I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
Neither Alien (sci-fi horror) nor Beverly Hills Cop (comedy) fit that category.
Alien is excellent; BHC, amusing.
Alien was late 70's wasn't it?
I have never seen any of the Die Hards, nor Lethal Weapons, nor any Star Wars (apart from the original) nor any Star Trek (apart from the 1960's original), nor LoTR films, nor The Hobbit, nor any "Superhero" films.
Action films are not really my cup of tea. I find special effects boring, and too often a substitute to cover up thin characterisation and plot.
The first LoTR film is action-light, and as we get older, we can see worthwhile, almost self-contained reflections on the right way to approach mortality. (The other two are overweighted towards boring but large CGI fights.)
They hold up well. Yes, the CGI doesn't so much, but there's still quieter, more reflective moments in both of them.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
If you want to see a film that has aged BADLY, try “Manhattan”.
Apparently this was beloved of film critics, until only about 10 years ago. But watching it in 2023, Allen comes across as a spoilt and unpleasant narcissist who seems to be using the entire film to indulge his own, slightly unsavoury sexual fantasies.
I haven't seen it, and you do not surprise me. I probably won't seek it out.
He’s wrong. It’s a magnificent film, and you’re not meant to like Allen’s character. Every time I watch it, at the end I’m just saying to myself, ‘Get on that plane, Tracy’ and the film is constructed to invite that response.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
Neither Alien (sci-fi horror) nor Beverly Hills Cop (comedy) fit that category.
Alien is excellent; BHC, amusing.
Alien was late 70's wasn't it?
I have never seen any of the Die Hards, nor Lethal Weapons, nor any Star Wars (apart from the original) nor any Star Trek (apart from the 1960's original), nor LoTR films, nor The Hobbit, nor any "Superhero" films.
Action films are not really my cup of tea. I find special effects boring, and too often a substitute to cover up thin characterisation and plot.
Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan is worth seeing even if you don’t like sci-fi. The characterisation and revenge plot are first class, and the ultimate space battle (through a plot contrivance) is more like a blind struggle between two WW2 submarines.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
No evidence Huw knew the young man was a drug addict.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
I would prefer to take the advice of the professionals on HR matters.
I don't trust HR professionals. Even the name bugs me.
They are normally purveyors of due process in the wider interests of the business, nothing more.
What almost nobody seems to understand is that HR are not on your side.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
If you want to see a film that has aged BADLY, try “Manhattan”.
Apparently this was beloved of film critics, until only about 10 years ago. But watching it in 2023, Allen comes across as a spoilt and unpleasant narcissist who seems to be using the entire film to indulge his own, slightly unsavoury sexual fantasies.
Yeah it's gross. Annie Hall is still brilliant though.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
For sure, that is harsh to my mind. But the intersection of lawbreaking outside the workplace, plus potential intoxication while working, gives them a starting point under law.
Indeed, but I'd prefer three strikes and you're out - not zero tolerance. .
Would you like intoxicated whilst working to have three strikes in a school or hospital?
Perhaps not the best example (!!!) but Harold Shipman was sanctioned but not struck off for abuse of controlled drugs.
I would expect serious sanctions and restrictions on practice for anyone intoxicated at my work, but would hope that the approach to addiction is therapeutic rather than punitive.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
If you want to see a film that has aged BADLY, try “Manhattan”.
Apparently this was beloved of film critics, until only about 10 years ago. But watching it in 2023, Allen comes across as a spoilt and unpleasant narcissist who seems to be using the entire film to indulge his own, slightly unsavoury sexual fantasies.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
Without wishing to get into more arguments about what woke means (just because things are tricky to precisely define does not mean they don't exist), I think the thing is that as you've identified society and culture does move on, for everyone to a greater or lesser degree. Without particular prompting or highlighting we will see things a little differently.
What causes the major arguments is when a sizable group (large minority or even a majority) feels things are being forced beyond what they consider reasonable reflection or adjustment, which is where you get into the viral examples of silly 'sensitivity adjustments' and the like, where often it seems like out of fear of a future potential of upset, best to shut something down now, even before it is an issue.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
If you want to see a film that has aged BADLY, try “Manhattan”.
Apparently this was beloved of film critics, until only about 10 years ago. But watching it in 2023, Allen comes across as a spoilt and unpleasant narcissist who seems to be using the entire film to indulge his own, slightly unsavoury sexual fantasies.
"Arthur" has aged poorly too.
I haven’t seen that. Or if I have, it was literally 1983 and I don’t remember the details because I was very young.
But - Dudley Moore had, I think, a certain charm completely lacking from Woody Allen.
Also, “Arthur” has a famously memorable theme tune.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
No evidence Huw knew the young man was a drug addict.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
I would prefer to take the advice of the professionals on HR matters.
I don't trust HR professionals. Even the name bugs me.
They are normally purveyors of due process in the wider interests of the business, nothing more.
What almost nobody seems to understand is that HR are not on your side.
Yes. 100%. As an employment lawyer I see this constantly
There was a very odd post this morning about the Sun “popping champagne”.
But they’ve fucked this up, haven’t they?
One does hope so.
I can't bear the smug Edwards, but the Sun's vile sting operation has been truly evil.
I cannot help but feel that if these revelations were coming out about Andrew Neil, or Jacob Rees Mogg, or the Duke of York, the PB-ers currently clutching their pearls about 'mental health', 'vile sting operation' etc. would be singing a somewhat different tune.
I don't think an average 61 year old would be admitted to an inpatient psych unit either*. Access to such places of asylum are usually much harder to get.
*perhaps if a serious attempt at suicide.
I hadn't bothered to comment on this at all up to today, so I'm quite annoyed that the knockabout politics of everything on PB has made me.
I hope that Edwards' mental issues are mostly diplomatic in nature. John Sopel described him as 'angry' about the revelations as opposed to distraught. He will have a good PR doing damage limitation on this.
BBC now reporting on some complaints thet have received from staff.
BBC Newsnight has also spoken to one current and one former BBC worker who said they’d received inappropriate messages from Edwards, some late at night and signed off with kisses.
