I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
I ought to have made more clear that I have more sympathy for her view than yours.
There's an in depth article about Angela Rayner, the bits in bold are huge red flags for me and soon she could be a heartbeat away from being PM with her finger on the Trident button.
Beyond the brash exterior is a vulnerable and anxious woman. She is an insomniac — she endures the long, sleepless hours by listening to audiobooks about serial killers — and trusts very few people beyond her tight inner circle; she has panic buttons installed in her house and was convinced during the Corbyn years that she was being spied upon.
and
Like Boris Johnson, whom in some ways she resembles, Rayner is a source of endless fascination and speculation. There is no one quite like her at Westminster. She is gossiped about, condescended, traduced but never ignored. Like Johnson, she has undoubted star quality. She is both self-glamorising and self-mythologising.
She needs to tell us what nomination she made when she got married about her house for tax purposes.
Easy peasy.
We don't even care what her husband said or pocketed upon sale of his house.
We just want to know what she said - or didn't say - to HMRC.
Is the issue.
If the police and HMRC request that information fair enough, but she has no requirement to furnish you, Laura Kuenssberg or the Daily Mail with that kind of detail.
Yeah I mean it's not the standard that anyone holds politicians to is it.
Who cares about transparency in the housing tax affairs of the shadow SoS for housing.
You would have a point (and with Starmer- donkeys etc) if you were also demanding to see the financial affairs published of Sunak, Hunt, Cameron, Donelan, Johnson etc. etc, All of whom have had questions asked over their financial probity.
This is an excellent article on the current state of play for Ukraine's armed forces and war economy, with too much detail to summarise in a post.
The suggestion below, though, is one that the UK ought seriously to embrace, as our capacity to fund arms production exceeds our capacity to actually produce some if the urgently needed kit for Ukraine.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/brave-new-ukraine ...Nevertheless, the government is making some changes. Oleksandr Kamyshin, Ukraine’s strategic industries minister, has observed that Ukrainian industry could learn to produce various types of shells and drones and currently has $20 billion worth of production capacity. At the moment, however, the state budget can come up with no more than $6 billion for procurement. According to Kamyshin, the problem is no longer lack of capabilities but lack of funds.
But there may be ways around this problem as well. Today, many of Ukraine’s partners prefer to rely on weapons produced by their domestic markets. This is the case with the United States and Canada, just as European countries often rely on European producers. Over the last few years, some private Ukrainian companies have switched to weapons production and also managed to produce cheaper models than their Western counterparts. For instance, a Canadian Sky Ranger R70 drone costs $90,000, whereas a similar Ukrainian model costs from $10,000 to $25,000.
Now, Kamyshin has proposed to Western allies that they should purchase Ukrainian-produced weapons for Ukrainian forces, which, in addition to serving urgent frontline needs, would bring an infusion of cash to develop Ukraine’s defense sector. In fact, on April 18, Denmark became the first Western country to do so, reaching a deal with Kyiv to buy $28.5 million worth of Ukrainian-produced weapons and military equipment for Ukrainian forces...
She needs to tell us what nomination she made when she got married about her house for tax purposes.
Easy peasy.
We don't even care what her husband said or pocketed upon sale of his house.
We just want to know what she said - or didn't say - to HMRC.
Is the issue.
I think we know what she said and we know why she won't say what she said.
She would have made the PPR declaration to HMRC. A perfectly legal bit of tax avoidance. But if she says so, she's then guilty of the greatest crime in British politics... Hypocrisy.
Since what she did was legal, and not unusual in the circumstances, it's very hard to force her to go into the detail. So we're left to see whether a sustained campaign of innuendo will cause any damage.
The campaign of innuendo does look particularly ridiculous in the circumstances of regular stories about new transgressions by Tory MPs that are on a completely different scale. But since when was it news that the newspapers were partisan?
I find it astonishing that this story is still being persevered with. When it started it was an easy slur of hypocrisy, a supposedly working class, left wing candidate who stood for a party that opposed the sale of council houses had profited from it. Well, big deal.
