"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises Police - 7% NHS - 6% Junior doctors - 6% Prison officers - 7% Armed Forces - 5% Teachers - 6.5%"
It is deflationary. That is a pay rise less than inflation.
The double digit rise given to those on benefits, triple lock etc are reinforcing inflation far, far more.
No, because the 10% rise applies to much smaller incomes. Prison officer income of the order of 30-35K is much more than tdhe 10K-ish income to which the 10% rise applies.
PS: still shit for the screws though, having a permanent cut in real income.
Not the case because even disregarding the fact the prison guards are working for their income, there's fewer prison guards than there are people on welfare.
10% of 10k for 10million people is much more aggregate money supply than 7% of 30k for 10k people. Numbers there are round, not accurate, but point stands.
So whether you wish to look at it as just percentages, or actual aggregate money, the double digit rises are more inflationary than any of those individual pay reviews for people working for a living are.
But you need to add all the others - the polis, the teachers, armed forces ...
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
Presumably you'd be in favour of a planned sexual economy. The government could give people assigned partners based on a range of objective criteria.
That, I believe, is a policy of some incel groups. The government should assign free sex workers - paid for by the state - to men who can't get it any other way. Thus avoiding 47% of mass shootings in America etc
We feed starving people, from the state coffers, why not offer poontang to the involuntarily desperate?
There was a cult type outfit in.... Germany I think, that allocated partners on a night by night basis.
IIRC, they infiltrated a number of organisations to quite highly level, by members sleeping their way to the top.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
Presumably you'd be in favour of a planned sexual economy. The government could give people assigned partners based on a range of objective criteria.
That, I believe, is a policy of some incel groups. The government should assign free sex workers - paid for by the state - to men who can't get it any other way. Thus avoiding 47% of mass shootings in America etc
We feed starving people, from the state coffers, why not offer poontang to the involuntarily desperate?
Why don't the involuntarily desperate just get a grip, take matters into their own hand, and resolve their concerns unilaterally?
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
Presumably you'd be in favour of a planned sexual economy. The government could give people assigned partners based on a range of objective criteria.
That, I believe, is a policy of some incel groups. The government should assign free sex workers - paid for by the state - to men who can't get it any other way. Thus avoiding 47% of mass shootings in America etc
We feed starving people, from the state coffers, why not offer poontang to the involuntarily desperate?
Why don't the involuntarily desperate just get a grip, take matters into their own hand, and resolve their concerns unilaterally?
Self help? Isn't that victim blaming? /s
Take up a sport/hobby that involves meeting people and working with them in groups. Scuba diving is a good example. Learn how to make friends first.....
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
How is it possible to make pornography without denying the doctrine you have just quoted to me?
As the couples wouldn't have husbands or wives, they would be in a lower form of sexual relationship than the one preferred in the New Testament ie lifelong marriage but as long as the husband in the marriage didn't have a physical sexual relationship outside his wife watching legal pornography would not be a major problem
Out of curiosity @HYUFD , what advice would you give someone in my position? I started from the same view you hold (and from a Christian perspective see no other possibility based on Christ's own teaching in the Gospels) - married in church before God, for life, and meant it. But a few years ago my wife left me for someone else after an affair, despite what seemed to me to be a secure and happy marriage. Since then I have recovered and met and fallen in love with someone else. What do I do now?
(I don't know the answer myself. It seems the only course of action I could take and be aligned with Christian teaching is to go off and be a monk in a closed order to avoid all contact with the opposite sex).
"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises Police - 7% NHS - 6% Junior doctors - 6% Prison officers - 7% Armed Forces - 5% Teachers - 6.5%"
It is deflationary. That is a pay rise less than inflation.
The double digit rise given to those on benefits, triple lock etc are reinforcing inflation far, far more.
No, because the 10% rise applies to much smaller incomes. Prison officer income of the order of 30-35K is much more than tdhe 10K-ish income to which the 10% rise applies.
PS: still shit for the screws though, having a permanent cut in real income.
Not the case because even disregarding the fact the prison guards are working for their income, there's fewer prison guards than there are people on welfare.
10% of 10k for 10million people is much more aggregate money supply than 7% of 30k for 10k people. Numbers there are round, not accurate, but point stands.
So whether you wish to look at it as just percentages, or actual aggregate money, the double digit rises are more inflationary than any of those individual pay reviews for people working for a living are.
But you need to add all the others - the polis, the teachers, armed forces ...
The total public sector wage bill in 2021/22 was £233bn
Total welfare payments that year were £234bn
Remarkably close actually, but 10% of the latter is more than 6% of the former.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers?
In most cases the welfare state provides cash, which they can spend on food, or rent, or hookers
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
Presumably you'd be in favour of a planned sexual economy. The government could give people assigned partners based on a range of objective criteria.
That, I believe, is a policy of some incel groups. The government should assign free sex workers - paid for by the state - to men who can't get it any other way. Thus avoiding 47% of mass shootings in America etc
We feed starving people, from the state coffers, why not offer poontang to the involuntarily desperate?
You want me to pay for saddos to get their rocks off?
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
A lion style of population dynamics would suit humans quite well I think.
5-10 women for every (straight) male. Women run most things: economy, public services, food provision etc. Men flounce around with manes looking handsome, not really doing much to pull their weight but occasionally fighting off other males in an entertaining manner, or roaring nicely - ie participating in sport and the arts for their own and female onlookers’ pleasure.
Men (gay or straight) get plenty of sex and a life of fun and idleness, women get rid of patriarchy and benefit from the sisterhood of their fellow matriarchs.
And for the 80-90% of males who end up single?
RAF Regiment.
What is the "RAF Regiment" and why is it a response to this question?
Elite RAF infantry unit. One of the "Big Three" along with Para Reg and RM. Their incredible entry standards include the infamous Five Miler of Death
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
It is a small thing. Self help is available completely free of charge.
Nobody has any obligation or right to other people being intimate with them, if the other people aren't interested.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
Not sure about the Tebbit reference. You'd probably fall off your bike if you tried it.
"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises Police - 7% NHS - 6% Junior doctors - 6% Prison officers - 7% Armed Forces - 5% Teachers - 6.5%"
It is deflationary. That is a pay rise less than inflation.
The double digit rise given to those on benefits, triple lock etc are reinforcing inflation far, far more.
No, because the 10% rise applies to much smaller incomes. Prison officer income of the order of 30-35K is much more than tdhe 10K-ish income to which the 10% rise applies.
PS: still shit for the screws though, having a permanent cut in real income.
Not the case because even disregarding the fact the prison guards are working for their income, there's fewer prison guards than there are people on welfare.
10% of 10k for 10million people is much more aggregate money supply than 7% of 30k for 10k people. Numbers there are round, not accurate, but point stands.
So whether you wish to look at it as just percentages, or actual aggregate money, the double digit rises are more inflationary than any of those individual pay reviews for people working for a living are.
But you need to add all the others - the polis, the teachers, armed forces ...
The total public sector wage bill in 2021/22 was £233bn
Total welfare payments that year were £234bn
Remarkably close actually, but 10% of the latter is more than 6% of the former.