One said they felt it was an abuse of power by someone very senior in the organisation. Both workers who spoke to Newsnight, and the other employee, spoke of a reluctance among junior staff to complain to managers about the conduct of high-profile colleagues in case it adversely affected their careers.
Far too many institutions work by rewarding behaviours that reinforce the hierarchy and punishing those who do not.
Pretty much textbook behaviour of an institution.
It's like saying things should be open and transparent, they are willing to hear bad news, that they want to decentralise authority etc - some of these are good objecively, some might be good or not in the circumstances, but sound good as buzzwords, so they are pushed even as actions may show a completely different culture and set of priorities.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
If you want to see a film that has aged BADLY, try “Manhattan”.
Apparently this was beloved of film critics, until only about 10 years ago. But watching it in 2023, Allen comes across as a spoilt and unpleasant narcissist who seems to be using the entire film to indulge his own, slightly unsavoury sexual fantasies.
A salutary lesson.
What's in vogue can quickly go out of vogue.
Maybe.
But I watch (or used to, I’m busier these days) a lot of classic film, even stuff as far back as the 20s and 30s.
And, so long as you are broad minded, and make certain allowances, pretty much everything apart from Triumph of the Will or something follows a moral code that you and I would recognise.
But Woody Allen is just a selfish man-baby in that film. Not someone you want to be around, or, especially, watch.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
For sure, that is harsh to my mind. But the intersection of lawbreaking outside the workplace, plus potential intoxication while working, gives them a starting point under law.
Indeed, but I'd prefer three strikes and you're out - not zero tolerance. .
Would you like intoxicated whilst working to have three strikes in a school or hospital?
That very much depends how intoxicated, whether it was technical or blatant, how good they were at the job, and their record of good behaviour, ans whether they were struggling with personal or mental health issues.
Things aren't black and white and people are complicated. Lots of problems are caused by silly strapline policies like these.
I think none of us are completely pure all the time and it's very much a case of there but for the grace of God go I.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
No evidence Huw knew the young man was a drug addict.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
I would prefer to take the advice of the professionals on HR matters.
I don't trust HR professionals. Even the name bugs me.
They are normally purveyors of due process in the wider interests of the business, nothing more.
What almost nobody seems to understand is that HR are not on your side.
When I started working for an insurance company in 1981 we had a Staff Department. That became 'Personnel' sometime in the 80s, which was fine.
But then it became Human Resources which is an abomination of a title imo. (Although it does reflect the way most companies seem to view their employees: as resources to be exploited.)
I'm yet to put any pronouns on my emails or LinkedIn or anywhere else, and I've refused to answer gender identity questions in the DEI surveys, and so far no-one has pulled me up or challenged me on it.
Hopefully, the peak of that silliness has now passed but there was definitely a time where I worried I would eventually have to do so or constantly defend myself against accusations of being a bigot, which would become career-limiting to say the least.
There was a very odd post this morning about the Sun “popping champagne”.
But they’ve fucked this up, haven’t they?
One does hope so.
I can't bear the smug Edwards, but the Sun's vile sting operation has been truly evil.
I cannot help but feel that if these revelations were coming out about Andrew Neil, or Jacob Rees Mogg, or the Duke of York, the PB-ers currently clutching their pearls about 'mental health', 'vile sting operation' etc. would be singing a somewhat different tune.
I don't think an average 61 year old would be admitted to an inpatient psych unit either*. Access to such places of asylum are usually much harder to get.
*perhaps if a serious attempt at suicide.
I hadn't bothered to comment on this at all up to today, so I'm quite annoyed that the knockabout politics of everything on PB has made me.
I hope that Edwards' mental issues are mostly diplomatic in nature. John Sopel described him as 'angry' about the revelations as opposed to distraught. He will have a good PR doing damage limitation on this.
Still never seen Airplane. I've seen in quoted so many times I've probably heard most of the movie anyway.
But really the key question is what sorts of political movies would it be expected political anoraks will have watched, and has everyone indeed seen them?
I remember watching The Iron Lady, and thinking it was pretty dull, but then that's generally the case with biopics, even of remarkable people (I also find Meryl Streep overrated - it may be unfair, but I'm always very aware its her in her films, rather than the character she is portraying).
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
No evidence Huw knew the young man was a drug addict.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
I would prefer to take the advice of the professionals on HR matters.
I don't trust HR professionals. Even the name bugs me.
They are normally purveyors of due process in the wider interests of the business, nothing more.
What almost nobody seems to understand is that HR are not on your side.
Yes. 100%. As an employment lawyer I see this constantly
There was a very odd post this morning about the Sun “popping champagne”.
But they’ve fucked this up, haven’t they?
One does hope so.
I can't bear the smug Edwards, but the Sun's vile sting operation has been truly evil.
I cannot help but feel that if these revelations were coming out about Andrew Neil, or Jacob Rees Mogg, or the Duke of York, the PB-ers currently clutching their pearls about 'mental health', 'vile sting operation' etc. would be singing a somewhat different tune.
I don't think an average 61 year old would be admitted to an inpatient psych unit either*. Access to such places of asylum are usually much harder to get.
*perhaps if a serious attempt at suicide.
As perhaps you were implying, self-referral to a private psych unit is a viable route and whilst not encouraged is acceptable for rich people who feel they can't cope. Some people have problems that are more performative than real but for those with poor coping strategies a stay can be useful. From memory there was one woman, an artist if memory serves, who spent a considerable proportion of her latter life self-committed..
Of course, poor people have a much harder time of it. ☹️
I'm yet to put any pronouns on my emails or LinkedIn or anywhere else, and I've refused to answer gender identity questions in the DEI surveys, and so far no-one has pulled me up or challenged me on it.
Hopefully, the peak of that silliness has now passed but there was definitely a time where I worried I would eventually have to do so or constantly defend myself against accusations of being a bigot, which would become career-limiting to say the least.
Still never seen Airplane. I've seen in quoted so many times I've probably heard most of the movie anyway.
But really the key question is what sorts of political movies would it be expected political anoraks will have watched, and has everyone indeed seen them?
