoes is they're comfortable and if they develop a hole then I'll replace them.
Ooh I forgot I also have a pair of flip-flops. I do feel that my tally of footwear has become excessive, it is almost certainly at its highest ever level. I blame my wife, who is always trying to spruce up my appearance, and I do try a little for her benefit as she always looks absolutely ravishing.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
You then have the second issue - OnlyFans is the party that is responsible for the due diligence that everyone is over the age of 18.
Given that everything seems to have been conducted via OnlyFans I'm at a loss as to how any crime has knowingly occurred.
I believe possession of child pornography is a strict liability offence: /If/ images were taken and passed on when the individual concerned was under 18 then everyone involved has committed an offence.
But a judge can take intent into account when sentencing & the CPS may take the view that if someone had a reasonable belief that the other party was over 18 then no public good is served by prosecuting them in the first place. The written letter of the law does not always correspond to the law as implemented in actuality.
...I learned SQL (properly - the very basics, e.g. reading a table in to something else, I'd had for a decade or so) a couple of years back in no time at all for a project (had a big data set with hundreds of millions of observations that I couldn't just load into memory and process). I learned that a hell of a lot quicker than I learned BASIC in first couple of years at uni.
But learning FORTRAN, Matlab, R, Stata, Python and a bit of C++...
FORTRAN? When was the last time you used that, if you don't mind me asking?
Heh, around 20 years ago, in the course in which we learned it. I did have a fellow student who used it for some years at the Met Office, I believe. And I did know people using it a bit during my PhD around 15 years ago. But all that for interacting with/modifying legacy systems, not for new stuff.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
What about men who wear bow ties?
Again, asking for a friend.
The. Absolute. Worst. There is a whole episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm devoted to this subject.
So much been happening that cartoongate is rapidly disappearing over the horizon. No need to worry in any case as 'It is the correct decision these facilities have the requisite decoration befitting their purpose'.
Is that why the commons is decorated the way it is? Old fashioned, not fit for purpose, pompous and stuffy?
I wonder how vegans manage, given the benches are of course leather lined?
You've got to be pragmatic. The best leather fire boots and gloves are leather. I never kicked up a fuss. I've got leather shoes that I bought before I changed my lifestyle, I still wear them as it's wasteful to throw them away. Still got a leather sofa. When we replace it, it'll be animal free. No drama.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
The answer about case law is Yes. Employment law is gigantic, boring and for some highly lucrative. It is relevant of course to mainstream courts and also has its own staggeringly dull tribunal system. No-one tends to know anything at all about it unless they are in HR (but never ever trust what any HR or safeguarding person says about law), or an expensive employment law specialist.
BTW, SFAICS, the BBC, who will employ lots of employment specialist lawyers and have their own huge legal department for which you and I pay, have done nothing wrong.
The head of their internal investigations team is an ex-Met detective who specialises in whistleblowing, sexual harassment and fraud, according to the BBC website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66147560.
He sounds a right charmer.
Unless a fairly significant 'investigating' should be inserted between 'in' and 'whistleblowing.'
The phrase is from the BBC site. Copy editors, eh .... !
My brother once reviewed an early version of an auditing company's "Money Laundering Guide". One of his comments was that they should add 'Anti-" at the start of the title.
Although, to be honest, I wonder if there would have been more lucrative sales under the original title...
My anti-fraud and and anti-money laundering training was instructive.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
There was a cowboy boot shop on King's Road called RSoles (now online only I believe) and a million years ago I desperately wanted a pair of their finest; I finally picked up a pair last month. I sense that you may consider that there's a type of nominative determinism going on there, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.
I'm picturing Jon Voight in Midnight Cowboy, Hope you have a 'Rizzo' to hang out with on the mean streets of Glasgow.
Quite a thriving C&W scene in Glasgow as it happens, live music, line dancing, quick draw competitons, the lot.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Reminds me of the Jackie Mason story....
Abe shall I wear my silver lame tights or my gold?
Darling wear your gold. You always look nice in gold.
Abe shall I wear my silver lame shoes or my gold?
Darling wear your gold. They'll go perfectly with your gold lame tights
Abe shall I wear my gold lame dress or my silver?
Darling wear your gold lame dress. It'll match perfectly with your gold lame tights and your gold lame shoes
Abe shall I wear my emerald tiara or my diamond?