Fair enough! BUT 10% is still less than inflation, in the sense that those folk have in any case lost a 5 percentage point chunk (more or less) while waiting for benefits to catch up.
I imagine most people under 30 would be horrified at the idea that anyone over 50 has sex of any kind. "WTF man, it's gross" would be a typical reaction.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
Presumably you'd be in favour of a planned sexual economy. The government could give people assigned partners based on a range of objective criteria.
That, I believe, is a policy of some incel groups. The government should assign free sex workers - paid for by the state - to men who can't get it any other way. Thus avoiding 47% of mass shootings in America etc
We feed starving people, from the state coffers, why not offer poontang to the involuntarily desperate?
You want me to pay for saddos to get their rocks off?
You already pay for obese lazy people to sit on their arses doing fuck all. Frankly I'd RATHER pay for some poor guy of four foot nine to have a bunk-up. He is more likely to be revived by it, and return to society as a functioning and contributing human being
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
It is a small thing. Self help is available completely free of charge.
Nobody has any obligation or right to other people being intimate with them, if the other people aren't interested.
I am assuming there are sex workers happy to do it if the government gives them enough cash inducement
This policy has also been proposed for disabled people, who also can't get sex and can't afford hookers. The state should pay for socialist nookie
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
It's entirely consistent. If you believe people have a right to have sex then you must also believe that other people have a responsibility to have sex with them, which is clearly mad.
Vaguely on topic, today's public sector pay announcement is potentially good news for Labour. It may make their life a little bit easier when/if they come to power.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
It's entirely consistent. If you believe people have a right to have sex then you must also believe that other people have a responsibility to have sex with them, which is clearly mad.
Derrr. I'm talking about sex workers who would be paid to have sex with the incels. And the brasses would have the right of refusal, of course
"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises Police - 7% NHS - 6% Junior doctors - 6% Prison officers - 7% Armed Forces - 5% Teachers - 6.5%"
It is deflationary. That is a pay rise less than inflation.
The double digit rise given to those on benefits, triple lock etc are reinforcing inflation far, far more.
No, because the 10% rise applies to much smaller incomes. Prison officer income of the order of 30-35K is much more than tdhe 10K-ish income to which the 10% rise applies.
PS: still shit for the screws though, having a permanent cut in real income.
Not the case because even disregarding the fact the prison guards are working for their income, there's fewer prison guards than there are people on welfare.
10% of 10k for 10million people is much more aggregate money supply than 7% of 30k for 10k people. Numbers there are round, not accurate, but point stands.
So whether you wish to look at it as just percentages, or actual aggregate money, the double digit rises are more inflationary than any of those individual pay reviews for people working for a living are.
But you need to add all the others - the polis, the teachers, armed forces ...
The total public sector wage bill in 2021/22 was £233bn
Total welfare payments that year were £234bn
Remarkably close actually, but 10% of the latter is more than 6% of the former.
Fair enough! BUT 10% is still less than inflation, in the sense that those folk have in any case lost a 5 percentage point chunk (more or less) while waiting for benefits to catch up.
Indeed they have on a transitional basis because the rise is done in arrears. Those working for a living aren't even getting the catch up though.
Either way can we agreed than a sub-inflation pay rise is deflationary? Especially relative to others getting an at-inflation pay rise?
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
We don't know anything about this marriage. Maybe he went to his wife and said "Hey, I love you, we've been partners now for so much of our life, but I was repressing this part of myself and that's why I've been depressed for 20 years, would you find it okay for me to act on it, and I will only act on it if you say yes". Why must it be he fell out of love and doesn't care about his wife any more? Heteronormative monogamy is bollocks; people can love endless friends, family, children - yet romantic or sexual love must be confined to a single individual? Maybe that's "natural" but I think that's more likely a construct of society, otherwise why would society have evolved to police it so much?
Monogamy evolved because it tends to serve society quite well and serves as a framework within which to bring up children. It IS a construct of society - but I'd rather have that than baboon society, where one male keeps all the females to himself.
And you're right, maybe his wife is absolutely fine with it. From the married women I know, I'd be slightly surprised, but maybe she is.
Serve who in society? When women were essentially bought and sold I don't think it particularly suits them. That isn't unique to monogamy, but considering that it has how most monogamy has been organised outside of the last 60-80 years, I would say it is still significant. I also think the idea of the nuclear family with the father as its head is also anti social - humans are social creatures and the upbringing of children has typically been a communal act - both as hunter gatherers pre civilisation but also in other societies, cultures and historical periods where the wider family, the larger community had input into a child's development. The rather modern idea of children as their parents' property is something I am pretty much against.
I also find it interesting you go straight to one male with multiple female partners, and not a more fluid example or, indeed, a consensual example - ethical non monogamy or relationship anarchy doesn't require one person with multiple partners but multiple people who have the relationships they want based on open communication with those it will impact. That could be three people who are in a primary throuple, but will have relationships outside of that, with people of any gender, or an individual who has no permanent partner but open relationships with people others may just consider close friends.
In general, I think polygamy suits the male much better than it suits the female. Societies that practice polygamy tend to have pretty unenlightened attitudes towards women.
Actually that’s not true. You’re seeing it from the perspective of the alpha male who is a successful womaniser and enjoys the delights of multiple wives and women. That’s fair. You’re right wing and confident and a handsome man
What if you’re some ugly left wing Remainer beta cuck who doesn’t get ANY women coz the right wingers have taken them all?
I’m actually making a serious point here. Formal Polygamy generally doesn’t suit anyone. Not men nor women. Because it leaves a lot of men without any sex at all - for all their lives
It is one reason deeply Muslim societies can be so unstable with so many unhappy young men
Yes, a society that strongly encourages nearly everyone to be in a traditional relationship, such as Britain in the 1950s, is going to be a much fairer place than one where a small number of men have lots of relationships and lots of men don't have any.
And, as we have all noted, thanks to apps like Tinder we are returning to a situation where 10% of alpha males get 80% of the women, and 50% of men get no sex at all
Thus the incel movement, and lots of unhappiness and social instability
The change is, prior to dating apps, you dated within your locality or social network. So you didn't need to be the hottest of the hottest man to get a shot with a reasonable woman, particularly if some of the "hotter" men were wankers. I certainly punched well above my weight with Mrs U by not being a wanker.
Now there is always more hot and successful options, both male and female...so if you are an attractive woman (and particularly also successful independent woman*) there is absolutely no need to even consider outside of the top 10%.
* which is increasingly the case, that women are doing better at school, university, career.
There is a mathematical approach to selecting the supermarket checkout with the best queue or finding a life partner. You reject the first 1/e (i.e. about 37%), and then choose the next one which is better than all those you've rejected so far. Interestingly, this also gives your chances of selecting the optimum option as 1/e (i.e. 37%). Even more interestingly, humans, in general, instinctively understand this. Of course, in a supermarket, you know roughly how many queues there are open - whereas you don't really have an idea of how many potential life partners you are likely to meet. But in olden days, you had a pretty good feel for it. And by and large, that was the strategy people adopted, consciously or not. However, in a world where Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You, that's at least 370,000 you have to reject before you're ready to settle. It's no wonder this generation is romantically listless.