I remember watching The Iron Lady, and thinking it was pretty dull, but then that's generally the case with biopics, even of remarkable people (I also find Meryl Streep overrated - it may be unfair, but I'm always very aware its her in her films, rather than the character she is portraying).
A former editor of The Sun, David Yelland, has criticised the newspaper’s coverage:
...The Sun inflicted terror on Huw despite no evidence of any criminal offence. This is no longer a BBC crisis, it is a crisis for the paper. Huw's privacy must now be respected. Social media also needs speedy reform.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
Agree. Not sure why an employer is drug testing at 9.30 in the morning someone who isn't behaving inappropriately at work unless they have a high level public facing role where disclosure of drug taking would bring their employer into disrepute.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
No evidence Huw knew the young man was a drug addict.
Onlyfans and similar are very popular sites where people legally pay for explicit photos etc of people. It's just like porn, except for the creators often make much more money.
If using such a site in your own time is a matter of gross misconduct, I would suggest your HR policy is outdated and potentially illegal.
I would prefer to take the advice of the professionals on HR matters.
I don't trust HR professionals. Even the name bugs me.
They are normally purveyors of due process in the wider interests of the business, nothing more.
What almost nobody seems to understand is that HR are not on your side.
Yes. 100%. As an employment lawyer I see this constantly
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
Agree. Not sure why an employer is drug testing at 9.30 in the morning someone who isn't behaving inappropriately at work unless they have a high level public facing role where disclosure of drug taking would bring their employer into disrepute.
This has actually killed someone barely a mile from my house as Hampshire County Council followed the meme, and refused to cut the grass at crucial junctions, which grew so wild and high it obscured clear sightlines. They were warned plenty of times but did nothing about it because institutional culture and nothing had happened. So a pensioner driving a low sports car couldn't see oncoming traffic when pulling out at a crossroads - and neither could the vehicle see him on the primary road - so he was side-swiped and met his end. They were up there the very next day cutting the grass.
The family of the victim are now suing the council.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
For sure, that is harsh to my mind. But the intersection of lawbreaking outside the workplace, plus potential intoxication while working, gives them a starting point under law.
Indeed, but I'd prefer three strikes and you're out - not zero tolerance. .
Would you like intoxicated whilst working to have three strikes in a school or hospital?
That very much depends how intoxicated, whether it was technical or blatant, how good they were at the job, and their record of good behaviour, ans whether they were struggling with personal or mental health issues.
Things aren't black and white and people are complicated. Lots of problems are caused by silly strapline policies like these.
I think none of us are completely pure all the time and it's very much a case of there but for the grace of God go I.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
That seems completely absurd.
It is, and it's what happens under zero tolerance.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
Agree. Not sure why an employer is drug testing at 9.30 in the morning someone who isn't behaving inappropriately at work unless they have a high level public facing role where disclosure of drug taking would bring their employer into disrepute.
Random testing.
If you're not in a role where being intoxicated is a big deal (eg operating machinery) I really think it's not your employer's business how you spend your weekend. Luckily I've never worked anywhere that goes in for this kind of BS.
North by Northwest The Leopard Chinatown The 400 Blows The Apartment The Shining The Sound of Music Amarcord Kind Hearts and Coronets There Will Be Blood
Christmas or no, it's just not a very good film is it?
Nonsense, it is a great film, one of Alan Rickman's all time great performances, which is high praise.
Rickman is a pearl amongst swine in this film. Even then, he put in better performances as Snape than as Hans Gruber.
On no level at all is Die Hard a 'great film'. It's pants tbh.
A finer performance is perhaps the one that made his career - Obadiah Slope in the BBC’s Barchester Chronicles. The usually sinister Donald Pleasence was cast brilliantly against type as the saintly Septimus Harding.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
That seems completely absurd.
It is, and it's what happens under zero tolerance.
No such thing. The tests will have a clear margin of error *in themselves*. So no, not zero tolerance.
I'm not sure how I would pick my favourite films. I go to the cinema a lot, so don't rewatch movies as much as I used to, so my impression of which ones I liked the most would probably skew toward the more recent, but if I think about which ones spring into my head as ones I do rewatch quite a bit and still always enjoy, it does trend toward blockbusters.
The Last Crusade The Death of Stalin Hot Fuzz Gladiator The Lord of the Rings The Martian The Usual Suspects
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
Agree. Not sure why an employer is drug testing at 9.30 in the morning someone who isn't behaving inappropriately at work unless they have a high level public facing role where disclosure of drug taking would bring their employer into disrepute.
Random testing.
If you're not in a role where being intoxicated is a big deal (eg operating machinery) I really think it's not your employer's business how you spend your weekend. Luckily I've never worked anywhere that goes in for this kind of BS.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
Agree. Not sure why an employer is drug testing at 9.30 in the morning someone who isn't behaving inappropriately at work unless they have a high level public facing role where disclosure of drug taking would bring their employer into disrepute.
Random testing.
I don't think they should be if they are doing their job properly and if disclosure wouldn't bring their employer into disrepute (ie if it wouldn't be news outside of the employer)
There was a very odd post this morning about the Sun “popping champagne”.
But they’ve fucked this up, haven’t they?
One does hope so.
I can't bear the smug Edwards, but the Sun's vile sting operation has been truly evil.
I cannot help but feel that if these revelations were coming out about Andrew Neil, or Jacob Rees Mogg, or the Duke of York, the PB-ers currently clutching their pearls about 'mental health', 'vile sting operation' etc. would be singing a somewhat different tune.
I don't think an average 61 year old would be admitted to an inpatient psych unit either*. Access to such places of asylum are usually much harder to get.
*perhaps if a serious attempt at suicide.
I hadn't bothered to comment on this at all up to today, so I'm quite annoyed that the knockabout politics of everything on PB has made me.
I hope that Edwards' mental issues are mostly diplomatic in nature. John Sopel described him as 'angry' about the revelations as opposed to distraught. He will have a good PR doing damage limitation on this.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
Agree. Not sure why an employer is drug testing at 9.30 in the morning someone who isn't behaving inappropriately at work unless they have a high level public facing role where disclosure of drug taking would bring their employer into disrepute.