All these extremely tedious attempts to make it something else, something illegal, are frankly just ridiculous and a waste of precious police time. These officers should be online pretending to be 14 year old girls, or whatever police do with their time these days. They should not be faffing about with a completely normal transaction that happened a long time ago.
I mean, is this all the Tories have got?
Angela Rayner is not leftwing. She's pro-Israeli; she has vehemently denounced the campaign for Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel; she speaks at meetings from which anti-genocidalist protestors are physically dragged out; and she deputises for a monster who says Israel has the right to turn off the water supply to the civilian population of Gaza. She's one of many leading Labour figures who are funded by the Labour Friends of Israel.
I struggle to get the deification of Rayner. I don’t think Fishing’s characterisation is fair but she strikes me as quite ordinary as a politician. Labour has some quality on its front bench. She’s not up there. I’d love to know just why people rate her so highly and what she has done in terms of policy to achieve this level of devotion.
As she’s working class she seems to attract admiration, in parts, from middle class commentators, mostly male, and seemingly as a way of burnishing their pro working class credentials and all of this while labour increasingly selects fewer and fewer working class candidates and more and more white collar former SPAD/London Councillor/charity/Quangocrats/Lawyer types. The party is being purged of the working class.
It’s all a bit ‘how can I hate women, my mother was one’, ‘I’ve got black friends, I’m not racist’ from the commentariat who seem to think challenging her is picking in her.
It is fair to ask questions of her, her shiftiness and evasiveness over it the whole issue has dragged it out. Sure the Tories are bad but let’s not give the other parties a free pass.
The language used, for example "shiftiness" demonstrates Colville's agenda. If he didn't want to impress upon the reader that Rayner is a "wrong 'un" he would have used, maybe, obfuscation instead?
Shiftiness is my word and I have said it about her response to this more than once. Her response to scrutiny is she doesn’t like it. Yet she is happy to dish it out. She’s getting back some of what she’s dished out. She could close this down very quickly by publishing the advice she was given. So why not. Instead she makes stupid demands for the PM and Chancellor to publish 15 years of tax records
Colville is saying honesty matters and he’s right. He’s not saying she’s a wrong un or a right un.
Why is it a stupid demand? The Conservatives are making a huge fuss based on not much about what would, if true, be a small amount of tax unpaid. There have been questions raised about senior Conservatives’ taxes and they didn’t publish details. It seems hypocritical and Rayner is calling out the hypocrisy.
Of course she isn’t. It’s a stupid demand for two reasons. Firstly neither of them are under suspicion of anything and secondly it is totally disproportionate.
Actually there’s a third reason, it fails to draw a line under the matter it just helps perpetuate it.
Sunak’s wife is not Sunak. Attacking Sunak through his wife is pretty shitty. She’s not a politician and there is no hint of any wrong doing on the PMs part. His wife is just rich.
Do you not think there could be a conflict of interest here?
I'm not sure a politician who for example was married to a state school teacher could become Education Secretary?
I don't see why not. The test is whether a spouse uses their position to influence policy in a way helpful to them or to the Minister. Failing that, I don't really care what spouses think or do. There is a marginal case if the spouse avoids tax and then supports the Minister financially, but even then it seems to hinge on wherther it affects anything the Minister does. So no, I'm not interested in Mrs Sunak's business.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
That's an interesting point. I'd go with "is it moral?" The wise course of action may only be known in hindsight, but the moral course may be known beforehand.
This scandal is even worse, if possible, than the Post Office one and it is long past the time for those affected to receive compensation, even though because of the delays - which now seem to me to be deliberate on the part of the state as they happen in every such case - 3/4 of those who were infected have died.
Good to see the ST campaigning on this. I wonder if this a side effect of the PO matter.
It might be a side-effect of the Rayner story that is led by the Mail with unenthusiastic participation by the Telegraph. The ST needed a rival story and so revived the contaminated blood scandal.