Hmm... "better than all those you've rejected so far" the problem I had as a distinctly Beta-minus 20 something was getting any offers at all!
… On 31 October, after four postponements to get infrastructure in place, the UK will finally introduce checks on fresh and chilled food imports. The EU has already introduced its checks, which come with a vast amount of paperwork and significant costs. The impact on the export of fruit from the UK to the EU has been dramatic, reducing the value from £248.5m in 2021 to £113.8m by 2023, a drop of more than 50%.
Now it’s going to work the other way. EU producers of meat products wishing to export to the UK will have to employ a vet to certify their goods, which will cost up to €700 a time. All sectors will have to employ agents for data entry compliance which could add another €200. They will have to train themselves on the paperwork. Then, come January, there’s the border inspection charge of up to £43 for each consignment regardless of whether it’s physically inspected or not. Faced by all of this, thousands of small producers from across Europe who have kept this country supplied with a fabulously diverse range of quality products will simply decide it’s not worth the trouble. They’ll sell elsewhere. The quality of our lives will be diminished.
… EU membership vastly improved the quality of our diet and with it, our lives. It allowed unfettered access to a massive market, including the products that underpin the rightly lauded Mediterranean diet. We ate better. Any policy which means we will eat worse, that our lives and opportunities are less good than once they were, is surely a terrible thing.
Of course, there are bigger problems right now. There’s a cost of living crisis, exacerbated by Brexit. The economy is stunted by Brexit. Obscene numbers of people are using food banks. The nation’s physical health is suffering because we don’t have the money to invest in the NHS, partly because of Brexit.
… this issue is not restricted to the deli end of the food market. The Fresh Produce Consortium recently warned that the new border rules would add delays and millions in costs at a time of already acute food inflation. The British Retail Consortium, which represents the supermarkets, agrees. “New checks will add to the various cost pressures retailers are facing at a time when the cost of living is already high.” And for what? The Brexit deal could have included an agreement to recognise each other’s food standards. That’s what lay at the heart of the EU project. But the UK wanted the freedom to do trade deals with third countries, allowing in products with lower standards than the EU permits. Hence, these disastrous checks…
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
Are these public sector pay rises inflationary at all if they're being funded from existing budgets or is that just schools & teachers ?
They're real terms pay cuts so they're deflationary in real terms.
If they're funded by spending cuts in other areas (how!?) then yes they're not inflationary in nominal terms either.
If they're funded by increased borrowing or especially quantitative easing then they're inflationary nominally but deflationary in real terms.
Rishi's said they're all coming from existing budgets (I think ?). So I presume school/hospital/prison spend with suppliers will be lower. Hopefully not too many rooves will fall in.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
… On 31 October, after four postponements to get infrastructure in place, the UK will finally introduce checks on fresh and chilled food imports. The EU has already introduced its checks, which come with a vast amount of paperwork and significant costs. The impact on the export of fruit from the UK to the EU has been dramatic, reducing the value from £248.5m in 2021 to £113.8m by 2023, a drop of more than 50%.
Now it’s going to work the other way. EU producers of meat products wishing to export to the UK will have to employ a vet to certify their goods, which will cost up to €700 a time. All sectors will have to employ agents for data entry compliance which could add another €200. They will have to train themselves on the paperwork. Then, come January, there’s the border inspection charge of up to £43 for each consignment regardless of whether it’s physically inspected or not. Faced by all of this, thousands of small producers from across Europe who have kept this country supplied with a fabulously diverse range of quality products will simply decide it’s not worth the trouble. They’ll sell elsewhere. The quality of our lives will be diminished.
… EU membership vastly improved the quality of our diet and with it, our lives. It allowed unfettered access to a massive market, including the products that underpin the rightly lauded Mediterranean diet. We ate better. Any policy which means we will eat worse, that our lives and opportunities are less good than once they were, is surely a terrible thing.
Of course, there are bigger problems right now. There’s a cost of living crisis, exacerbated by Brexit. The economy is stunted by Brexit. Obscene numbers of people are using food banks. The nation’s physical health is suffering because we don’t have the money to invest in the NHS, partly because of Brexit.
… this issue is not restricted to the deli end of the food market. The Fresh Produce Consortium recently warned that the new border rules would add delays and millions in costs at a time of already acute food inflation. The British Retail Consortium, which represents the supermarkets, agrees. “New checks will add to the various cost pressures retailers are facing at a time when the cost of living is already high.” And for what? The Brexit deal could have included an agreement to recognise each other’s food standards. That’s what lay at the heart of the EU project. But the UK wanted the freedom to do trade deals with third countries, allowing in products with lower standards than the EU permits. Hence, these disastrous checks…
But Huw Edwards! Burble burble wibble wibble.
Suspect they'll find an excuse to delay it again. Last thing this government wants is food inflation going up again just before an election
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
It's entirely consistent. If you believe people have a right to have sex then you must also believe that other people have a responsibility to have sex with them, which is clearly mad.
Derrr. I'm talking about sex workers who would be paid to have sex with the incels. And the brasses would have the right of refusal, of course
Such a policy is simplistic, short-sighted, and ultimately counterproductive because it focuses on symptoms not causes and would incubate feebleness and dependency in men when we what we want to see is empowerment and a genuine levelling-up.
"Give a man a fish and he eats for the day; teach him to use a rod and tackle and he eats for life."
We've all heard that and it's usually utter tosh but it does apply here. Don't give a leg over, give a leg up.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
I always thought this, but I can’t explain the insane popularity of “step mom” porn.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
I'm sure you know about the Hot Crazy Matrix theory, but in case you don't:
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
The logical thing is to make prostitution legal, and heavily regulate it.
[It's been around since the dawn of time and trying to stop it, like with drugs, is basically pointless.]
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
So when Johnson said very recently that he was happy to hand over all his WhatsApp messages, he knew he couldn't because he had forgotten the password. Or, in common parlance, he was lying.
One reason is that the algos of Tinder, et al, mean fewer men get more women, and the disparity is brutal: 20% of men get 80% of the women, the bottom 80% of men scrap over the remaining 20% of women, and plenty of men (far more than the pre-internet age) are left with nothing at all
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
I'm sure you know about the Hot Crazy Matrix theory, but in case you don't:
So when Johnson said very recently that he was happy to hand over all his WhatsApp messages, he knew he couldn't because he had forgotten the password. Or, in common parlance, he was lying.
Say it ain't so .....
Unless he was very security-conscious when setting it up, connected to neither a computer nor an iCloud account, and never backed up to either, it should be possible to unlock the phone.
If it was a work-issued phone then it will have made regular backups to a server that the issuer controlled.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
The logical thing is to make prostitution legal, and heavily regulate it.
[It's been around since the dawn of time and trying to stop it, like with drugs, is basically pointless.]
I think prostitution is legal but brothels are not.
I tend toward the liberal on things but I'm not sure about brothels being legal.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
Perhaps it's just me and my circle of female friends but relationships (in the widest possible sense) with younger men are rather more common than some of you seem to be assuming.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
If socialism is a good idea, all types of socialism must be good, including sexual socialism.