Darling wear your diamond. It'll look perfect with your gold lame dress and your gold lame tights and your gold lame shoes.....but please get a move on or we're going to be late for breakfast
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is nMsot of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Ms Free, I have metal in my ankle, which means that a) it can be very hard (and expensive) to find shoes and trainers that do not cripple me; and b) when I do find pairs, I tend to wear them out.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
We are allowed opinions. You have judged me - most unfairly and hurtfully - on other topics.
Anyway if you have shoes that work for you given the state of your ankles, good for you. Just have plenty of them for different occasions. Imagine you must have a fair number of walking boots (as do I) and getting them right is most important.
The other week you said: ""Oh and I criticise both men and women for how they look and dress because I think that when people go out in public they should make an effort to be presentable at the very least and elegant at best. If you cannot be bothered to make that effort stay at home. "
I will judge you on your words - in the same way you seem very open to harshly and unfairly judge others.
I do think that people should make an effort to look presentable. If you need specialist shoes there is no issue. Having specialist ones is not the same as having smelly old trainers which is bad for your feet and unappealing.
As for harsh and unfair judgments, you need to look at the beam in your eye. You have very harshly judged me in a way that has been extremely unjust and hurtful and which led me to leaving this site for a while. If I think about it again I will get very angry again at you and, believe me, this time I might say things you will not like.
So I won't and will concentrate on choosing my shoes for the day and getting on with it.
BTW I don't know if you've ever walked the coast path in the Lakes but if not you should. It is very beautiful. I have recently done part of it and it is quite enchanting.
I cannot think of what I've said to you in the past that has led you to being off the site for a while. I have discussed - firmly - trans issues with you, something where the differences between us are minor but a gulf rhetorically. But don't expect me not to counter your argument when you say silly things - such as the above.
Do not try to close down debate by saying stuff like that.
You have zero idea about the problems shoes cause me, and why I might just want to use them until they are more than a little worn out. I've been blooming lucky to get to where I have, and do not want to experience the pain again - as frequently happens with new shoes.
As for looking presentable: I am a runner and (sometime) hiker. Yesterday I did a 10K run in the heat and ended my run at the school, sweaty and dishevelled. If anyone objected to that, then it's their issue, not mine. When I got home I showered and changed.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
What about men who wear bow ties?
Again, asking for a friend.
The. Absolute. Worst. There is a whole episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm devoted to this subject.
Yes. It causes me real distress when I see this.
I knew a guy at work who wore bow ties *and* cowboy boots. He was, of course, an absolute arse.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Hmm I have thrice as many hats as pairs of shoes what does that make me?
Rishi Sunak really needs to know there are times to completely ignore a stupid question...
And being asked about the BBC handling of what is a really complex legal matter is one of those times when the best thing to say is that it's an internal BBC issue and leave things there...
For instance I'm shocked and concerned about the allegation - but my shock and concern is attached to a very different set of parties. The BBC and the presenter both seem to have been placed in impossible situations by an set of parents and a newspaper both trying to score points.
Based on the 'story' so far I can't see that the BBC has done much wrong.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
What about men who wear bow ties?
Again, asking for a friend.
A sure sign of insanity. Black tie formalwear excepted.
...I learned SQL (properly - the very basics, e.g. reading a table in to something else, I'd had for a decade or so) a couple of years back in no time at all for a project (had a big data set with hundreds of millions of observations that I couldn't just load into memory and process). I learned that a hell of a lot quicker than I learned BASIC in first couple of years at uni.
But learning FORTRAN, Matlab, R, Stata, Python and a bit of C++...
FORTRAN? When was the last time you used that, if you don't mind me asking?
Heh, around 20 years ago, in the course in which we learned it. I did have a fellow student who used it for some years at the Met Office, I believe. And I did know people using it a bit during my PhD around 15 years ago. But all that for interacting with/modifying legacy systems, not for new stuff.
Legacy system maintenance is very lucrative if you get in the right window. There is a sweet spot where the legacy system still exists, the older staff have left, the younger staff won't touch it, and they have not yet ported it to another language. Get in during that slot and you can earn stacks for about two years. But it is a very narrow window of opportunity.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Hmm I have thrice as many hats as pairs of shoes what does that make me?
