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.
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......
Not to mention libraries and their online databases.
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.
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......
Not to mention libraries and their online databases.
It has to be doesn't it? It's not really that different to the Traci Lords scandal. Edit.. I meaning owning it, not that Fox/Lords did similar things!
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.
Spot the problem for the Sun = the BBC Presenter had reasonable belief - the Sun knows they were 17 and so given they claim to have a dossier of evidence they clearly have a problem because the dossier must contain pictures.
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......
Not to mention libraries and their online databases.
It has to be doesn't it? It's not really that different to the Traci Lords scandal.
Check out statutory exemptions. I doubt if the Bod or Cambridge University Library have to go through their entire collections and burn the doubtful 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.
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.
IMHO, if one can afford nothing else, one should buy good quality shoes (mine are Crocket & Jones). Bad shoes can play hell with one's feet.
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.
Knowing isn’t required to have committed a crime - to the level of being sent to prison.
The police find a file on your computer. They demand the decryption key. You’d have to prove to the court that you didn’t know the key (or the file). Otherwise vacation time.
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.
I vaguely remember a drama series on BBC1 in, let's say, the early 90s, set in that idiom. There was a great set piece in it in which a line dancing scene was used as a set up to, possibly, a massive fight: never had I seen line dancing done with such menace.
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......
Not to mention libraries and their online databases.
Not saying the law is wrong but it feels quite weird that reading (well looking at) a newspaper with a circulation of 4m from 40 years ago could see a lengthy jail sentence and going on the sex offenders register.
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......
Such images are defined quite specifically in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/2/chapter/2 . I don’t think topless shots in the Sun would qualify, but if this actually matters to you then ask a lawyer!
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......
Not to mention libraries and their online databases.
Not saying the law is wrong but it feels quite weird that reading (well looking at) a newspaper with a circulation of 4m from 40 years ago could see a lengthy jail sentence and going on the sex offenders register.
Not as if you knew which ones caused the offence either. Neither do Plod, it must be said, so there is that. Who's to know when ( to make up a p urely hypothetical example) Samantha from Southport was born?
But there has been debate in the art world recently about the similar issue with Victorian child porn, sorry fine art oil paintings, on the walls of art galleries.
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.
IMHO, if one can afford nothing else, one should buy good quality shoes (mine are Crocket & Jones). Bad shoes can play hell with one's feet.
The Sam Vines advice, courtesy of the late Sir Terry Pratchett!
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.
I vaguely remember a drama series on BBC1 in, let's say, the early 90s, set in that idiom. There was a great set piece in it in which a line dancing scene was used as a set up to, possibly, a massive fight: never had I seen line dancing done with such menace.
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.
When Headley Court opened, some people complained when disabled soldiers use the local swimming pool. They complained.
And even wrote letters to the local papers, *signed with their names*, about how offended they were by visibly disabled people using *their* pool.
With respect to shoes. It is a good idea to go to Timpsons in your local town and ask them which shoes they can resole. Buying shoes is expensive, getting them fixed is cheap
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
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.
Spot the problem for the Sun = the BBC Presenter had reasonable belief - the Sun knows they were 17 and so given they claim to have a dossier of evidence they clearly have a problem because the dossier must contain pictures.
AGAIN....WE HAVE DONE THIS SEVERAL TIMES....the Sun wording on this is very careful. At no point do they say pornographic images were sent at 17, they say "sleazy messages" were exchanged with first contact at 17....the claim is that over the course of 3 years that money changed hands for pictures / videos during this period.
So there is absolutely no evidence that the Sun has any issues around possession of child pornography in the "dossier".
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.
I vaguely remember a drama series on BBC1 in, let's say, the early 90s, set in that idiom. There was a great set piece in it in which a line dancing scene was used as a set up to, possibly, a massive fight: never had I seen line dancing done with such menace.
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.
I vaguely remember a drama series on BBC1 in, let's say, the early 90s, set in that idiom. There was a great set piece in it in which a line dancing scene was used as a set up to, possibly, a massive fight: never had I seen line dancing done with such menace.
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.
When Headley Court opened, some people complained when disabled soldiers use the local swimming pool. They complained.
And even wrote letters to the local papers, *signed with their names*, about how offended they were by visibly disabled people using *their* pool.
One of my uncles lost a leg during the Normandy campaign. He’d been an excellent swimmer before being conscripted and it later life it was one of the few physical things he could do on equal terms with the rest of us.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
...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.
One of my early jobs was replacing a FoxPro-based anlysis set-up with R (and MySQL for storage, but everything was done in R). Unfortunately I didn't get stacks of money
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future.
The parents /say/ they’re a crack addict.
The individual concerned may have never touched the stuff, or they might be living it large during crack-fuelled weekend orgies: We don’t know & don’t really have a right to know. (Although the police may take an interest at some point the CPS might well decide not to prosecute personal recreational drug use - I don’t think personal use gets prosecuted very often, if at all, these days.)
...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.
One of my early jobs was replacing a FoxPro-based anlysis set-up with R (and MySQL for storage, but everything was done in R). Unfortunately I didn't get stacks of money
The stacks of money generally only happen when the owner of the system absolutely has to move off the legacy platform, has the cash & will pay whatever it takes.
The Sun must be absolutely delighted that their salacious gossip has gained such traction everywhere, including on the revered pages of PB.com.
Surely I'm not alone, though, in not giving a flying fuck about this whole sorry tale, even if it involves some wrongdoing? In the big scheme of things, it's trivia.
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.
When Headley Court opened, some people complained when disabled soldiers use the local swimming pool. They complained.
And even wrote letters to the local papers, *signed with their names*, about how offended they were by visibly disabled people using *their* pool.