So when Johnson said very recently that he was happy to hand over all his WhatsApp messages, he knew he couldn't because he had forgotten the password. Or, in common parlance, he was lying.
Say it ain't so .....
Everyone enters with their little jokes. Someone will call him a blond-haired, braying, drunken, scruffy, cokehead lardarse next.
Just ask the NSA for the password.
Hunch: one or more members of the royal family, who might well include the one who wears the fanciest hat, might be embarrassed by what's on the phone if it came out.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
I'm sure you know about the Hot Crazy Matrix theory, but in case you don't:
Mr. Leon, that also has interesting implications down the line for women.
The top 20% of guys aren't settling down with four women apiece, so 75% of those who were happy to be side-pieces end up alone (perhaps excepting kids).
At which point (30s, 40s) the bottom 80% of guys who've mostly been single suddenly look a lot more attractive. But do women who are single with kids and the same age look as attractive to those men as they did two decades ago? And do the 40something chaps, not mega rich but perhaps with their own home etc, look rather better to some of the women significantly younger?
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
I always thought this, but I can’t explain the insane popularity of “step mom” porn.
A brief acquaintance with the works of Doctor Freud might give you an idea
Also, the stepmoms on XVideos tend, on, er, inspection, to be really quite attractive, and not very old at all. Far from the actuality of stepmoms
… On 31 October, after four postponements to get infrastructure in place, the UK will finally introduce checks on fresh and chilled food imports. The EU has already introduced its checks, which come with a vast amount of paperwork and significant costs. The impact on the export of fruit from the UK to the EU has been dramatic, reducing the value from £248.5m in 2021 to £113.8m by 2023, a drop of more than 50%.
Now it’s going to work the other way. EU producers of meat products wishing to export to the UK will have to employ a vet to certify their goods, which will cost up to €700 a time. All sectors will have to employ agents for data entry compliance which could add another €200. They will have to train themselves on the paperwork. Then, come January, there’s the border inspection charge of up to £43 for each consignment regardless of whether it’s physically inspected or not. Faced by all of this, thousands of small producers from across Europe who have kept this country supplied with a fabulously diverse range of quality products will simply decide it’s not worth the trouble. They’ll sell elsewhere. The quality of our lives will be diminished.
… EU membership vastly improved the quality of our diet and with it, our lives. It allowed unfettered access to a massive market, including the products that underpin the rightly lauded Mediterranean diet. We ate better. Any policy which means we will eat worse, that our lives and opportunities are less good than once they were, is surely a terrible thing.
Of course, there are bigger problems right now. There’s a cost of living crisis, exacerbated by Brexit. The economy is stunted by Brexit. Obscene numbers of people are using food banks. The nation’s physical health is suffering because we don’t have the money to invest in the NHS, partly because of Brexit.
… this issue is not restricted to the deli end of the food market. The Fresh Produce Consortium recently warned that the new border rules would add delays and millions in costs at a time of already acute food inflation. The British Retail Consortium, which represents the supermarkets, agrees. “New checks will add to the various cost pressures retailers are facing at a time when the cost of living is already high.” And for what? The Brexit deal could have included an agreement to recognise each other’s food standards. That’s what lay at the heart of the EU project. But the UK wanted the freedom to do trade deals with third countries, allowing in products with lower standards than the EU permits. Hence, these disastrous checks…
But Huw Edwards! Burble burble wibble wibble.
"And for what? The Brexit deal could have included an agreement to recognise each other’s food standards."
No, it couldn't. The EU were not interested in mutual recognition or equivalence. Us following their standards was the only offer on the table.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
I always thought this, but I can’t explain the insane popularity of “step mom” porn.
A brief acquaintance with the works of Doctor Freud might give you an idea
Also, the stepmoms on XVideos tend, on, er, inspection, to be really quite attractive, and not very old at all. Far from the actuality of stepmoms
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
It is a small thing. Self help is available completely free of charge.
Nobody has any obligation or right to other people being intimate with them, if the other people aren't interested.
Houellebecq on the subject of a) paying for it and b) 'market forces' making some people undesirable. Ultimately, we live in a truly free market *sexual* economy, one of unrestrained capitalism, with no "redistribution" deeemed acceptable.
If Tinder was an economy, its gini coefficient would make it more unequal than 95% of countries in the world...
In the end you're either driven mad by the loneliness, or you learn to live with it. Just as plenty of people learn how to survive being poor, while others starve.
A fair society is a stable society. What type of relationships are most likely to lead to a stable society? Maybe something left-wingers should think about more than they do.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
The logical thing is to make prostitution legal, and heavily regulate it.
[It's been around since the dawn of time and trying to stop it, like with drugs, is basically pointless.]
I think prostitution is legal but brothels are not.
I tend toward the liberal on things but I'm not sure about brothels being legal.
It's a legal mess. Prostitution is legal but any form of soliciting is not. You cannot advertise paid sexual services, per se
Hence "French lessons", "massages", "Thai sauna", and so on
Also in the age of the Net all these laws are completely unenforcable. There are now zillions of websites where what is on offer is spelled out, explicitly, down to the most mind-boggling detail. These sites don't get closed down. It is impossible to police
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
I always thought this, but I can’t explain the insane popularity of “step mom” porn.
A brief acquaintance with the works of Doctor Freud might give you an idea
Also, the stepmoms on XVideos tend, on, er, inspection, to be really quite attractive, and not very old at all. Far from the actuality of stepmoms
Can we not call them stepmums?
I love that this is the objection raised to this discussion.
… On 31 October, after four postponements to get infrastructure in place, the UK will finally introduce checks on fresh and chilled food imports. The EU has already introduced its checks, which come with a vast amount of paperwork and significant costs. The impact on the export of fruit from the UK to the EU has been dramatic, reducing the value from £248.5m in 2021 to £113.8m by 2023, a drop of more than 50%.
Now it’s going to work the other way. EU producers of meat products wishing to export to the UK will have to employ a vet to certify their goods, which will cost up to €700 a time. All sectors will have to employ agents for data entry compliance which could add another €200. They will have to train themselves on the paperwork. Then, come January, there’s the border inspection charge of up to £43 for each consignment regardless of whether it’s physically inspected or not. Faced by all of this, thousands of small producers from across Europe who have kept this country supplied with a fabulously diverse range of quality products will simply decide it’s not worth the trouble. They’ll sell elsewhere. The quality of our lives will be diminished.
… EU membership vastly improved the quality of our diet and with it, our lives. It allowed unfettered access to a massive market, including the products that underpin the rightly lauded Mediterranean diet. We ate better. Any policy which means we will eat worse, that our lives and opportunities are less good than once they were, is surely a terrible thing.
Of course, there are bigger problems right now. There’s a cost of living crisis, exacerbated by Brexit. The economy is stunted by Brexit. Obscene numbers of people are using food banks. The nation’s physical health is suffering because we don’t have the money to invest in the NHS, partly because of Brexit.