Delays are not deliberate in the sense there is a Machiavellian moustache-twirler in the Treasury but follow from the inquiry model we use. We need a new approach; whether we go to air industry no-blame inquiries or not, we need to separate the two strands of what went wrong from who got hurt. There is no reason we cannot pay no-fault compensation to the victims even before the terms of inquiry have been drafted. The inquiry can follow on afterwards in its own sweet time.
A separate question is whether lawyers should be allowed anywhere near these inquiries, let alone run them, because they seem more interested in process and gossip than in quickly establishing what went wrong and what should be done to prevent a recurrence.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
Does anyone here watch the Youtube channel the Bad Movie Bible? Very funny and informative, great dry delivery. I've been enjoying a great episode about Bond rip-offs: https://youtu.be/p9ELJS9emDg?si=EHcx08b9yFUOxFAV
That lead me to discover the 1960's Bulldog Drummond fim 'Deadlier than the male', which is pretty good!
Camply comic Bond-esque caper - slightly lower stakes, but very high production values. A Sunday treat for you.
The original Casino Royale (with Woody Allen, Peter Sellers, and Ronnie Corbett(!)) is hilariously bad in parts
David Niven too.
Sensational cast, a real sixties Who’s who. it’s great fun to watch. Never a classic.
Casino Royale's not for me, I can't get into it. But Deadlier than the male isn't a chaotic spoof; it's more like a Bond film crossed with an Avenger's episode.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Aaall together nowww - "If it's legal you should be allowed to advocate for it".
I can't remember if that quote came from JSMill or Ayn Rand - apologies if the latter.
If you weren't allowed to advocate for illegal things how ever would the law be changed to make legal those things that are currently illegal?
Presumably the difference is you can advocate for legalisation of the act but not advocate to commit the act as that's incitement whilst said act is illegal?
Does anyone here watch the Youtube channel the Bad Movie Bible? Very funny and informative, great dry delivery. I've been enjoying a great episode about Bond rip-offs: https://youtu.be/p9ELJS9emDg?si=EHcx08b9yFUOxFAV
That lead me to discover the 1960's Bulldog Drummond fim 'Deadlier than the male', which is pretty good!
Camply comic Bond-esque caper - slightly lower stakes, but very high production values. A Sunday treat for you.
I think that I am going to watch the ongoing farce of obscenely overpaid footballers showing us what it would be like if they played with 10 other men that they had not actually met before and had no idea of how they might anticipate each others' efforts. Come on United!
AHRefs summary: He argues that the fundamental problem in the British and global economy is not a lack of productivity or economic growth, but rather a growing inequality in wealth distribution. He disagrees with the common narrative that low productivity is the root cause of falling living standards and points out that living standards are declining worldwide, not just in the UK. He highlights the disconnect between the rapid increase in wealth among the richest individuals and the stagnation or decline in living standards for ordinary people. He then goes on to criticize economists and politicians, who often come from wealthy backgrounds, for attributing economic woes to productivity issues without addressing the underlying problem of inequality. He finishes by emphasizing the need to address the growing wealth gap and calls for a shift in focus from economic growth to tackling inequality as a solution to improving living standards for all.
It's past 8.30am and Mark Rowley is still in office. No way will he still be there by the end of tomorrow.
The question is who he'll take with him. The push to ban anti-genocide demonstrations seems pretty damned serious.
Is there a market on
* next person to leave the cabinet? * Cleverly to leave the cabinet by [date]? * Sunak to leave office before the end of May?
I stopped reading the following piece from the Lebedev press when I reached the word "experts", but it seems effort is still being put into Susan Hall's campaign, even at this late stage:
I was left with the same question here - Mark Rowley who?
But I see he is the boss of the Met, which is disappointing.
I wanted him to be either the actor playing a libidinous Frenchman, or an actual libidinous Frenchman - which is at least all the recent Presidents, and probably all of them. Then I could apply some words for life, @TSE style, or following the actions of the Spectator elite in Paris, in their heads, with respect to girls with pearls.