One of my uncles lost a leg during the Normandy campaign. He’d been an excellent swimmer before being conscripted and it later life it was one of the few physical things he could do on equal terms with the rest of us.
Indeed
I was gobsmacked at the thundercunts in question actually announcing their thundercuntery in the local papers.
IIRC Headley Court later raised money and built a special pool on site for physio for residents.
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.
Worst thing that has ever happened to me:
I (able bodied) accompanied a friend to a disabled living fair where you can check out the latest wheelchairs etc. She was talking to someone at a stand so I sat down in her powered wheelchair, then decided to take it for a drive, then dropped a load of brochures we had accumulated by that stage. So hordes of slightly less disabled people rushed over to help. I missed (in my own misjudgment) the narrow time slot in which I could stand up and say effectively Only kidding, folks. So I just sat there and thanked them profusely as they scrabbled around on my behalf.
By the grace of God it was all over before my friend came back to blow my cover.
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.
Spot the problem for the Sun = the BBC Presenter had reasonable belief - the Sun knows they were 17 and so given they claim to have a dossier of evidence they clearly have a problem because the dossier must contain pictures.
AGAIN....WE HAVE DONE THIS SEVERAL TIMES....the Sun wording on this is very careful. At no point do they say pornographic images were sent at 17, they say "sleazy messages" were exchanged with first contact at 17....the claim is that over the course of 3 years that money changed hands for pictures / videos during this period.
So there is absolutely no evidence that the Sun has any issues around possession of child pornography in the "dossier".
I think they say the sleazy messages were "alleged" to have been sent. Presumably alleged by the mother. The Sun doesn't endorse any of its repeated story at all, except it claims to have a dossier - a dodgy dossier perhaps?
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.
Some over this side too. I've been on the stagecoach, or rather Stagecoach no. 653 or whatever it was, when two cowboys with stetsons, chaps and six-shooter holsters moseyed on en route to the next settlement.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
Given what seems to be a complete lack of communication between the parents and the son how would the Sun know that a meet up had been organised - let alone the purpose of the meet up.
The Sun appears to have made a complete mountain out a mole hill and are trying desperately to get to the point where they have any justification for the story....
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
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.
Thinking of doing a driving holiday in New England starting and ending in Boston in Sept/Oct.
Suggestions please? Cheers.
I did this 20 years ago, so memories a little hazy, but my itinerary went: Day 1: Boston to Brattleboro, Vermont. Sweet little town - nothing sticks in the memory about it but a nice place to stop/eat/sleep/have breakfast - have a little mooch
Day 2: Brattleboro to Burlington, calling at, I think, Woodstock and Montpelier. Took the back roads through the mountains and forests and daw some covered bridges. The Vermont State capital building in Montpelier is worth a brief gawp. Burlington is a pleasant and lively college town.
Day 3: North Vermont, and stayed at Burlington again.
Day 4: Burlington to Franconia, New Hampshire. This was my highlight: I really liked Northern New Hampshire - Franconia Notch State Part was my favourite outdoorsy bit, I think. I think we did Cannon Mountain and the Lost River Gorge, but there is any amount of countryside to explore. Stayed there for a couple of nights.
Day 6: Franconia to Portland, Maine. A pleasant drive, and Portland is a nice town, but in retrospect I'd have cut that bit out. Over the course of the whole trip we did slightly too much driving, leaving slightly too little time for being anywhere, and if I had to sacrifice one bit this would be it. The driving was all very pleasant, of course, but there is always a temptation to try to go everywhere.
Day 7: Portland to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Portsmouth definitely worth a look even if you don't stay there - old colonial style town.
Day 8: Portsmouth to Boston. I think we probably called in at Salem on the way.
Days 9-11: Boston. You need to give yourself a few days in Boston. I can't remember too much what we did but I remember it was very pleasant.
I also remember Boston airport being extremely satisfyingly handy for the city - and also very handy for bing an hour closer to the UK than New York.
The stacks of money generally only happen when the owner of the system absolutely has to move off the legacy platform, has the cash & will pay whatever it takes.
Which is why I'm still working - my company sells specialist tools and consultancy for automating that process for particular (very old) architectures. Far from petering out by now as might have been expected, the business is going great guns.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
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.
When Headley Court opened, some people complained when disabled soldiers use the local swimming pool. They complained.
And even wrote letters to the local papers, *signed with their names*, about how offended they were by visibly disabled people using *their* pool.
One of my uncles lost a leg during the Normandy campaign. He’d been an excellent swimmer before being conscripted and it later life it was one of the few physical things he could do on equal terms with the rest of us.
Indeed
I was gobsmacked at the thundercunts in question actually announcing their thundercuntery in the local papers.
IIRC Headley Court later raised money and built a special pool on site for physio for residents.
My father, some 10 years older than his brother, and always enjoined by his mother to look after him, would have REALLY blown his top. It was bad enough when uncle was called up for a medical at the time of Suez. There were threats to go to MP’s, the press and anyone who might respond. Uncle merely took his artificial leg off and turned up at the medical centre on crutches. The sergeant managing the place was furious!
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
Thinking of doing a driving holiday in New England starting and ending in Boston in Sept/Oct.
Suggestions please? Cheers.
I did this 20 years ago, so memories a little hazy, but my itinerary went: Day 1: Boston to Brattleboro, Vermont. Sweet little town - nothing sticks in the memory about it but a nice place to stop/eat/sleep/have breakfast - have a little mooch
Day 2: Brattleboro to Burlington, calling at, I think, Woodstock and Montpelier. Took the back roads through the mountains and forests and daw some covered bridges. The Vermont State capital building in Montpelier is worth a brief gawp. Burlington is a pleasant and lively college town.
Day 3: North Vermont, and stayed at Burlington again.