… this issue is not restricted to the deli end of the food market. The Fresh Produce Consortium recently warned that the new border rules would add delays and millions in costs at a time of already acute food inflation. The British Retail Consortium, which represents the supermarkets, agrees. “New checks will add to the various cost pressures retailers are facing at a time when the cost of living is already high.” And for what? The Brexit deal could have included an agreement to recognise each other’s food standards. That’s what lay at the heart of the EU project. But the UK wanted the freedom to do trade deals with third countries, allowing in products with lower standards than the EU permits. Hence, these disastrous checks…
But Huw Edwards! Burble burble wibble wibble.
"And for what? The Brexit deal could have included an agreement to recognise each other’s food standards."
No, it couldn't. The EU were not interested in mutual recognition or equivalence. Us following their standards was the only offer on the table.
Of course it was.
Why should they accept goods whose standards they have no control over?
So when Johnson said very recently that he was happy to hand over all his WhatsApp messages, he knew he couldn't because he had forgotten the password. Or, in common parlance, he was lying.
Say it ain't so .....
Unless he was very security-conscious when setting it up, connected to neither a computer nor an iCloud account, and never backed up to either, it should be possible to unlock the phone.
If it was a work-issued phone then it will have made regular backups to a server that the issuer controlled.
It does seem a little strange that all our security service boffins can apparently be defeated by Bojo forgetting his security code. It doesn't inspire great faith in the Q Branch. I am inclined to believe that the Cabinet Office is behind the delay getting these messages handed over - if Boris was adamant that his messages wouldn't be revealed, trusting that GCHQ would fail to unlock his phone is hardly a fool proof method.
… On 31 October, after four postponements to get infrastructure in place, the UK will finally introduce checks on fresh and chilled food imports. The EU has already introduced its checks, which come with a vast amount of paperwork and significant costs. The impact on the export of fruit from the UK to the EU has been dramatic, reducing the value from £248.5m in 2021 to £113.8m by 2023, a drop of more than 50%.
Now it’s going to work the other way. EU producers of meat products wishing to export to the UK will have to employ a vet to certify their goods, which will cost up to €700 a time. All sectors will have to employ agents for data entry compliance which could add another €200. They will have to train themselves on the paperwork. Then, come January, there’s the border inspection charge of up to £43 for each consignment regardless of whether it’s physically inspected or not. Faced by all of this, thousands of small producers from across Europe who have kept this country supplied with a fabulously diverse range of quality products will simply decide it’s not worth the trouble. They’ll sell elsewhere. The quality of our lives will be diminished.
… EU membership vastly improved the quality of our diet and with it, our lives. It allowed unfettered access to a massive market, including the products that underpin the rightly lauded Mediterranean diet. We ate better. Any policy which means we will eat worse, that our lives and opportunities are less good than once they were, is surely a terrible thing.
Of course, there are bigger problems right now. There’s a cost of living crisis, exacerbated by Brexit. The economy is stunted by Brexit. Obscene numbers of people are using food banks. The nation’s physical health is suffering because we don’t have the money to invest in the NHS, partly because of Brexit.
… this issue is not restricted to the deli end of the food market. The Fresh Produce Consortium recently warned that the new border rules would add delays and millions in costs at a time of already acute food inflation. The British Retail Consortium, which represents the supermarkets, agrees. “New checks will add to the various cost pressures retailers are facing at a time when the cost of living is already high.” And for what? The Brexit deal could have included an agreement to recognise each other’s food standards. That’s what lay at the heart of the EU project. But the UK wanted the freedom to do trade deals with third countries, allowing in products with lower standards than the EU permits. Hence, these disastrous checks…
But Huw Edwards! Burble burble wibble wibble.
"And for what? The Brexit deal could have included an agreement to recognise each other’s food standards."
No, it couldn't. The EU were not interested in mutual recognition or equivalence. Us following their standards was the only offer on the table.
Of course it was.
Why should they accept goods whose standards they have no control over?
Sovereignty, democratic control, dontchaknow?
Precisely. My point is that the author of the piece is wrong about what was possible.
So when Johnson said very recently that he was happy to hand over all his WhatsApp messages, he knew he couldn't because he had forgotten the password. Or, in common parlance, he was lying.
Say it ain't so .....
Unless he was very security-conscious when setting it up, connected to neither a computer nor an iCloud account, and never backed up to either, it should be possible to unlock the phone.
If it was a work-issued phone then it will have made regular backups to a server that the issuer controlled.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
The logical thing is to make prostitution legal, and heavily regulate it.
[It's been around since the dawn of time and trying to stop it, like with drugs, is basically pointless.]
I think prostitution is legal but brothels are not.
I tend toward the liberal on things but I'm not sure about brothels being legal.
It's a legal mess. Prostitution is legal but any form of soliciting is not. You cannot advertise paid sexual services, per se
Hence "French lessons", "massages", "Thai sauna", and so on
Also in the age of the Net all these laws are completely unenforcable. There are now zillions of websites where what is on offer is spelled out, explicitly, down to the most mind-boggling detail. These sites don't get closed down. It is impossible to police
The things you know. Are there any websites where you can order up a malkie [*] or a hit on someone? Anonymously. Might have come in useful for Guppy and Johnson back in the day, with Stuart Collier.
Could even in some cases perhaps be cheaper than imposing an NDA or buying someone a Eurostar ticket and slipping them a small wedge à la Jeffrey Archer.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
It is a small thing. Self help is available completely free of charge.
Nobody has any obligation or right to other people being intimate with them, if the other people aren't interested.
Houellebecq on the subject of a) paying for it and b) 'market forces' making some people undesirable. Ultimately, we live in a truly free market *sexual* economy, one of unrestrained capitalism, with no "redistribution" deeemed acceptable.
If Tinder was an economy, its gini coefficient would make it more unequal than 95% of countries in the world...
In the end you're either driven mad by the loneliness, or you learn to live with it. Just as plenty of people learn how to survive being poor, while others starve.
Tinder just attracts good looking people to beautiful people, often mainly for sex ie no more than 10% of the population are in those categories.
For the rest of the population, look outside Tinder for a relationship and love
Mr. Leon, that also has interesting implications down the line for women.
The top 20% of guys aren't settling down with four women apiece, so 75% of those who were happy to be side-pieces end up alone (perhaps excepting kids).
At which point (30s, 40s) the bottom 80% of guys who've mostly been single suddenly look a lot more attractive. But do women who are single with kids and the same age look as attractive to those men as they did two decades ago? And do the 40something chaps, not mega rich but perhaps with their own home etc, look rather better to some of the women significantly younger?
Yes, there is an enormous power shift. Hot young women aged 18-25 have immense sexual power. Every male of every age wants them most of all. They are the alphas of all humanity. Attractive women aged, say, 25-32 don't do so badly, either
But after that, the power shifts, first slowly then dramatically. A single sane solvent man in his 40s and 50s, esp with his own hair and teeth, is notably more atractive than a woman in the same situation (according to the data from dating apps), and finds it considerably easier to hook up
But by then so much of life has already passed - the chance to have children (for women), and so on. So any societal "damage" allegedly done by the power disparity cannot be undone
All quite problematic. Hopefully we will soon have brilliant AI sexbots which will make all this go away
So when Johnson said very recently that he was happy to hand over all his WhatsApp messages, he knew he couldn't because he had forgotten the password. Or, in common parlance, he was lying.