Random testing.
I don't think they should be if they are doing their job properly and if disclosure wouldn't bring their employer into disrepute (ie if it wouldn't be news outside of the employer)
Railway industry. Very sensitive to drugs, like schools are sensitive to any undue interest in underage persons.
Christmas or no, it's just not a very good film is it?
Nonsense, it is a great film, one of Alan Rickman's all time great performances, which is high praise.
Rickman is a pearl amongst swine in this film. Even then, he put in better performances as Snape than as Hans Gruber.
On no level at all is Die Hard a 'great film'. It's pants tbh.
A finer performance is perhaps the one that made his career - Obadiah Slope in the BBC’s Barchester Chronicles. The usually sinister Donald Pleasence was cast brilliantly against type as the saintly Septimus Harding.
Yes, I remember that well. Brilliant series. Geraldine McEwan was excellent as Mrs Proudie too.
White Men Can't Jump Goodfellas Withnail And I The Blues Brothers Pulp Fiction The Commitments Dazed And Confused
I think these are my favourite seven movies
I know there are better made films with much better acting, but those are the ones I have enjoyed again and again as an adult
Oh, and all the Monty Python films
For me, the top ten are:
Goodfellas Godfather I and II The Death of Stalin The Wolf of Wall Street The Last King of Scotland Some Like it Hot From Russia with Love Airplane Ruthless People.
There's been an outbreak of "give me a written warning and I walk". (Mostly about smoking and vaping where pupils may possibly see. Which is almost anywhere outside your own property). And visible tattoos. Which in this weather is most of the body. Can't enforce such bollocks when there's a labour shortage already.
Huw is one of the highest paid, previously most respected, newsreaders on the publicly owned broadcaster
That doesn't just give him celebrity; it brings him authority and power too
He's not just an ordinary guy with kinks
He has abused his position - see the Beeb confirmed stories about his threats - he deserves to lose it
If he has does anything illegal on top of that then he should be punished for it, if not: not
But he shouldn't be forgiven his abuse of power, just because he's gone a bit nuts now
Given his long history of depression “gone a bit nuts now” seems to minimise the reality of his situation a bit.
But, at the same time, depression is not an excuse for bad behaviour of this kind. Especially when the perpetrator is wealthy enough to afford top flight private medical treatment.
I think the Beeb has to sack him. This is gross misconduct & mental illness doesn’t excuse it.
North by Northwest The Leopard Chinatown The 400 Blows The Apartment The Shining The Sound of Music Amarcord Kind Hearts and Coronets There Will Be Blood
I like your list, at least those on it I have seen, which is most of them.
(None of them are quite as good as Amelie of course, but hey...)
Huw is one of the highest paid, previously most respected, newsreaders on the publicly owned broadcaster
That doesn't just give him celebrity; it brings him authority and power too
He's not just an ordinary guy with kinks
He has abused his position - see the Beeb confirmed stories about his threats - he deserves to lose it
If he has does anything illegal on top of that then he should be punished for it, if not: not
But he shouldn't be forgiven his abuse of power, just because he's gone a bit nuts now
Given his long history of depression “gone a bit nuts now” seems to minimise the reality of his situation a bit.
But, at the same time, depression is not an excuse for bad behaviour of this kind. Especially when the perpetrator is wealthy enough to afford top flight private medical treatment.
I think the Beeb has to sack him. This is gross misconduct & mental illness doesn’t excuse it.
This is all difficult. Suppose it was a brain tumour? Does that excuse it?
White Men Can't Jump Goodfellas Withnail And I The Blues Brothers Pulp Fiction The Commitments Dazed And Confused
I think these are my favourite seven movies
I know there are better made films with much better acting, but those are the ones I have enjoyed again and again as an adult
Oh, and all the Monty Python films
For me, the top ten are:
Goodfellas Godfather I and II The Death of Stalin The Wolf of Wall Street The Last King of Scotland Some Like it Hot From Russia with Love Airplane Ruthless People.
If there's nothing illegal it is really none of our business. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is none of the BBC's business. In the same way people can get fired for things which are indeed not illegal.
White Men Can't Jump Goodfellas Withnail And I The Blues Brothers Pulp Fiction The Commitments Dazed And Confused
I think these are my favourite seven movies
I know there are better made films with much better acting, but those are the ones I have enjoyed again and again as an adult
Oh, and all the Monty Python films
My favourites mostly seem to be romcoms, but there it is:
Four Weddings and a Funeral Amelie Shakespeare in Love Pride & Prejudice (2005) Master and Commander Gravity Airplane
How depressingly middle-brow.
The only good ones there are M&C, Gravity and Airplane, while Amelie and P&P(05) are downright shite.
Thank you for your kind comments ;-)
Unless Garden Walker is just anti-Jane Austen, he might have a passionate predilection for the BBC TV adaptation of the 90's. I prefer it over 2005 too.
There was a very odd post this morning about the Sun “popping champagne”.
But they’ve fucked this up, haven’t they?
One does hope so.
I can't bear the smug Edwards, but the Sun's vile sting operation has been truly evil.
I cannot help but feel that if these revelations were coming out about Andrew Neil, or Jacob Rees Mogg, or the Duke of York, the PB-ers currently clutching their pearls about 'mental health', 'vile sting operation' etc. would be singing a somewhat different tune.
I don't think an average 61 year old would be admitted to an inpatient psych unit either*. Access to such places of asylum are usually much harder to get.
*perhaps if a serious attempt at suicide.
I hadn't bothered to comment on this at all up to today, so I'm quite annoyed that the knockabout politics of everything on PB has made me.
I hope that Edwards' mental issues are mostly diplomatic in nature. John Sopel described him as 'angry' about the revelations as opposed to distraught. He will have a good PR doing damage limitation on this.
Still never seen Airplane. I've seen in quoted so many times I've probably heard most of the movie anyway.
But really the key question is what sorts of political movies would it be expected political anoraks will have watched, and has everyone indeed seen them?
I remember watching The Iron Lady, and thinking it was pretty dull, but then that's generally the case with biopics, even of remarkable people (I also find Meryl Streep overrated - it may be unfair, but I'm always very aware its her in her films, rather than the character she is portraying).