Somewhat top heavy, and, I imagine, quite the sight.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
There was a cowboy boot shop on King's Road called RSoles (now online only I believe) and a million years ago I desperately wanted a pair of their finest; I finally picked up a pair last month. I sense that you may consider that there's a type of nominative determinism going on there, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.
I'm picturing Jon Voight in Midnight Cowboy, Hope you have a 'Rizzo' to hang out with on the mean streets of Glasgow.
Quite a thriving C&W scene in Glasgow as it happens, live music, line dancing, quick draw competitons, the lot.
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?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
I hate ties, and indeed the whole English upper class obsession with dressing up, the whole thing just feels like a test whose rules aren't explained to people like me, a test I have been set up to fail. I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
What about men who wear bow ties?
Again, asking for a friend.
The. Absolute. Worst. There is a whole episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm devoted to this subject.
Yes. It causes me real distress when I see this.
I knew a guy at work who wore bow ties *and* cowboy boots. He was, of course, an absolute arse.
I regret to inform you I still have one of these from my rockabilly days, not combined it with boots for the 'full' rsole yet.
NB. For those who thing the BBC is handling this badly: what exactly should have they have done differently, given what has currently been stated by the various parties involved? Given that the BBC owes everyone involved a duty of care & the right to a private life, what were they supposed to actually do?
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
You then have the second issue - OnlyFans is the party that is responsible for the due diligence that everyone is over the age of 18.
Given that everything seems to have been conducted via OnlyFans I'm at a loss as to how any crime has knowingly occurred.
I believe possession of child pornography is a strict liability offence: /If/ images were taken and passed on when the individual concerned was under 18 then everyone involved has committed an offence.
But a judge can take intent into account when sentencing & the CPS may take the view that if someone had a reasonable belief that the other party was over 18 then no public good is served by prosecuting them in the first place. The written letter of the law does not always correspond to the law as implemented in actuality.
Does that mean that copies of the Sun in the 1980s are now considered child pornography? Don't most newspapers keep old editions......
Comments
Now, back to shoes .....
Instead it seems the government is desperate to have any good news be identified as happening despite them, not because of them.
The government spent years saying it wanted a higher wage economy, then when wages are still less than inflation they're now apparently too high. Makes all the high wage economy stuff sound like the complete codswallop it probably always was.
The readable novelists of universalist hope are a rare species and should be treasured.
I don't think I've ever even noticed what men are wearing, except when some bloke is really dressed up I tend to take an instant dislike to them, because I assume they must be a twat. This assumption almost invariably turns out to be correct. Ditto men with excessive aftershave.
I think we may have found another passionate and unresolvable PB debate. The TERFs (Totally Excessive Regarding Footwear) against the TRAs (Trainers Really Ancient).
Gardening is used as therapy for patients with OCD at the Maudsley.
I love it but I have certainly found that I needed it and was drawn to it - before I came to love it, if that makes sense - in troubling times. It chose me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66152296
"MPs approve report on alleged interference in Partygate probe"
In the same way no-one plans to tell us that if powerful unions (medics, nurses, railworkers) get inflation + X % rises, then those who don't get relatively poorer still so that the powerful can get richer. Ditto of course the protected pensioners (of which I am one).
I have one pair of black shoes to go with my suit, one pair of 'everyday' shoes if I'm not wearing a suit, one pair of trainers, and a pair of flip flops for the beach.
My main concern with shoes is they're comfortable and if they develop a hole then I'll replace them.
Imelda Marcos.
I wonder how much the individual variation is, compared to the age variation - i.e. what the predictive power of age is for any of those traits.
I'd say my information processing is much better now (~40) than it was in late teens, but maybe my understanding of that term is different to that intended by the study.
I do accept, as a general rule, that it's probably easier to train your recent school leaver up as e.g. a BT telephone line installer than your 55 year old who has been making (non-phone line related) widgets all his life, but I'd put that down to the more recent experience of learning, mostly.
The study looks (from the summary) to be x-sectional. I do wonder whether there is also a generational thing in addition to an age thing. Today's 20 year olds have had a very different experience in first 20 years compared to today's 50 year olds. Longitudinal studies would be interesting, but we'd have to wait 30 years for the results (although various of the big cohort studies may also have looked at this).