Say it ain't so .....
Unless he was very security-conscious when setting it up, connected to neither a computer nor an iCloud account, and never backed up to either, it should be possible to unlock the phone.
If it was a work-issued phone then it will have made regular backups to a server that the issuer controlled.
It does seem a little strange that all our security service boffins can apparently be defeated by Bojo forgetting his security code. It doesn't inspire great faith in the Q Branch. I am inclined to believe that the Cabinet Office is behind the delay getting these messages handed over - if Boris was adamant that his messages wouldn't be revealed, trusting that GCHQ would fail to unlock his phone is hardly a fool proof method.
Given the number of times I have been asked to do stuff like this for friends and family.....
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
If socialism is a good idea, all types of socialism must be good, including sexual socialism.
Well not really - eg the most ardent of free marketeers wouldn't argue for a free market in everything.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
It is a small thing. Self help is available completely free of charge.
Nobody has any obligation or right to other people being intimate with them, if the other people aren't interested.
Houellebecq on the subject of a) paying for it and b) 'market forces' making some people undesirable. Ultimately, we live in a truly free market *sexual* economy, one of unrestrained capitalism, with no "redistribution" deeemed acceptable.
If Tinder was an economy, its gini coefficient would make it more unequal than 95% of countries in the world...
In the end you're either driven mad by the loneliness, or you learn to live with it. Just as plenty of people learn how to survive being poor, while others starve.
This line of thinking is often a cover for deep-felt misogyny. It is with Houellebecq imo, although I like some of his work, find it quite stylish and original.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
They should try legal pornography in that case, or a cold shower!
How is it possible to make pornography without denying the doctrine you have just quoted to me?
As the couples wouldn't have husbands or wives, they would be in a lower form of sexual relationship than the one preferred in the New Testament ie lifelong marriage but as long as the husband in the marriage didn't have a physical sexual relationship outside his wife watching legal pornography would not be a major problem
Out of curiosity @HYUFD , what advice would you give someone in my position? I started from the same view you hold (and from a Christian perspective see no other possibility based on Christ's own teaching in the Gospels) - married in church before God, for life, and meant it. But a few years ago my wife left me for someone else after an affair, despite what seemed to me to be a secure and happy marriage. Since then I have recovered and met and fallen in love with someone else. What do I do now?
(I don't know the answer myself. It seems the only course of action I could take and be aligned with Christian teaching is to go off and be a monk in a closed order to avoid all contact with the opposite sex).
Nothing wrong with what you have done. Jesus made clear a man should not divorce his wife, unless they committed adultery. Which your wife sadly did. So fine for you to now be with someone else
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
I'm sure you know about the Hot Crazy Matrix theory, but in case you don't:
Jimmy Carr has a good joke along those lines, usually done as crowd-work to a teenage boy in the front row.
It start with “Rule #1, don’t date crazy. Don’t even f**k crazy. It may seem a good idea at the time…”
and finishes with “The last rule is don’t f**k crazy. No matter how hot, crazy is still crazy. In case you don’t remember what crazy looks like, well the Crazy World Cup is on at the moment, and it looks like Amber Heard and Meghan Markle will be playing each other in the final”.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
I'm sure you know about the Hot Crazy Matrix theory, but in case you don't:
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
The logical thing is to make prostitution legal, and heavily regulate it.
[It's been around since the dawn of time and trying to stop it, like with drugs, is basically pointless.]
I think prostitution is legal but brothels are not.
I tend toward the liberal on things but I'm not sure about brothels being legal.
It's a legal mess. Prostitution is legal but any form of soliciting is not. You cannot advertise paid sexual services, per se
Hence "French lessons", "massages", "Thai sauna", and so on
Also in the age of the Net all these laws are completely unenforcable. There are now zillions of websites where what is on offer is spelled out, explicitly, down to the most mind-boggling detail. These sites don't get closed down. It is impossible to police
The things you know. Are there any websites where you can order up a malkie [*] or a hit on someone? Anonymously. Might have come in useful for Guppy and Johnson back in the day, with Stuart Collier.
Could even in some cases perhaps be cheaper than imposing an NDA or buying someone a Eurostar ticket and slipping them a small wedge à la Jeffrey Archer.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
It's entirely consistent. If you believe people have a right to have sex then you must also believe that other people have a responsibility to have sex with them, which is clearly mad.
Derrr. I'm talking about sex workers who would be paid to have sex with the incels. And the brasses would have the right of refusal, of course
We can't afford to fund our schools properly and you want to splash our cash on blokes who can't get laid because they don't shower and live with their mum? No, if this redistribution scheme of yours is to work properly everyone needs to chip in. The state will allocate partners matching age, BMI and views on Brexit. I'm sure you are more than happy to do your bit.
Sadly, there's as much chance of it going away as there is of the Tories winning a majority at the next GE. Nil.
May I just say something that has not been said (AFAICS) that the people I feel sorry for here are the wife and 5 children. Even if she knew, how likely is it that the children knew the details of their father's extra-curricular activities. Spare a thought for them.
Mr. Pioneers, inclined to agree, given the police believe no criminality has occurred.
Dismissed for an act within the bounds of the law that has no direct impact on the workplace seems like an unhealthy precedent.
Bringing the company (corporation) into disrepute? Also, would Edwards really want to take on an Employment Tribunal case with all the publicity that would bring?
He won't have to- the BBC will not fire him as the right wing hate mob continue to demand.
I am right wing and don't particularly want to see Huw Edwards fired. He is still probably the best news frontman the BBC have even if his personal life is a bit dubious at present. However he is 61, if he made a mutual agreement with the BBC for early retirement I don't think that would be the worst outcome. He has plenty of other interests in Welsh culture etc to keep him busy
I don't think the political right have any real animus against Huw Edwards. Why would they?
The rush to exonerate and exculpate Huw Edwards - mainly but not entirely from the left - is quite bizarre. Is it because the hated Sun kicked it all off? Is it because of something else I’m not seeing?
A very famous 61 year old married BBC tv News anchor - probably THE most famous of our age - the guy who announced the death of her Maj - is being accused of paying teenagers for nudes and sex pics. The parents of the teen say he used the money for crack
The idea this should not be a news story is insane. The story is everywhere - it’s in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. Is that a Murdoch conspiracy, too?
I feel sorry for Edwards and hope he recovers from his mental health problems - but the fact is the man has been at best a calamitous fool, and at worst has broken the law. We do not actually know yet. As a very salient public figure he knows full well that something like this will be front page news. He would expect it
Moreover, we now have further allegations from others
PB-ers seem to be advocating a new Privacy Law (but only for important people they like). Juvenile
I'm not sure that's true.
There's no conflict between "The Sun have every right to report this, as long as what they have reported is true (otherwise libel applies)" and "if no laws have been broken then this is largely a private matter and I don't have any desire to hear about it". I hold both those views.
The Sun (and others) report shit like this all the time. I can avoid that by not reading the Sun. The wall to wall BBC coverage has been a bit bizarre and unfortunate. I get that they didn't want to be accused of covering up because it was BBC, of course. I felt similarly about the Schofield affair.