Good Political movies
All the President's men Frost vs Nixon
and of course Don's Party
Nixon (Hopkins/Stone) The Parallax View All The Way (Cranston as LBJ) Path To War (Michael Gambon as LBJ)
White Men Can't Jump Goodfellas Withnail And I The Blues Brothers Pulp Fiction The Commitments Dazed And Confused
I think these are my favourite seven movies
I know there are better made films with much better acting, but those are the ones I have enjoyed again and again as an adult
Oh, and all the Monty Python films
For me, the top ten are:
Goodfellas Godfather I and II The Death of Stalin The Wolf of Wall Street The Last King of Scotland Some Like it Hot From Russia with Love Airplane Ruthless People.
Some Like it Hot - yes a top film.
Monroe at her finest and good support from Jack Lemon and Tony Curtis.
(Though some would say Monroe needed no support, of course.)
I want someone to have a really weird best movie, like that one with Vinnie Jones as a journalist who discovers a lost manuscript of Charles Dickens, and at the end (sorry to spoil the twist), Charles Dickens is shown to be still alive and living as a bum in modern London.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
If his contract had that clause then fair enough . I find the Nazi thing disturbing but having sex online and posting pictures I could care less as long as it was consensual and the parties involved agreed to putting them out there .
You mean you COULDN'T care less? Not "could"!
Quite. It's one of the stupider Americanisms too.
It's just sarcasm, no different to saying a cliché like "yeah, right" when you mean "no".
I don't think that explanation really meets the case. I've never seen anybody say 'I could care less' in an even vaguely sarcastic/ironic tone. It's just unfortunate.
I could care less about your opinion. But it would be an effort.
Still never seen Airplane. I've seen in quoted so many times I've probably heard most of the movie anyway.
But really the key question is what sorts of political movies would it be expected political anoraks will have watched, and has everyone indeed seen them?
I remember watching The Iron Lady, and thinking it was pretty dull, but then that's generally the case with biopics, even of remarkable people (I also find Meryl Streep overrated - it may be unfair, but I'm always very aware its her in her films, rather than the character she is portraying).
Good Political movies
All the President's men Frost vs Nixon
and of course Don's Party
Nixon (Hopkins/Stone) The Parallax View All The Way (Cranston as LBJ) Path To War (Michael Gambon as LBJ)
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
Agree. Not sure why an employer is drug testing at 9.30 in the morning someone who isn't behaving inappropriately at work unless they have a high level public facing role where disclosure of drug taking would bring their employer into disrepute.
Random testing.
I don't think they should be if they are doing their job properly and if disclosure wouldn't bring their employer into disrepute (ie if it wouldn't be news outside of the employer)
Railway industry. Very sensitive to drugs, like schools are sensitive to any undue interest in underage persons.
But surely commonsense applies. I don't want my train driver under the influence even if the slightest, so tests are fair enough. I don't give a toss if the porter had a session the night before provided he can do his job properly.
Still never seen Airplane. I've seen in quoted so many times I've probably heard most of the movie anyway.
But really the key question is what sorts of political movies would it be expected political anoraks will have watched, and has everyone indeed seen them?
I remember watching The Iron Lady, and thinking it was pretty dull, but then that's generally the case with biopics, even of remarkable people (I also find Meryl Streep overrated - it may be unfair, but I'm always very aware its her in her films, rather than the character she is portraying).
Good Political movies
All the President's men Frost vs Nixon
and of course Don's Party
Nixon (Hopkins/Stone) The Parallax View All The Way (Cranston as LBJ) Path To War (Michael Gambon as LBJ)
If there's nothing illegal it is really none of our business. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is none of the BBC's business. In the same way people can get fired for things which are indeed not illegal.
Indeed. These things can be forbidden by the employer. Or they can be forbidden by the professional body, where appropriate. Or some combination - as when a full accreditation is needed to stay in employment.
There is also the issue of indemnity insurance in some professions - either personal or that of the employer. No insurance, no job. In the case of a rail industry worker, for instance, it's possible that random drugs testing is actually imposed by the insurers.
White Men Can't Jump Goodfellas Withnail And I The Blues Brothers Pulp Fiction The Commitments Dazed And Confused
I think these are my favourite seven movies
I know there are better made films with much better acting, but those are the ones I have enjoyed again and again as an adult
Oh, and all the Monty Python films
For me, the top ten are:
Goodfellas Godfather I and II The Death of Stalin The Wolf of Wall Street The Last King of Scotland Some Like it Hot From Russia with Love Airplane Ruthless People.
Very good list, but too Anglo.
Fair enough. Among foreign films, I hugely enjoyed La Reine Margot, Jean de Florette, Manon des Sources, Satyricon (a very rare film which does depict a lot of what I think life was like in Ancient Rome) .
Still never seen Airplane. I've seen in quoted so many times I've probably heard most of the movie anyway.
But really the key question is what sorts of political movies would it be expected political anoraks will have watched, and has everyone indeed seen them?
I remember watching The Iron Lady, and thinking it was pretty dull, but then that's generally the case with biopics, even of remarkable people (I also find Meryl Streep overrated - it may be unfair, but I'm always very aware its her in her films, rather than the character she is portraying).
Good Political movies
All the President's men Frost vs Nixon
and of course Don's Party
Nixon (Hopkins/Stone) The Parallax View All The Way (Cranston as LBJ) Path To War (Michael Gambon as LBJ)
White Men Can't Jump Goodfellas Withnail And I The Blues Brothers Pulp Fiction The Commitments Dazed And Confused
I think these are my favourite seven movies
I know there are better made films with much better acting, but those are the ones I have enjoyed again and again as an adult
Oh, and all the Monty Python films
For me, the top ten are:
Goodfellas Godfather I and II The Death of Stalin The Wolf of Wall Street The Last King of Scotland Some Like it Hot From Russia with Love Airplane Ruthless People.
Very good list, but too Anglo.
Fair enough. Among foreign films, I hugely enjoyed La Reine Margot, Jean de Florette, Manon des Sources, Satyricon (a very rare film which does depict a lot of what I think life was like in Ancient Rome) .