As a man, my function is to be as unobtrusive as possible. You shouldn't notice me and you certainly shouldn't be able to smell me.
Assuming it is true that the initial complaint in May was of a different character that didn’t include the allegations of underage relationships, I find it difficult to see that the BBC could have done anything at all personally. Buying porn on OnlyFans is not illegal & given that it’s a completely private relationship between consenting adults it’s not at all clear to me that it would reach the threshold of bringing the BBC into disrepute that would be required to sack them, given the usual employment contract terms. But perhaps I am wrong about this: is there any case law on the topic?
Tsk .....
As an adult returning to Austen I’ve found her dry line of humour hilarious. But chacun à son goût: it would be boring if we were all the same.
The day he was told about those missing CDs with all the sensitive data on them, he was about to go into the garden at his place in Edinburgh as he finds weeding therapeutic.
He got the phone call and was told to rush back to London.
Before he did, he decided to spend an hour in the garden.
'There was not a weed left standing.'
Again, asking for a friend.
Initial complaint was investigated, determined nothing wrong, so investigation closed. Nothing wrong with that.
More serious complaint escalated, passed on to authorities and suspension pending investigation. Nothing wrong with that.
What's funny is those rushing to judgment one way or another. "There's definitely nothing going on" on one extreme, or "there's definitely something wrong" on the other. How about we let this run its course, but that's boring for those who want 24/7 entertainment on this.
My gripe - as it is with the whole clothing industry - is that I can't simply buy exactly the same product I bought last time, because the attention spans of the people who make this product no longer exists and has been replaced by something else. I don't think I am unusual in men in being perfectly happy with the way I dressed at the age of about 21 and wishing I could simply keep that exact set of clothes, replacing new for old when something wore out.
Dr. Martens are good in this respect. Haven't changed in about 40 years.
Of such small delights is my life made.
I have bought a few pairs of walking boots over that period of time.
For example, a flying school will tell you that it usually takes about 10 hours plus your age in hours, to get the skills required for a pilot’s licence. So a 15-year-old kid can do it in 25 hours or so, and a 60-year-old is more likely about 70 hours. Rule of thumb, with a fair bit of individual variation, but it’s been studied in some depth.
See also learning a new language - whether that’s a foreign means of communication, or a way of programming a computer.
So emailing the evidence to someone makes them a criminal etc.
Some years ago, at a reprographics firm, an employee was caught with horrible stuff on his machine. The owner called the police, had them take everything away. He refused to accept the computers back when the case was over - he (probably rightly) was concerned that the police would have only deleted the files, not scrubbed them from the drives properly. So even having them back in the building was a risk.
What makes you think you can judge me or my worth on my somewhat forced choice of footwear?
BTW, SFAICS, the BBC, who will employ lots of employment specialist lawyers and have their own huge legal department for which you and I pay, have done nothing wrong.
Don’t look, don’t move or copy anything, just switch it off and call in the specialist police and lawyers. Anything else can land you, the IT guy, in prison.
And yeah, we don’t want the computers back afterwards thanks. The industrial shredder is over there…
Because, obviously, my using crutches was only to inconvenience her. I said nothing, but my female friend tore a few strips off her.
Just one example that smart clothes in no way mark value or worth.
By the way, two per post is the upper limit. We don't want posts laced with puns.
Given that everything seems to have been conducted via OnlyFans I'm at a loss as to how any crime has knowingly occurred.
Anyway if you have shoes that work for you given the state of your ankles, good for you. Just have plenty of them for different occasions. Imagine you must have a fair number of walking boots (as do I) and getting them right is most important.
But learning FORTRAN, Matlab, R, Stata, Python and a bit of C++ in the intervening period just means I'm better at learning programming.
Something entirely new, sure the younger brain is better. But something that builds on earlier experience, I don't think it's so simple.
So, I don't dispute your point/the studies at all. But when it comes to hiring (the original debate) the more experienced (often, but not always older) person might be better equipped to learn the new things they need to learn than the less experienced person. Or they may not. But age isn't a good proxy by itself, at least in my area.
I will judge you on your words - in the same way you seem very open to harshly and unfairly judge others.
Some time ago, my daughter enquired "dad, who eats shoes?".