Day 4: Burlington to Franconia, New Hampshire. This was my highlight: I really liked Northern New Hampshire - Franconia Notch State Part was my favourite outdoorsy bit, I think. I think we did Cannon Mountain and the Lost River Gorge, but there is any amount of countryside to explore. Stayed there for a couple of nights.
Day 6: Franconia to Portland, Maine. A pleasant drive, and Portland is a nice town, but in retrospect I'd have cut that bit out. Over the course of the whole trip we did slightly too much driving, leaving slightly too little time for being anywhere, and if I had to sacrifice one bit this would be it. The driving was all very pleasant, of course, but there is always a temptation to try to go everywhere.
Day 7: Portland to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Portsmouth definitely worth a look even if you don't stay there - old colonial style town.
Day 8: Portsmouth to Boston. I think we probably called in at Salem on the way.
Days 9-11: Boston. You need to give yourself a few days in Boston. I can't remember too much what we did but I remember it was very pleasant.
I also remember Boston airport being extremely satisfyingly handy for the city - and also very handy for bing an hour closer to the UK than New York.
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.
Actually, I don't think bow ties (outside formal events) are a sign of insanity. They are a pretty reliable indicator that the wearer is simply cripplingly dull. In my experience, they are almost always used as a substitute for having any personality at all.
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'.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
We do have *some* established facts. The BBC exists, for example. Probably.
Or have I just committed libel?
There is something rather ironic that the BBC disgusting behaviour towards Cliff Richard that resulted in expensive legal action, is now protecting the presenter from a repeat of that from another media organisation.
The stacks of money generally only happen when the owner of the system absolutely has to move off the legacy platform, has the cash & will pay whatever it takes.
Which is why I'm still working - my company sells specialist tools and consultancy for automating that process for particular (very old) architectures. Far from petering out by now as might have been expected, the business is going great guns.
Also reminds me of a work experience placment while at school, working for a company that sourced, tested and supplied electric valves to a range of industries, including television companies for transmitters. There was apparently good money in it as being able to replace a valve, even at some crazily inflated price compared to original cost, was far cheaper than replacing the entire kit.
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.
A sure sign of insanity. Black tie formalwear excepted.
Actually, I don't think bow ties (outside formal events) are a sign of insanity. They are a pretty reliable indicator that the wearer is simply cripplingly dull. In my experience, they are almost always used as a substitute for having any personality at all.
Or if they work in a field where conventional ties get in the way, e.g. in the petri dish or dissection. One of my uni lecturers wore bow ties for this reason, being such a smart chap that no tie at all just wouldn't 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.
What about men who wear bow ties?
Again, asking for a friend.
A sure sign of insanity. Black tie formalwear excepted.
Actually, I don't think bow ties (outside formal events) are a sign of insanity. They are a pretty reliable indicator that the wearer is simply cripplingly dull. In my experience, they are almost always used as a substitute for having any personality at all.
Or if they work in a field where conventional ties get in the way, e.g. in the petri dish or dissection. One of my uni lecturers wore bow ties for this reason, being such a smart chap that no tie at all just wouldn't do.
I had never until now seen the point of the bow tie.
Although from my mental picture of ydoethur, in which he is not sitting in a school classroom in Staffordshire but an ancient though cheery wood-pannelled study with a view out onto rolling Welsh fields with Cardigan Bay in the distance, the fact that he wears a bow tie fits very well indeed,
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.
Actually, I don't think bow ties (outside formal events) are a sign of insanity. They are a pretty reliable indicator that the wearer is simply cripplingly dull. In my experience, they are almost always used as a substitute for having any personality at all.
Foxy will know best but wasn’t there/isn’t there a thing where doctors would wear bow ties as they could remain “smart” but bow ties were a more hygienic option than a regular tie flopping all over the place?
Thinking of doing a driving holiday in New England starting and ending in Boston in Sept/Oct.
Suggestions please? Cheers.
I did this 20 years ago, so memories a little hazy, but my itinerary went: Day 1: Boston to Brattleboro, Vermont. Sweet little town - nothing sticks in the memory about it but a nice place to stop/eat/sleep/have breakfast - have a little mooch
Day 2: Brattleboro to Burlington, calling at, I think, Woodstock and Montpelier. Took the back roads through the mountains and forests and daw some covered bridges. The Vermont State capital building in Montpelier is worth a brief gawp. Burlington is a pleasant and lively college town.
Day 3: North Vermont, and stayed at Burlington again.
Day 4: Burlington to Franconia, New Hampshire. This was my highlight: I really liked Northern New Hampshire - Franconia Notch State Part was my favourite outdoorsy bit, I think. I think we did Cannon Mountain and the Lost River Gorge, but there is any amount of countryside to explore. Stayed there for a couple of nights.
Day 6: Franconia to Portland, Maine. A pleasant drive, and Portland is a nice town, but in retrospect I'd have cut that bit out. Over the course of the whole trip we did slightly too much driving, leaving slightly too little time for being anywhere, and if I had to sacrifice one bit this would be it. The driving was all very pleasant, of course, but there is always a temptation to try to go everywhere.
Day 7: Portland to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Portsmouth definitely worth a look even if you don't stay there - old colonial style town.
Day 8: Portsmouth to Boston. I think we probably called in at Salem on the way.
Days 9-11: Boston. You need to give yourself a few days in Boston. I can't remember too much what we did but I remember it was very pleasant.
I also remember Boston airport being extremely satisfyingly handy for the city - and also very handy for bing an hour closer to the UK than New York.
The passport people are much nicer in Boston than NYC as my experience last week showed.
Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules forcing her to lower her testosterone levels in order to compete, the European Court of Human Rights has found.