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
Neither Alien (sci-fi horror) nor Beverly Hills Cop (comedy) fit that category.
Alien is excellent; BHC, amusing.
Alien was late 70's wasn't it?
I have never seen any of the Die Hards, nor Lethal Weapons, nor any Star Wars (apart from the original) nor any Star Trek (apart from the 1960's original), nor LoTR films, nor The Hobbit, nor any "Superhero" films.
Action films are not really my cup of tea. I find special effects boring, and too often a substitute to cover up thin characterisation and plot.
Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan is worth seeing even if you don’t like sci-fi. The characterisation and revenge plot are first class, and the ultimate space battle (through a plot contrivance) is more like a blind struggle between two WW2 submarines.
Up to and including the mock sonar on the soundtrack...
Still never seen Airplane. I've seen in quoted so many times I've probably heard most of the movie anyway.
But really the key question is what sorts of political movies would it be expected political anoraks will have watched, and has everyone indeed seen them?
I remember watching The Iron Lady, and thinking it was pretty dull, but then that's generally the case with biopics, even of remarkable people (I also find Meryl Streep overrated - it may be unfair, but I'm always very aware its her in her films, rather than the character she is portraying).
Good Political movies
All the President's men Frost vs Nixon
and of course Don's Party
Nixon (Hopkins/Stone) The Parallax View All The Way (Cranston as LBJ) Path To War (Michael Gambon as LBJ)
Good political film: Darkest Hour.
Especially the Underground scene.
Hah! Well, it was never claimed to be a documentary.
White Men Can't Jump Goodfellas Withnail And I The Blues Brothers Pulp Fiction The Commitments Dazed And Confused
I think these are my favourite seven movies
I know there are better made films with much better acting, but those are the ones I have enjoyed again and again as an adult
Oh, and all the Monty Python films
My favourites mostly seem to be romcoms, but there it is:
Four Weddings and a Funeral Amelie Shakespeare in Love Pride & Prejudice (2005) Master and Commander Gravity Airplane
How depressingly middle-brow.
The only good ones there are M&C, Gravity and Airplane, while Amelie and P&P(05) are downright shite.
Thank you for your kind comments ;-)
Unless Garden Walker is just anti-Jane Austen, he might have a passionate predilection for the BBC TV adaptation of the 90's. I prefer it over 2005 too.
The BBC adaptation is superior.
Matthew McFadyen is miscast, and Keira Knightly can’t act.
Unethical behaviour is not necessarily the same thing as illegal behaviour. I've been talking this over with my wife, who is an HR professional.
Paying a drug addict, who is aged over 18, to provide sexually explict photos, on the part of somebody like a senior local government officer, would be considered an act of gross misconduct. The officer would be suspended, and in all likelihood be dismissed. He might well lose pension rights. He would not be getting away with the argument that "a good chap has the right to a private life." And, if some local rag reported the issue, attempts to blame the local rag would fall flat.
Whether one hates The Sun or not, is immaterial. There is a public interest in reporting this story.
Presumably "drug addict" is doing the work there, rather than making anyone who pays for OnlyFans eligible for loss of pension?
It's the issue of bringing your employer into disrepute, if you're senior enough.
About a decade ago, there was a guy who was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham. He had a Nazi fetish, and he liked posting pictures of himself online having sex with other Nazi fetishists. One of the tabloids reported the story to general mirth, but there was no question of the man keeping his job.
Why? Given some of your posts, I’ve long suspected you of quite odd sexual fetishises, but I’d never dream that it ought to cost you your job.
Fortunately, I'm self-employed. If I were a partner in a magic circle law firm, who did what is alleged here, I probably would be on my way out.
Because partners are not employees with rights under law.
Too many of your examples are irrelevant to the assertion that OnlyFans is grounds for summary dismissal. And, no, I wouldn't necessarily trust HR to know the law, especially when it protects the employee.
As a point of fact, is there any evidence this took place on OnlyFans?
I'm inquiring specifically about Sean_F's bare-bones scenario where gross misconduct includes paying for porn in one's own time, to a person who turns out to be an addict. No, I don't know much at all about the details of the current controversy.
You can make the argument that the law goes too far in allowing employers to dismiss people for actions outside of the workplace that they say will bring them into disrepute.
However, it is the case that employment law allows them considerable latitude to do so.
I know a very good and capable 35-year old guy, who had a good career in project management of complex systems integration in the rail industry totally destroyed - forever - because he took cocaine at a party with some friends on a Sunday night, and was randomly drugs tested at 9.30am the next morning (it happens to a random pool once a year) and he got unlucky and it was still in his system.
It's not my cup of tea but I thought that was a bit harsh. The problem with zero tolerance is that it really is zero tolerance.
Agree. Not sure why an employer is drug testing at 9.30 in the morning someone who isn't behaving inappropriately at work unless they have a high level public facing role where disclosure of drug taking would bring their employer into disrepute.
Random testing.
I don't think they should be if they are doing their job properly and if disclosure wouldn't bring their employer into disrepute (ie if it wouldn't be news outside of the employer)
Railway industry. Very sensitive to drugs, like schools are sensitive to any undue interest in underage persons.
But surely commonsense applies. I don't want my train driver under the influence even if the slightest, so tests are fair enough. I don't give a toss if the porter had a session the night before provided he can do his job properly.
Porter?! Where do you live, Buggleskelly?
Organizations don't have time to apply minute distinctions - still less their employers or the employers' insurers. Especially if people find themselves dealing with safety critical functions (which can happen in the office just as much as in the cab).
White Men Can't Jump Goodfellas Withnail And I The Blues Brothers Pulp Fiction The Commitments Dazed And Confused
I think these are my favourite seven movies
I know there are better made films with much better acting, but those are the ones I have enjoyed again and again as an adult
Oh, and all the Monty Python films
My favourites mostly seem to be romcoms, but there it is:
Four Weddings and a Funeral Amelie Shakespeare in Love Pride & Prejudice (2005) Master and Commander Gravity Airplane
How depressingly middle-brow.