Unless a fairly significant 'investigating' should be inserted between 'in' and 'whistleblowing.'
in the words of Billy Connolly, he's been walking downhill for 30 years...
https://youtu.be/u65lvwfTPtM
Edit - that scene nearly killed him. He did 62 takes, and the boot was made of liquorice. He was rushed to hospital with insulin shock.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1678695244919984129?s=20
As for harsh and unfair judgments, you need to look at the beam in your eye. You have very harshly judged me in a way that has been extremely unjust and hurtful and which led me to leaving this site for a while. If I think about it again I will get very angry again at you and, believe me, this time I might say things you will not like.
So I won't and will concentrate on choosing my shoes for the day and getting on with it.
BTW I don't know if you've ever walked the coast path in the Lakes but if not you should. It is very beautiful. I have recently done part of it and it is quite enchanting.
So if you already know half a dozen languages, learning another one is relatively simple, as you have a greater knowledge of the structure and rules of language and code in general. The older employee doesn’t make the same mistakes as the younger one, mostly because he made those mistakes two decades back and learned from the experience.
On the other hand, I’ve been ‘learning’ Arabic and Russian for the last decade, and getting precisely nowhere!
Two quotes from instructors stand out, from my experience of learning to fly:
1. Right now you have an empty pot of skill and a full pot of luck. My job is to put as much into the first pot as possible, before the second one gets empty.
2. There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. But there are no old, bold pilots.
My short term memory is still fine. I can remember what I taught myself in the last few days easily (perhaps that's because as a Project Manager, I spend all my time dealing with urgent issues, then forgetting about them once done).
On the other hand I'm finding my medium term memory is terrible - I am forgetting vocab from 2 months ago almost entirely whereas when at school most of it would have stuck whether I used it or not. (It is a language very different to others I know so apart from some loan words mostly from French there is nothing for it but to memorise it).
My 'learned experience' is really beneficial - because I have learned a language before, I am picking the grammar up very quickly, can spot the similarities between other languages I know. I have developed techniques to remember stuff that suits me, and I know my best learning styles, which I didn't at school or University.
And because I have a good reason to learn, I am motivated, and experience of grinding through boring stuff all day for money makes it a pleasure, not a chore, by comparison.
And with that, break over and back to grinding through boring stuff for money...
And being asked about the BBC handling of what is a really complex legal matter is one of those times when the best thing to say is that it's an internal BBC issue and leave things there...
For instance I'm shocked and concerned about the allegation - but my shock and concern is attached to a very different set of parties. The BBC and the presenter both seem to have been placed in impossible situations by an set of parents and a newspaper both trying to score points.
When I broke both my legs last year I found everyone very considerate. I'm sure some thought I was a fraud as I would always be offered a seat (because of the crutches) but choose to stand.
There is a whole episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm devoted to this subject.
Although, to be honest, I wonder if there would have been more lucrative sales under the original title...
The other one sounds a bit dirty.
But a judge can take intent into account when sentencing & the CPS may take the view that if someone had a reasonable belief that the other party was over 18 then no public good is served by prosecuting them in the first place. The written letter of the law does not always correspond to the law as implemented in actuality.
"Common mistakes"
http://glasgowsgrandoleopry.co.uk/wp/
Abe shall I wear my silver lame tights or my gold?
Darling wear your gold. You always look nice in gold.
Abe shall I wear my silver lame shoes or my gold?
Darling wear your gold. They'll go perfectly with your gold lame tights
Abe shall I wear my gold lame dress or my silver?
Darling wear your gold lame dress. It'll match perfectly with your gold lame tights and your gold lame shoes
Abe shall I wear my emerald tiara or my diamond?
Darling wear your diamond. It'll look perfect with your gold lame dress and your gold lame tights and your gold lame shoes.....but please get a move on or we're going to be late for breakfast
Do not try to close down debate by saying stuff like that.
You have zero idea about the problems shoes cause me, and why I might just want to use them until they are more than a little worn out. I've been blooming lucky to get to where I have, and do not want to experience the pain again - as frequently happens with new shoes.
As for looking presentable: I am a runner and (sometime) hiker. Yesterday I did a 10K run in the heat and ended my run at the school, sweaty and dishevelled. If anyone objected to that, then it's their issue, not mine. When I got home I showered and changed.
Suggestions please? Cheers.