I actually feel really sorry for her. It is an impossible situation every which way. Born intersex, with testorone levels way around that of a biological woman, means a massive advantage, but they aren't cheating, they aren't claiming something they aren't, they aren't transitioning....in fact when they burst onto the scene, I don't think they were even aware of the special biological nature.
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.
Actually, I don't think bow ties (outside formal events) are a sign of insanity. They are a pretty reliable indicator that the wearer is simply cripplingly dull. In my experience, they are almost always used as a substitute for having any personality at all.
Churchill, Roosevelt and Lincoln would disagree.
But they are obsolete; it's a bit like driving a Morgan.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
The Telegraph says there has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph along those lines. It may be that there has been. Equally, it may be that it is exactly what the Telegraph would say.
Journalistic standards at the Telegraph have absolutely gone down the toilet over the last couple of years. They've always had a particular perspective on the world, but I'm not sure I believe it's reliable when they cite "sources" as saying things any more.
https://twitter.com/MollyMcKew/status/1678711090929192960 In 2015, NATO SecGen report including this reference, which made public that in March 2013, under cover of another exercise, Russia had simulated a nuclear strike on Sweden
Sweden got the message. 10 yrs of deliberate defense build-up, and now in NATO /1
So while undoubtedly the Russia troll goons and several fringe US presidential candidates will keep waving their arms around re “NATO’s aggressive expansion”: it’s hard work to get in, but countries do that work because Russia is a giant bag of d*cks as a regional neighbor /2
Everyone was quite happy to ignore them, but they just couldn’t resist this LARPing as a imperial insurgent.
Russia has no one to blame but themselves for any of it /3
The stacks of money generally only happen when the owner of the system absolutely has to move off the legacy platform, has the cash & will pay whatever it takes.
Which is why I'm still working - my company sells specialist tools and consultancy for automating that process for particular (very old) architectures. Far from petering out by now as might have been expected, the business is going great guns.
Also reminds me of a work experience placment while at school, working for a company that sourced, tested and supplied electric valves to a range of industries, including television companies for transmitters. There was apparently good money in it as being able to replace a valve, even at some crazily inflated price compared to original cost, was far cheaper than replacing the entire kit.
Valves have a nice market among the retro hifi crowd, of course.
Came across a company that would make custom parts out of Berylium* alloys, for a long price….
*Berylium (and its alloys) is a brilliant material - light, strong. One small problem. A small amount of Berylium dust or vapour gives you beryliosis. Which is described as “uniformly fatal”. So pretty much no one handles it anymore. If you have a legacy application…
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
The Telegraph says there has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph along those lines. It may be that there has been. Equally, it may be that it is exactly what the Telegraph would say.
Journalistic standards at the Telegraph have absolutely gone down the toilet over the last couple of years. They've always had a particular perspective on the world, but I'm not sure I believe it's reliable when they cite "sources" as saying things any more.
Fixed for you....
E.g. one of BBC very first BBC Verify reports got a number of key (easily checkable) facts 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.
Actually, I don't think bow ties (outside formal events) are a sign of insanity. They are a pretty reliable indicator that the wearer is simply cripplingly dull. In my experience, they are almost always used as a substitute for having any personality at all.
Churchill, Roosevelt and Lincoln would disagree.
But they are obsolete; it's a bit like driving a Morgan.
That's fair - there was a time when they were fairly commonly worn, including by those working with machinery in the days you were expected to dress formally for such work (to avoid injury by a normal tie being caught up in a machine).
But it's been merely an affectation for many years now - a crutch for the terminally uninteresting.
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.
How about asking Sunak how shocked and concerned he is about [name redacted], an MP in his own party currently on bail having been arrested for indecent assault and rape (and who is apparently planning to stand again in the next election)?
Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules forcing her to lower her testosterone levels in order to compete, the European Court of Human Rights has found.
I actually feel really sorry for her. It is an impossible situation every which way. Born intersex, with testorone levels way around that of a biological woman, means a massive advantage, but they aren't cheating, they aren't claiming something they aren't, they aren't transitioning....in fact when they burst onto the scene, I don't think they were even aware of the special biological nature.
Isn't the fundamental problem that she's a 5-alpha reductase deficiency male ?
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Could you tell me how you get from presenter spends some money on private interests to bringing the BBC in to disrepute?
Because there are some major leaps of logic that you are going to have to make of the sort that result in very large payouts at employment tribunals - and for the past 15 years most ways you end up with a large payout have been systematically removed by this Government...
A large number of both overseas and England players are set to prefer Major League Cricket to the Hundred next year, putting the latter's future in doubt:
Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules forcing her to lower her testosterone levels in order to compete, the European Court of Human Rights has found.
I actually feel really sorry for her. It is an impossible situation every which way. Born intersex, with testorone levels way around that of a biological woman, means a massive advantage, but they aren't cheating, they aren't claiming something they aren't, they aren't transitioning....in fact when they burst onto the scene, I don't think they were even aware of the special biological nature.
Isn't the fundamental problem that she's a 5-alpha reductase deficiency male ?
Yes....what I mean is that before she burst onto the scene at a very young age, had no idea about any of this. As far as she was concerned she was just had a exceptional talent for running, not that she was had a very rare and special genetic difference which provides a giant advantage over the ladies she races against. Its not fair for the ladies who race against her either.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
The Telegraph says there has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph along those lines. It may be that there has been. Equally, it may be that it is exactly what the Telegraph would say.
Journalistic standards at the Telegraph have absolutely gone down the toilet over the last couple of years. They've always had a particular perspective on the world, but I'm not sure I believe it's reliable when they cite "sources" as saying things any more.
Fixed for you....
E.g. one of BBC very first BBC Verify reports got a number of key (easily checkable) facts wrong.