The sadness/feeling sorry for the person, in both cases, is for me because they probably had limited options in their early careers and knew that being openly gay would ruin things. I'm fairly certain this was the case for Schofield (openly gay children's TV anchor when I was growing up? I can't see it). Maybe Edwards had more options in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'm not sure. In both cases, they apparently* felt the need to present as heterosexual, get married etc and then the only options for an outlet for their true desires, without hurting** a lot of people and potentially ruining their careers*** was to have relationships in secret. Society, as it was then, has led to a number of people**** trapped living a lie. That is sad.
*I'm of course speculating here. Maybe neither had those feelings at the starts of their careers and did not believe themselves gay. Edwards may still not believe himself gay - he perhaps had more options in adult TV, but there may have been other pressures (family etc). **Many people did of course get hurt, in the end, but there was no way out without hurting people by then ***Honest was probably a no-no early on and once they'd had secret relationships, there was a whole lot of career-damaging story of affairs etc to come out ****A female acquaintance (brother in law's sister) got married, as recently as 8 years ago, to a man and only came out as lesbian after a subsequent affair was discovered, all because she didn't dare tell her socially conservative, religious parents (as it turns out, they've been hugely supportive and accepting)
There is, also, a certain amount of evidence that sexuality may change with age. Since sexuality seems to be a spectrum, rather than one hundred percent.. binary (Ha!) in all cases, that would make such a change all the more plausible.
If you think about it, there might even be a evolutionary advantage to this.
I can't help finding it a bit selfish. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger woman instead - society disapproves of selfish man who has made a promise he hasn't kept. Man doesn't fancy wife any more - fancies younger man instead - society shrugs.
A commitment you made doesn't stop being a commitment because you suddenly fancy someone else. Sorry to be a bit old fashioned - but my view is that marriage means more than 'as long as I feel like it'.
I've had that argument too, with the alternative viewpoint being that you prioritise your own happiness - and be damned to every other member of your family, who have no right whatsoever to criticise you over it.
I agree with you.
Ethical non monogamy is a thing, people, there isn't only cheating on your one partner or monogamy...
It is. Just not a very common thing, among people who marry each other. Most spouses expect the other spouse to be faithful.
Here’s a moral conundrum several of my friends are facing
Their wives have completely gone off sex. They are post-menopausal, and not interested. It’s over. The marriage is, for them, now celibate. They have no sex drive
Yet the men still DO have a sex drive. And are deeply frustrated by the lack of sex (and in some cases severely depressed)
In this not uncommon situation, is the man justified in seeking sex (casual or otherwise) outside the marriage? I’d say yes. With the consent of the wife
But some wives won’t consent. They just expect the husband to give up sex forever, despite a continuing libido
A thorny problem - and a serious one for many people
Jeez, MILFs don't actually want sex? A million incels with over-developed wrists cried out in despair as one.
They probably don't want sex with their current partner. And looking at the state of some 50+ year old men, who can blame them? So to save their partner's blushes they say that they have gone off sex altogether. In reality .....
On the other hand, there are more women that fancy men in their 50s, than men who fancy women in their 50s. Indeed the data on this is stark
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
I'm sure you know about the Hot Crazy Matrix theory, but in case you don't:
Jimmy Carr has a good joke along those lines, usually done as crowd-work to a teenage boy in the front row.
It start with “Rule #1, don’t date crazy. Don’t even f**k crazy. It may seem a good idea at the time…”
and finishes with “The last rule is don’t f**k crazy. No matter how hot, crazy is still crazy. In case you don’t remember what crazy looks like, well the Crazy World Cup is on at the moment, and it looks like Amber Heard and Meghan Markle will be playing each other in the final”.
So when Johnson said very recently that he was happy to hand over all his WhatsApp messages, he knew he couldn't because he had forgotten the password. Or, in common parlance, he was lying.
Say it ain't so .....
Unless he was very security-conscious when setting it up, connected to neither a computer nor an iCloud account, and never backed up to either, it should be possible to unlock the phone.
If it was a work-issued phone then it will have made regular backups to a server that the issuer controlled.
Oh god, we've started a conversation about sexual economies; nothing good can come out of the rest of this...
It's fascinating how many right wingers seem to believe in sexual socialism, a kind of vaginal welfare state. I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
But why? That is illogical
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
The logical thing is to make prostitution legal, and heavily regulate it.
[It's been around since the dawn of time and trying to stop it, like with drugs, is basically pointless.]
Agree on all counts. Not even sure why this is particularly controversial. I have never understood why it should be legal to pay a person to do back-breaking work to dig holes in the ground, but not legal to pay them to do light exercise in the bedroom.
"Millions of UK public sector workers including teachers and doctors to get pay rises Police - 7% NHS - 6% Junior doctors - 6% Prison officers - 7% Armed Forces - 5% Teachers - 6.5%"
It is deflationary. That is a pay rise less than inflation.
The double digit rise given to those on benefits, triple lock etc are reinforcing inflation far, far more.
No, because the 10% rise applies to much smaller incomes. Prison officer income of the order of 30-35K is much more than tdhe 10K-ish income to which the 10% rise applies.
PS: still shit for the screws though, having a permanent cut in real income.
Not the case because even disregarding the fact the prison guards are working for their income, there's fewer prison guards than there are people on welfare.
10% of 10k for 10million people is much more aggregate money supply than 7% of 30k for 10k people. Numbers there are round, not accurate, but point stands.
So whether you wish to look at it as just percentages, or actual aggregate money, the double digit rises are more inflationary than any of those individual pay reviews for people working for a living are.
But you need to add all the others - the polis, the teachers, armed forces ...
Bart is not very good at the counting , once out of fingers he struggles. Great to know we only have 10K people in public sector, explains why public services are crap.
Comments
I'm more of a Tebbit kind of guy in these matters. If you want a lady, go out there and make it happen, stop whining about it.
IIRC, they infiltrated a number of organisations to quite highly level, by members sleeping their way to the top.
Take up a sport/hobby that involves meeting people and working with them in groups. Scuba diving is a good example. Learn how to make friends first.....
(I don't know the answer myself. It seems the only course of action I could take and be aligned with Christian teaching is to go off and be a monk in a closed order to avoid all contact with the opposite sex).
Total welfare payments that year were £234bn
Remarkably close actually, but 10% of the latter is more than 6% of the former.
You accept that people can be poor and starving through no fault of their own, and you approve of a welfare state that feeds and houses them. Indeed you almost certainly approve of doing this even if it IS their fault
Likewise, men (it is usually men) can end up in a life without sex, through no fault of their own. They try hard, they dress the best they can, they go on dates, and they fail - too short, ugly, poor, whatever - and this really happens especially in today's brutal world of Tinder and so forth. The data is out there
Why should the state not assist these people, and pay for sex workers? Granted, the incels aren't going to die of starvation, but involuntary celibacy can send people mad, or make them suicidal. It is not a small thing
I am not sure what I personally believe, but I do believe your position is not logically coherent
https://twitter.com/MilitaryBanter/status/1491772437490540550
They are the answer to the question as they have long been a repository for surplus pricks.