The only good ones there are M&C, Gravity and Airplane, while Amelie and P&P(05) are downright shite.
Thank you for your kind comments ;-)
Unless Garden Walker is just anti-Jane Austen, he might have a passionate predilection for the BBC TV adaptation of the 90's. I prefer it over 2005 too.
Mrs P. prefers the BBC version, I prefer the 2005 film. We watch them both once a year or so.
Still never seen Airplane. I've seen in quoted so many times I've probably heard most of the movie anyway.
But really the key question is what sorts of political movies would it be expected political anoraks will have watched, and has everyone indeed seen them?
I remember watching The Iron Lady, and thinking it was pretty dull, but then that's generally the case with biopics, even of remarkable people (I also find Meryl Streep overrated - it may be unfair, but I'm always very aware its her in her films, rather than the character she is portraying).
Good Political movies
All the President's men Frost vs Nixon
and of course Don's Party
Nixon (Hopkins/Stone) The Parallax View All The Way (Cranston as LBJ) Path To War (Michael Gambon as LBJ)
Good political film: Darkest Hour.
Especially the Underground scene.
Hah! Well, it was never claimed to be a documentary.
Quite. A lot of what people 'know' is half remembered anyway, much it is provably wrong, a lot of the rest historians disagree on anyway. Movie makers don't have to worry themselves with that unless they are claiming to be setting out to do some sort of super accurate retelling, which then gets basic stuff very wrong.
Still never seen Airplane. I've seen in quoted so many times I've probably heard most of the movie anyway.
But really the key question is what sorts of political movies would it be expected political anoraks will have watched, and has everyone indeed seen them?
I remember watching The Iron Lady, and thinking it was pretty dull, but then that's generally the case with biopics, even of remarkable people (I also find Meryl Streep overrated - it may be unfair, but I'm always very aware its her in her films, rather than the character she is portraying).
Good Political movies
All the President's men Frost vs Nixon
and of course Don's Party
Nixon (Hopkins/Stone) The Parallax View All The Way (Cranston as LBJ) Path To War (Michael Gambon as LBJ)
A completely obscure, but very good one, is Power Play, with Donald Pleasance as an absolutely vile secret police chief. David Hemmings is the idealistic army officer who is talked into overthrowing a ruthless civilian dictatorship, and Peter O'Toole, the army officer who first supports the coup, then executes his fellow plotters.
White Men Can't Jump Goodfellas Withnail And I The Blues Brothers Pulp Fiction The Commitments Dazed And Confused
I think these are my favourite seven movies
I know there are better made films with much better acting, but those are the ones I have enjoyed again and again as an adult
Oh, and all the Monty Python films
For me, the top ten are:
Goodfellas Godfather I and II The Death of Stalin The Wolf of Wall Street The Last King of Scotland Some Like it Hot From Russia with Love Airplane Ruthless People.
Very good list, but too Anglo.
Fair enough. Among foreign films, I hugely enjoyed La Reine Margot, Jean de Florette, Manon des Sources, Satyricon (a very rare film which does depict a lot of what I think life was like in Ancient Rome) .
Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources are brilliant. A must-see duo (or whatever the two equivalent of trilogy/quartet is).
When will the Sun be providing proof that Edwards paid for the pics/videos?
The police found no criminality . The Suns pathetic backtracking is vomit inducing and they’re now accusing other media outlets of misconstruing their original reports.
Absolutely desperate stuff from this garbage excuse of a newspaper.
White Men Can't Jump Goodfellas Withnail And I The Blues Brothers Pulp Fiction The Commitments Dazed And Confused
I think these are my favourite seven movies
I know there are better made films with much better acting, but those are the ones I have enjoyed again and again as an adult
Oh, and all the Monty Python films
My favourites mostly seem to be romcoms, but there it is:
Four Weddings and a Funeral Amelie Shakespeare in Love Pride & Prejudice (2005) Master and Commander Gravity Airplane
How depressingly middle-brow.
The only good ones there are M&C, Gravity and Airplane, while Amelie and P&P(05) are downright shite.
Thank you for your kind comments ;-)
Unless Garden Walker is just anti-Jane Austen, he might have a passionate predilection for the BBC TV adaptation of the 90's. I prefer it over 2005 too.
Mrs P. prefers the BBC version, I prefer the 2005 film. We watch them both once a year or so.
There's a book too, apparently ;-)
Read it last year, it's pretty good - turns out it had some of my favourite lines from the miniseries in it, who could have predicted?
Lady Susan was an interesting read too, no idea if they've ever adapted it.
I basically saw no “action films” in the 80s because, well, I was a child, and my parents would let me watch them on VHS.
And I never bothered to remedy that in the 90s.
So I haven’t seen:
Die Hard(s) Lethal Weapon(s) Alien(s) Predator(s) Terminator(s) Beverly Hills Cop or Rambos.
I’ll get around to it some day.
I like to think of myself as very unaffected by current 'woke' mores, but I re-watched Lethal Weapon on TV the other day and the way Riggs (Mel Gibson's character) carries on is very 'toxic male' - I felt dirty even as I thought this. Wouldn't stop me watching it mind. That series is 'OK' - hasn't aged brilliantly. Die Hard(s) until recent 'comebacks' are very good. Best of that bunch are the Alien(s).
If you want to see a film that has aged BADLY, try “Manhattan”.
Apparently this was beloved of film critics, until only about 10 years ago. But watching it in 2023, Allen comes across as a spoilt and unpleasant narcissist who seems to be using the entire film to indulge his own, slightly unsavoury sexual fantasies.
Stanley Kubrick is a genius and I will say so to the end of time. But the verbal bullying he put Shelley Duvall thru to get that performance in the Shining does not sit well with me.
Comments
I would expect serious sanctions and restrictions on practice for anyone intoxicated at my work, but would hope that the approach to addiction is therapeutic rather than punitive.
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Amelie
Shakespeare in Love
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Master and Commander
Gravity
Airplane
What causes the major arguments is when a sizable group (large minority or even a majority) feels things are being forced beyond what they consider reasonable reflection or adjustment, which is where you get into the viral examples of silly 'sensitivity adjustments' and the like, where often it seems like out of fear of a future potential of upset, best to shut something down now, even before it is an issue.