Whilst I agree to an extent, there's quite a big difference between a genuine (if shoddy) mistake and lying. I think the Telegraph has been thoroughly Johnson-ised in recent years, which is a shame as it was a very respectable newspaper at one time.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
There will also be a number of other presenters wanting to distance themselves from the allegations. Which doesn’t work if everyone does it, and it leads to the suspect’s identification by process of elimination.
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.
Actually, I don't think bow ties (outside formal events) are a sign of insanity. They are a pretty reliable indicator that the wearer is simply cripplingly dull. In my experience, they are almost always used as a substitute for having any personality at all.
Or if they work in a field where conventional ties get in the way, e.g. in the petri dish or dissection. One of my uni lecturers wore bow ties for this reason, being such a smart chap that no tie at all just wouldn't do.
Conventional ties are a bloody nuisance where you're leaning over a lot, unless you wear tiepins which are often an even bigger nuisance.
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'.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
Who and when would be very important questions here? Someone sacked for being gay in the 1980s isn't justification for things now....
And remember Philip Schofield "resigned" and the allegations there include multiple years of grooming someone under age....
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.
How about asking Sunak how shocked and concerned he is about [name redacted], an MP in his own party currently on bail having been arrested for indecent assault and rape (and who is apparently planning to stand again in the next election)?
Rather, how he has time to acquaint himself with the case, which is nothing to do with him, while being simultaneously too pressed to read a three page report on one of his MPs.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
The Telegraph says there has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph along those lines. It may be that there has been. Equally, it may be that it is exactly what the Telegraph would say.
Journalistic standards at the Telegraph have absolutely gone down the toilet over the last couple of years. They've always had a particular perspective on the world, but I'm not sure I believe it's reliable when they cite "sources" as saying things any more.
Fixed for you....
E.g. one of BBC very first BBC Verify reports got a number of key (easily checkable) facts wrong.
Whilst I agree to an extent, there's quite a big difference between a genuine (if shoddy) mistake and lying. I think the Telegraph has been thoroughly Johnson-ised in recent years, which is a shame as it was a very respectable newspaper at one time.
I think the BBC verify reporter wasn't dissimilar. Bit like the Telegraph or the Sun, they took somebodies claims, didn't fact check them because their bias made it seem that it must be true and then twisted some other "facts" to fit the narrative. They couldn't provide any receipts for their claims, which for a service that is supposed to be THE "fact checker" is rather concerning.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Could you tell me how you get from presenter spends some money on private interests to bringing the BBC in to disrepute?
Because there are some major leaps of logic that you are going to have to make of the sort that result in very large payouts at employment tribunals - and for the past 15 years most ways you end up with a large payout have been systematically removed by this Government...
Phillip Schofield has recently had left ITV over behaviour which wasn't (as far as we're aware) criminal but shall we say overshadowed his TV work.
ITV will say that was "ended by mutual consent" rather than termination, but there is absolutely no doubt Schofield would have preferred to say. So the conversation would have gone, "So, Phillip, do you want to leave by mutual consent or do you want us to publicly fire you?"
"Talent" contracts will undoubtedly have disrepute clauses - you can't have someone reading the news (for example) who is the news due to their private life. The celeb might want to test that in an Employment Tribunal and have the sordid details raked over... but they are more likely to go quietly.
Other jobs may not have such clauses - ultimately, there's no interest in what an accountant gets up to on the weekends.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Could you tell me how you get from presenter spends some money on private interests to bringing the BBC in to disrepute?
Because there are some major leaps of logic that you are going to have to make of the sort that result in very large payouts at employment tribunals - and for the past 15 years most ways you end up with a large payout have been systematically removed by this Government...
A number of years ago, a bunch of traders went out to celebrate bonus day (BarCrap, from memory)
They went to the resteraunt Petrus and consumed several bottles of Petrus with a five figure price. They paid with their own money.
An idiot at the resteraunt gave the story to the press.
This resulted in the traders losing their jobs for bringing their bank into disrepute. The sackings were upheld by a tribunal.
It also resulted in Petrus closing (in that incarnation) - no one high end wanted to spend their money in place that would publish their bills.
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
The Telegraph says there has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph along those lines. It may be that there has been. Equally, it may be that it is exactly what the Telegraph would say.
Journalistic standards at the Telegraph have absolutely gone down the toilet over the last couple of years. They've always had a particular perspective on the world, but I'm not sure I believe it's reliable when they cite "sources" as saying things any more.
Fixed for you....
E.g. one of BBC very first BBC Verify reports got a number of key (easily checkable) facts wrong.
Whilst I agree to an extent, there's quite a big difference between a genuine (if shoddy) mistake and lying. I think the Telegraph has been thoroughly Johnson-ised in recent years, which is a shame as it was a very respectable newspaper at one time.
I think the BBC verify reporter wasn't dissimilar. Bit like the Telegraph or the Sun, they took somebodies claims, didn't fact check them because their bias made it seem that it must be true and then twisted some other facts to fit the narrative. They couldn't provide any receipts for their claims, which for a service that is supposed to be THE "fact checker" is rather concerning.
That is always the problem with so-called "fact checkers" - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Snopes always did a good job when it was debunking myths by linking to sources etc, before "fact checkers" became common. Now every media source seems to have its own "fact checking" service, but they very rarely seem to bother with sources well.
The Metropolitan police have asked the BBC to pause its investigation into a suspended male presenter, while specialist officers decide if there is any justification for a criminal investigation.
End of an era: Completed the sale of my father's house. I lived there from the age of 9 until I went to university and obviously visited a lot in the 50 years after I left home. The house was in a terrible state by the time my father died. We had tried to get him to move to something more appropriate for at least the last 10 years but he refused.