Nobody has any obligation or right to other people being intimate with them, if the other people aren't interested.
You'd probably fall off your bike if you tried it.
This policy has also been proposed for disabled people, who also can't get sex and can't afford hookers. The state should pay for socialist nookie
Either way can we agreed than a sub-inflation pay rise is deflationary? Especially relative to others getting an at-inflation pay rise?
… On 31 October, after four postponements to get infrastructure in place, the UK will finally introduce checks on fresh and chilled food imports. The EU has already introduced its checks, which come with a vast amount of paperwork and significant costs. The impact on the export of fruit from the UK to the EU has been dramatic, reducing the value from £248.5m in 2021 to £113.8m by 2023, a drop of more than 50%.
Now it’s going to work the other way. EU producers of meat products wishing to export to the UK will have to employ a vet to certify their goods, which will cost up to €700 a time. All sectors will have to employ agents for data entry compliance which could add another €200. They will have to train themselves on the paperwork. Then, come January, there’s the border inspection charge of up to £43 for each consignment regardless of whether it’s physically inspected or not. Faced by all of this, thousands of small producers from across Europe who have kept this country supplied with a fabulously diverse range of quality products will simply decide it’s not worth the trouble. They’ll sell elsewhere. The quality of our lives will be diminished.
… EU membership vastly improved the quality of our diet and with it, our lives. It allowed unfettered access to a massive market, including the products that underpin the rightly lauded Mediterranean diet. We ate better. Any policy which means we will eat worse, that our lives and opportunities are less good than once they were, is surely a terrible thing.
Of course, there are bigger problems right now. There’s a cost of living crisis, exacerbated by Brexit. The economy is stunted by Brexit. Obscene numbers of people are using food banks. The nation’s physical health is suffering because we don’t have the money to invest in the NHS, partly because of Brexit.
… this issue is not restricted to the deli end of the food market. The Fresh Produce Consortium recently warned that the new border rules would add delays and millions in costs at a time of already acute food inflation. The British Retail Consortium, which represents the supermarkets, agrees. “New checks will add to the various cost pressures retailers are facing at a time when the cost of living is already high.” And for what? The Brexit deal could have included an agreement to recognise each other’s food standards. That’s what lay at the heart of the EU project. But the UK wanted the freedom to do trade deals with third countries, allowing in products with lower standards than the EU permits. Hence, these disastrous checks…
But Huw Edwards! Burble burble wibble wibble.
If they're funded by spending cuts in other areas (how!?) then yes they're not inflationary in nominal terms either.
If they're funded by increased borrowing or especially quantitative easing then they're inflationary nominally but deflationary in real terms.
Men go through life desiring, ideally, 21 year olds. Women tend to fancy men their own age as they age (if they still have desires)
But it’s a real shame.
Look at America for a glimpse of life without easy access to a wide variety of quality food.
I often regret that my prime (and unattached) years took place before the proliferation of hook-up apps.
"Give a man a fish and he eats for the day; teach him to use a rod and tackle and he eats for life."
We've all heard that and it's usually utter tosh but it does apply here. Don't give a leg over, give a leg up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_USJCTIgs4
[It's been around since the dawn of time and trying to stop it, like with drugs, is basically pointless.]
Say it ain't so .....
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/young-adults-especially-men-having-sex-less-frequently
One reason is that the algos of Tinder, et al, mean fewer men get more women, and the disparity is brutal: 20% of men get 80% of the women, the bottom 80% of men scrap over the remaining 20% of women, and plenty of men (far more than the pre-internet age) are left with nothing at all
Brexit continues to be an unmitigated disaster .
https://youtu.be/5zADosF3XoQ
If it was a work-issued phone then it will have made regular backups to a server that the issuer controlled.
I tend toward the liberal on things but I'm not sure about brothels being legal.
Just ask the NSA for the password.
Hunch: one or more members of the royal family, who might well include the one who wears the fanciest hat, might be embarrassed by what's on the phone if it came out.
The top 20% of guys aren't settling down with four women apiece, so 75% of those who were happy to be side-pieces end up alone (perhaps excepting kids).
At which point (30s, 40s) the bottom 80% of guys who've mostly been single suddenly look a lot more attractive. But do women who are single with kids and the same age look as attractive to those men as they did two decades ago? And do the 40something chaps, not mega rich but perhaps with their own home etc, look rather better to some of the women significantly younger?
Also, the stepmoms on XVideos tend, on, er, inspection, to be really quite attractive, and not very old at all. Far from the actuality of stepmoms
No, it couldn't. The EU were not interested in mutual recognition or equivalence. Us following their standards was the only offer on the table.
Houellebecq on the subject of a) paying for it and b) 'market forces' making some people undesirable. Ultimately, we live in a truly free market *sexual* economy, one of unrestrained capitalism, with no "redistribution" deeemed acceptable.
If Tinder was an economy, its gini coefficient would make it more unequal than 95% of countries in the world...
https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
In the end you're either driven mad by the loneliness, or you learn to live with it. Just as plenty of people learn how to survive being poor, while others starve.
Hence "French lessons", "massages", "Thai sauna", and so on
Also in the age of the Net all these laws are completely unenforcable. There are now zillions of websites where what is on offer is spelled out, explicitly, down to the most mind-boggling detail. These sites don't get closed down. It is impossible to police
Why should they accept goods whose standards they have no control over?
Sovereignty, democratic control, dontchaknow?
Could even in some cases perhaps be cheaper than imposing an NDA or buying someone a Eurostar ticket and slipping them a small wedge à la Jeffrey Archer.
* Glaswegian form used for inclusiveness.
For the rest of the population, look outside Tinder for a relationship and love
But after that, the power shifts, first slowly then dramatically. A single sane solvent man in his 40s and 50s, esp with his own hair and teeth, is notably more atractive than a woman in the same situation (according to the data from dating apps), and finds it considerably easier to hook up
But by then so much of life has already passed - the chance to have children (for women), and so on. So any societal "damage" allegedly done by the power disparity cannot be undone
All quite problematic. Hopefully we will soon have brilliant AI sexbots which will make all this go away
It start with “Rule #1, don’t date crazy. Don’t even f**k crazy. It may seem a good idea at the time…”
and finishes with “The last rule is don’t f**k crazy. No matter how hot, crazy is still crazy. In case you don’t remember what crazy looks like, well the Crazy World Cup is on at the moment, and it looks like Amber Heard and Meghan Markle will be playing each other in the final”.
NEW THREAD
There’s a new bug just been found though, which looks fun (and I just tested it on my own phone)
https://www.simplemost.com/this-is-how-to-unlock-your-iphone-without-using-a-passcode/
An aside to the Huw Edwards story - his wife Vicky is the producer for Peston’s ITV show.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12294163/ITV-journalist-Robert-Peston-praises-producer-Huw-Edwards-wife-Vicky-Flind.html
As state propaganda outlet it mimics government in that it is all jobs for friends and family, all parasites on the public purse.
Jesus did actually say you could divorce an adulterous wife and remarry, so you're OK.