Or if I have, it was literally 1983 and I don’t remember the details because I was very young.
But - Dudley Moore had, I think, a certain charm completely lacking from Woody Allen.
Also, “Arthur” has a famously memorable theme tune.
I hope that Edwards' mental issues are mostly diplomatic in nature. John Sopel described him as 'angry' about the revelations as opposed to distraught. He will have a good PR doing damage limitation on this.
It's like saying things should be open and transparent, they are willing to hear bad news, that they want to decentralise authority etc - some of these are good objecively, some might be good or not in the circumstances, but sound good as buzzwords, so they are pushed even as actions may show a completely different culture and set of priorities.
But I watch (or used to, I’m busier these days) a lot of classic film, even stuff as far back as the 20s and 30s.
And, so long as you are broad minded, and make certain allowances, pretty much everything apart from Triumph of the Will or something follows a moral code that you and I would recognise.
But Woody Allen is just a selfish man-baby in that film.
Not someone you want to be around, or, especially, watch.
Things aren't black and white and people are complicated. Lots of problems are caused by silly strapline policies like these.
I think none of us are completely pure all the time and it's very much a case of there but for the grace of God go I.
Withnail & I
Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Goodfellas
The Ipcress File
Pulp Fiction
The Big Lebowski
But then it became Human Resources which is an abomination of a title imo. (Although it does reflect the way most companies seem to view their employees: as resources to be exploited.)
Where next? The Sentient Machines department?
Hopefully, the peak of that silliness has now passed but there was definitely a time where I worried I would eventually have to do so or constantly defend myself against accusations of being a bigot, which would become career-limiting to say the least.
The only good ones there are M&C, Gravity and Airplane, while Amelie and P&P(05) are downright shite.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61553142
But really the key question is what sorts of political movies would it be expected political anoraks will have watched, and has everyone indeed seen them?
I remember watching The Iron Lady, and thinking it was pretty dull, but then that's generally the case with biopics, even of remarkable people (I also find Meryl Streep overrated - it may be unfair, but I'm always very aware its her in her films, rather than the character she is portraying).
It's a Wonderful Life
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Toy Story 3
Titanic
Frozen
Manon des Sources.
Of course, poor people have a much harder time of it. ☹️
All the President's men
Frost vs Nixon
and of course Don's Party
But, don’t see why people’s sex lives are anything to do with me or anyone else.
It just looks like slimy curtain twitching from the usual suspects at this juncture.
...The Sun inflicted terror on Huw despite no evidence of any criminal offence. This is no longer a BBC crisis, it is a crisis for the paper. Huw's privacy must now be respected. Social media also needs speedy reform.
https://twitter.com/davidyelland/status/1679213183121125386?s=20
This has actually killed someone barely a mile from my house as Hampshire County Council followed the meme, and refused to cut the grass at crucial junctions, which grew so wild and high it obscured clear sightlines. They were warned plenty of times but did nothing about it because institutional culture and nothing had happened. So a pensioner driving a low sports car couldn't see oncoming traffic when pulling out at a crossroads - and neither could the vehicle see him on the primary road - so he was side-swiped and met his end. They were up there the very next day cutting the grass.
The family of the victim are now suing the council.
Agree 100%.
North by Northwest
The Leopard
Chinatown
The 400 Blows
The Apartment
The Shining
The Sound of Music
Amarcord
Kind Hearts and Coronets
There Will Be Blood
The usually sinister Donald Pleasence was cast brilliantly against type as the saintly Septimus Harding.
Oh? Not union member? For reasons? Tough shite.
The Last Crusade
The Death of Stalin
Hot Fuzz
Gladiator
The Lord of the Rings
The Martian
The Usual Suspects
Goodfellas
Godfather I and II
The Death of Stalin
The Wolf of Wall Street
The Last King of Scotland
Some Like it Hot
From Russia with Love
Airplane
Ruthless People.
And visible tattoos. Which in this weather is most of the body.
Can't enforce such bollocks when there's a labour shortage already.
Blues Brothers
Apocalypse Now
Wake in Fright
Muriel's Wedding
Brief Encounter
The Seventh Seal
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
But, at the same time, depression is not an excuse for bad behaviour of this kind. Especially when the perpetrator is wealthy enough to afford top flight private medical treatment.
I think the Beeb has to sack him. This is gross misconduct & mental illness doesn’t excuse it.
(None of them are quite as good as Amelie of course, but hey...)
Suppose it was a brain tumour? Does that excuse it?
But I'm sure the fearless truthseekers at The Sun were aware of all this and the fire they were playing with.
The Parallax View
All The Way (Cranston as LBJ)
Path To War (Michael Gambon as LBJ)
Monroe at her finest and good support from Jack Lemon and Tony Curtis.
(Though some would say Monroe needed no support, of course.)
Sorry, I don’t make the rules.
There is also the issue of indemnity insurance in some professions - either personal or that of the employer. No insurance, no job. In the case of a rail industry worker, for instance, it's possible that random drugs testing is actually imposed by the insurers.
Oh, and The Usual Suspects, of course. Oh, and Grosse Pointe Blank. Endlessly rewatchable.
Anyhow, I'll take 'depressingly middle-brow' from the man who chose The Sound of Music in his list, lol.
Matthew McFadyen is miscast, and Keira Knightly can’t act.
Organizations don't have time to apply minute distinctions - still less their employers or the employers' insurers. Especially if people find themselves dealing with safety critical functions (which can happen in the office just as much as in the cab).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGfYJt89wx8&t=5s
There's a book too, apparently ;-)
Death of Stalin
Lives of Others
Chile 1976
Downfall
Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources are brilliant. A must-see duo (or whatever the two equivalent of trilogy/quartet is).
The police found no criminality . The Suns pathetic backtracking is vomit inducing and they’re now accusing other media outlets of misconstruing their original reports.
Absolutely desperate stuff from this garbage excuse of a newspaper.
Lady Susan was an interesting read too, no idea if they've ever adapted it.