The housing market was just coming off a high when it went on the market but it has completely collapsed. Only 2 viewings. Fortunately neither myself nor my sister need the money, consequently our priority was getting rid of it. I think the Estate Agent was rather shocked that we accepted the offer made for it, but in hindsight I think we have made the right move.
The couple moving in were in rented accommodation. They were presented with a huge rent rise and found other comparable rentals were similarly as high so they bit the bullet (@BartholomewRoberts will be pleased). They have one hell of a job on their hands, but I think it is a win/win. They have a bargain and now own their own home and we are relieved a stressful time is all over.
End of an era: Completed the sale of my father's house. I lived there from the age of 9 until I went to university and obviously visited a lot in the 50 years after I left home. The house was in a terrible state by the time my father died. We had tried to get him to move to something more appropriate for at least the last 10 years but he refused.
The housing market was just coming off a high when it went on the market but it has completely collapsed. Only 2 viewings. Fortunately neither myself nor my sister need the money, consequently our priority was getting rid of it. I think the Estate Agent was rather shocked that we accepted the offer made for it, but in hindsight I think we have made the right move.
The couple moving in were in rented accommodation. They were presented with a huge rent rise and found other comparable rentals were similarly as high so they bit the bullet (@BartholomewRoberts will be pleased). They have one hell of a job on their hands, but I think it is a win/win. They have a bargain and now own their own home and we are relieved a stressful time is all over.
Good news. Having much the same issues at the moment so I feel your pain.
The only meaningful way my situation is different is my parents lived in that house all my life.
Just hoping I can complete the sale in the next few weeks.
Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules forcing her to lower her testosterone levels in order to compete, the European Court of Human Rights has found.
I actually feel really sorry for her. It is an impossible situation every which way. Born intersex, with testorone levels way around that of a biological woman, means a massive advantage, but they aren't cheating, they aren't claiming something they aren't, they aren't transitioning....in fact when they burst onto the scene, I don't think they were even aware of the special biological nature.
Question unrelated to her genetics: She is a South African national. What is the jurisdiction of the European Court with respect to her? Was she suing the organisers of the European Championship or similar?
Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules forcing her to lower her testosterone levels in order to compete, the European Court of Human Rights has found.
I actually feel really sorry for her. It is an impossible situation every which way. Born intersex, with testorone levels way around that of a biological woman, means a massive advantage, but they aren't cheating, they aren't claiming something they aren't, they aren't transitioning....in fact when they burst onto the scene, I don't think they were even aware of the special biological nature.
Question unrelated to her genetics: She is a South African national. What is the jurisdiction of the European Court with respect to her? Was she suing the organisers of the European Championship or similar?
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Could you tell me how you get from presenter spends some money on private interests to bringing the BBC in to disrepute?
Because there are some major leaps of logic that you are going to have to make of the sort that result in very large payouts at employment tribunals - and for the past 15 years most ways you end up with a large payout have been systematically removed by this Government...
Phillip Schofield has recently had left ITV over behaviour which wasn't (as far as we're aware) criminal but shall we say overshadowed his TV work.
ITV will say that was "ended by mutual consent" rather than termination, but there is absolutely no doubt Schofield would have preferred to say. So the conversation would have gone, "So, Phillip, do you want to leave by mutual consent or do you want us to publicly fire you?"
"Talent" contracts will undoubtedly have disrepute clauses - you can't have someone reading the news (for example) who is the news due to their private life. The celeb might want to test that in an Employment Tribunal and have the sordid details raked over... but they are more likely to go quietly.
Other jobs may not have such clauses - ultimately, there's no interest in what an accountant gets up to on the weekends.
Both the ITV and now the BBC scandals, irrespective of fault or facts, are taking acres of newspaper space and hours of broadcasting time. OK, they're a bit newsworthy but they aren't really important - maybe worthy of a few columns on page 5 or a minute or so way down the schedule on the news. The media does seem to like reporting on itself.
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.
Actually, I don't think bow ties (outside formal events) are a sign of insanity. They are a pretty reliable indicator that the wearer is simply cripplingly dull. In my experience, they are almost always used as a substitute for having any personality at all.
Foxy will know best but wasn’t there/isn’t there a thing where doctors would wear bow ties as they could remain “smart” but bow ties were a more hygienic option than a regular tie flopping all over the place?
A dentistry student friend had an hour's tuition on bow ties for this reason. Although these days it might be considered misogynistic to require female dental students to learn this skill.
With respect to shoes. It is a good idea to go to Timpsons in your local town and ask them which shoes they can resole. Buying shoes is expensive, getting them fixed is cheap
Getting them fixed is not cheap. Around £100 for full soles, heels, etc. Quite a conundrum for an older pair of shoes but what else do you do - throw them away?
Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules forcing her to lower her testosterone levels in order to compete, the European Court of Human Rights has found.
I actually feel really sorry for her. It is an impossible situation every which way. Born intersex, with testorone levels way around that of a biological woman, means a massive advantage, but they aren't cheating, they aren't claiming something they aren't, they aren't transitioning....in fact when they burst onto the scene, I don't think they were even aware of the special biological nature.
Question unrelated to her genetics: She is a South African national. What is the jurisdiction of the European Court with respect to her? Was she suing the organisers of the European Championship or similar?
I think it all started because the Court of Arbitration for Sport is based in Switzerland, they made rulings, which then found their way to rulings by the Swiss Supreme Court...so its all become wrapped up in the Swiss governance and legal system.
With respect to shoes. It is a good idea to go to Timpsons in your local town and ask them which shoes they can resole. Buying shoes is expensive, getting them fixed is cheap
Getting them fixed is not cheap. Around £100 for full soles, heels, etc. Quite a conundrum for an older pair of shoes but what else do you do - throw them away?
It's a bit odd the parents are asking how can their child afford a lawyer given it seems they were absolutely coining it on Onlyfans. I know briefs aren't cheap but if they've got Guybrush Threepwood paying thousands to them for various pictures then it's not such a mystery.
However, they are a crack addict.....not know for their ability to save and invest should a legal emergency come along in the future. That was the whole point of the story, that all the money the individual was getting from selling pictures / videos was going on chronic drug problem and the parents asked the police and the BBC to tell the presenter to stop funding this as they were at their wits end.
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
As Phil has mentioned, we don't know the young person is a drug addict. Their version of events starkly contrasts with their parents' version, and either may be correct or it may be somewhere in between.
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Well yes I think this is a point that is being missed....other BBC presenters in the past have been sacked for such things.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
The Telegraph says there has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph along those lines. It may be that there has been. Equally, it may be that it is exactly what the Telegraph would say.
Journalistic standards at the Telegraph have absolutely gone down the toilet over the last couple of years. They've always had a particular perspective on the world, but I'm not sure I believe it's reliable when they cite "sources" as saying things any more.
Fixed for you....
E.g. one of BBC very first BBC Verify reports got a number of key (easily checkable) facts wrong.
Whilst I agree to an extent, there's quite a big difference between a genuine (if shoddy) mistake and lying. I think the Telegraph has been thoroughly Johnson-ised in recent years, which is a shame as it was a very respectable newspaper at one time.
I should say the Telegraph has in recent months become far worse, despite having the same editor and proprietor.
Comments
The minister should be asked to pay for it out of his own salary...
Edit.. I meaning owning it, not that Fox/Lords did similar things!
The police find a file on your computer. They demand the decryption key. You’d have to prove to the court that you didn’t know the key (or the file). Otherwise vacation time.
But there has been debate in the art world recently about the similar issue with Victorian child porn, sorry fine art oil paintings, on the walls of art galleries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Cheatin'_Heart_(TV_series)
And even wrote letters to the local papers, *signed with their names*, about how offended they were by visibly disabled people using *their* pool.
So there is absolutely no evidence that the Sun has any issues around possession of child pornography in the "dossier".
To Johnson, JRM, Dorries and others , this is the way to do it
Harman becomes tearful in Commons
https://news.sky.com/video/share-12918749
The problem obviously is buying nudes off OnlyFans isn't illegal, so what could the police / BBC do when presented with a story of my child is a drug addict, they sell naughty pics / videos to fund it, one of those people is a rich famous person. Not a lot really.
The question is really did the BBC presenter know any of this, or did they just think they were engaging with the services of a sex worker. The latest claim from the Sun was the presenter had moved this "relationship" into the real world and they were organising to meet up....that was the last straw for the parents.
The individual concerned may have never touched the stuff, or they might be living it large during crack-fuelled weekend orgies: We don’t know & don’t really have a right to know. (Although the police may take an interest at some point the CPS might well decide not to prosecute personal recreational drug use - I don’t think personal use gets prosecuted very often, if at all, these days.)
Surely I'm not alone, though, in not giving a flying fuck about this whole sorry tale, even if it involves some wrongdoing? In the big scheme of things, it's trivia.
I was gobsmacked at the thundercunts in question actually announcing their thundercuntery in the local papers.
IIRC Headley Court later raised money and built a special pool on site for physio for residents.
I (able bodied) accompanied a friend to a disabled living fair where you can check out the latest wheelchairs etc. She was talking to someone at a stand so I sat down in her powered wheelchair, then decided to take it for a drive, then dropped a load of brochures we had accumulated by that stage. So hordes of slightly less disabled people rushed over to help. I missed (in my own misjudgment) the narrow time slot in which I could stand up and say effectively Only kidding, folks. So I just sat there and thanked them profusely as they scrabbled around on my behalf.
By the grace of God it was all over before my friend came back to blow my cover.
The Sun appears to have made a complete mountain out a mole hill and are trying desperately to get to the point where they have any justification for the story....
As to what the BBC / Police can do, those are different things. The Police can only look into alleged criminal offences and, if the young person denies everything the evidence is unlikely to be there to prosecute (and personal drug use, if it has happened, is unlikely to be prosecuted in practice). The BBC, however, have a wider disciplinary process - it's pretty unlikely that the BBC would only be able to terminate a contract if the presenter had committed an actual criminal offence; there's a much wider issue of bringing the organisation into disrepute.
Day 1: Boston to Brattleboro, Vermont. Sweet little town - nothing sticks in the memory about it but a nice place to stop/eat/sleep/have breakfast - have a little mooch
Day 2: Brattleboro to Burlington, calling at, I think, Woodstock and Montpelier. Took the back roads through the mountains and forests and daw some covered bridges. The Vermont State capital building in Montpelier is worth a brief gawp. Burlington is a pleasant and lively college town.
Day 3: North Vermont, and stayed at Burlington again.
Day 4: Burlington to Franconia, New Hampshire. This was my highlight: I really liked Northern New Hampshire - Franconia Notch State Part was my favourite outdoorsy bit, I think. I think we did Cannon Mountain and the Lost River Gorge, but there is any amount of countryside to explore. Stayed there for a couple of nights.
Day 6: Franconia to Portland, Maine. A pleasant drive, and Portland is a nice town, but in retrospect I'd have cut that bit out. Over the course of the whole trip we did slightly too much driving, leaving slightly too little time for being anywhere, and if I had to sacrifice one bit this would be it. The driving was all very pleasant, of course, but there is always a temptation to try to go everywhere.
Day 7: Portland to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Portsmouth definitely worth a look even if you don't stay there - old colonial style town.
Day 8: Portsmouth to Boston. I think we probably called in at Salem on the way.
Days 9-11: Boston. You need to give yourself a few days in Boston. I can't remember too much what we did but I remember it was very pleasant.
I also remember Boston airport being extremely satisfyingly handy for the city - and also very handy for bing an hour closer to the UK than New York.
There has been moaning from employees to the Telegraph that this presenter is getting special treatment because they are well in with management and the "talent".
It was bad enough when uncle was called up for a medical at the time of Suez. There were threats to go to MP’s, the press and anyone who might respond.
Uncle merely took his artificial leg off and turned up at the medical centre on crutches. The sergeant managing the place was furious!
1) Allegations
2) Counter Allegations
2) Counter counter allegations
We do have *some* established facts. The BBC exists, for example. Probably.
Or have I just committed libel?
England pick an unchanged squad for Old Trafford.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66163802
Company still exists, it seems https://www.cvc-components.com/company
ETA: And, apparently, significantly expanded
Anyone going to OT? I'm there on the Wednesday.
Rob Key has to go.
Although from my mental picture of ydoethur, in which he is not sitting in a school classroom in Staffordshire but an ancient though cheery wood-pannelled study with a view out onto rolling Welsh fields with Cardigan Bay in the distance, the fact that he wears a bow tie fits very well indeed,
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/66162083
I actually feel really sorry for her. It is an impossible situation every which way. Born intersex, with testorone levels way around that of a biological woman, means a massive advantage, but they aren't cheating, they aren't claiming something they aren't, they aren't transitioning....in fact when they burst onto the scene, I don't think they were even aware of the special biological nature.
But they are obsolete; it's a bit like driving a Morgan.
Journalistic standards at the Telegraph have absolutely gone down the toilet over the last couple of years. They've always had a particular perspective on the world, but I'm not sure I believe it's reliable when they cite "sources" as saying things any more.
England won one in seventeen tests before Key was appointed then they’ve won thirteen tests out of seventeen.
In Key we trust.
https://twitter.com/MollyMcKew/status/1678711090929192960
In 2015, NATO SecGen report including this reference, which made public that in March 2013, under cover of another exercise, Russia had simulated a nuclear strike on Sweden
Sweden got the message. 10 yrs of deliberate defense build-up, and now in NATO /1
So while undoubtedly the Russia troll goons and several fringe US presidential candidates will keep waving their arms around re “NATO’s aggressive expansion”: it’s hard work to get in, but countries do that work because Russia is a giant bag of d*cks as a regional neighbor /2
Everyone was quite happy to ignore them, but they just couldn’t resist this LARPing as a imperial insurgent.
Russia has no one to blame but themselves for any of it /3
Came across a company that would make custom parts out of Berylium* alloys, for a long price….
*Berylium (and its alloys) is a brilliant material - light, strong. One small problem. A small amount of Berylium dust or vapour gives you beryliosis. Which is described as “uniformly fatal”. So pretty much no one handles it anymore. If you have a legacy application…
E.g. one of BBC very first BBC Verify reports got a number of key (easily checkable) facts wrong.
But it's been merely an affectation for many years now - a crutch for the terminally uninteresting.
Because there are some major leaps of logic that you are going to have to make of the sort that result in very large payouts at employment tribunals - and for the past 15 years most ways you end up with a large payout have been systematically removed by this Government...
A large number of both overseas and England players are set to prefer Major League Cricket to the Hundred next year, putting the latter's future in doubt:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/major-league-cricket-mlc-wants-more-england-cricketers-but-don-t-want-to-start-a-war-with-anyone-1386701
It’s a very weird story.
And remember Philip Schofield "resigned" and the allegations there include multiple years of grooming someone under age....
ITV will say that was "ended by mutual consent" rather than termination, but there is absolutely no doubt Schofield would have preferred to say. So the conversation would have gone, "So, Phillip, do you want to leave by mutual consent or do you want us to publicly fire you?"
"Talent" contracts will undoubtedly have disrepute clauses - you can't have someone reading the news (for example) who is the news due to their private life. The celeb might want to test that in an Employment Tribunal and have the sordid details raked over... but they are more likely to go quietly.
Other jobs may not have such clauses - ultimately, there's no interest in what an accountant gets up to on the weekends.
https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/maryna-viazovska-fields-medal-sphere-packing-e8/amp/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-4Oi5YsLUg
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66152982
They went to the resteraunt Petrus and consumed several bottles of Petrus with a five figure price. They paid with their own money.
An idiot at the resteraunt gave the story to the press.
This resulted in the traders losing their jobs for bringing their bank into disrepute. The sackings were upheld by a tribunal.
It also resulted in Petrus closing (in that incarnation) - no one high end wanted to spend their money in place that would publish their bills.
Snopes always did a good job when it was debunking myths by linking to sources etc, before "fact checkers" became common. Now every media source seems to have its own "fact checking" service, but they very rarely seem to bother with sources well.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/11/met-police-bbc-pause-investigation-suspended-presenter
The housing market was just coming off a high when it went on the market but it has completely collapsed. Only 2 viewings. Fortunately neither myself nor my sister need the money, consequently our priority was getting rid of it. I think the Estate Agent was rather shocked that we accepted the offer made for it, but in hindsight I think we have made the right move.
The couple moving in were in rented accommodation. They were presented with a huge rent rise and found other comparable rentals were similarly as high so they bit the bullet (@BartholomewRoberts will be pleased). They have one hell of a job on their hands, but I think it is a win/win. They have a bargain and now own their own home and we are relieved a stressful time is all over.
The only meaningful way my situation is different is my parents lived in that house all my life.
Just hoping I can complete the sale in the next few weeks.
That's the supreme being pishing into your tent, that is.
OK, they're a bit newsworthy but they aren't really important - maybe worthy of a few columns on page 5 or a minute or so way down the schedule on the news. The media does seem to like reporting on itself.