A frog he would a-wooing go, Heigh ho! says Rowley, A frog he would a-wooing go, Whether his mother would let him or no. With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.
So off he set with his opera hat, Heigh ho! says Rowley, So off he set with his opera hat, And on the road he met with a rat, With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.... https://wordsforlife.org.uk/activities/frog-he-would-wooing-go/
Former chair of the GMP federation defends the met and the anti semitic policing compacting it to soccer rivalry.
In both cases I would expect the police to arrest those who kick off. A jew wearing a yarmulka should be able to walk through a crowd of Muslims, and a Man C supporter should be able to walk through a crowd of Man U fans
There are two or three parts. The "openly Jewish" bit was disgraceful and ignorant and it needs to be clear to every officer that is unnacceptable. The threatening arrest was unnecessary.
However not allowing him to walk directly through the march is a fairly standard part of policing. Happens every week at football matches, would happen today if protestors want to walk through the marathon course.
Why do we tolerate football if that is the level of innate violence?
In this case, I don't think the Jewish gentleman was proposing to disrupt the demo, just walk past it.
I suspect he knew precisely what he was doing which was to embarrass the police into taking action against the demonstrators who were not playing ball by smashing the place up.
As we are discussing Leon's holiday in Paris, among my friends are two Jewish families currently on holiday in Muslim countries, one an Arab country. They even managed to make it to Heathrow Airport without being hacked limb from limb. The idea that Jews are under any great threat as a result of the Gaza SMO or pro-Palestine marches is for the birds. They're not cowering at home, they're getting on with their lives just as they were before October.
I’m not on holiday! I’m here on the French taxpayers’ ecu, to tell everyone how beautiful France is. Think I’m doing quite well so far
I think my story about The Manuscript, The Notary and the French Ministry of Culture might make a good article - a tale out of Balzac for the 21st century (and one involving me!- which seems to be essential these days).
Pop off to the Ministry and take a photo - preferably sans beggar - and send it to me, there's a good chap. You owe me for the hand mirror.
And if the Gazette publishes it I may even spend some of the vast riches I will earn on a drink for you should we ever meet.
It's past 8.30am and Mark Rowley is still in office. No way will he still be there by the end of tomorrow.
The question is who he'll take with him. The push to ban anti-genocide demonstrations seems pretty damned serious.
Is there a market on
* next person to leave the cabinet? * Cleverly to leave the cabinet by [date]? * Sunak to leave office before the end of May?
I stopped reading the following piece from the Lebedev press when I reached the word "experts", but it seems effort is still being put into Susan Hall's campaign, even at this late stage:
I was left with the same question here - Mark Rowley who?
But I see he is the boss of the Met, which is disappointing.
I wanted him to be either the actor playing a libidinous Frenchman, or an actual libidinous Frenchman - which is at least all the recent Presidents, and probably all of them. Then I could apply some words for life, @TSE style, or following the actions of the Spectator elite in Paris, in their heads, with respect to girls with pearls.
A frog he would a-wooing go, Heigh ho! says Rowley, A frog he would a-wooing go, Whether his mother would let him or no. With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.
So off he set with his opera hat, Heigh ho! says Rowley, So off he set with his opera hat, And on the road he met with a rat, With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.... https://wordsforlife.org.uk/activities/frog-he-would-wooing-go/
Former chair of the GMP federation defends the met and the anti semitic policing compacting it to soccer rivalry.
In both cases I would expect the police to arrest those who kick off. A jew wearing a yarmulka should be able to walk through a crowd of Muslims, and a Man C supporter should be able to walk through a crowd of Man U fans
There are two or three parts. The "openly Jewish" bit was disgraceful and ignorant and it needs to be clear to every officer that is unnacceptable. The threatening arrest was unnecessary.
However not allowing him to walk directly through the march is a fairly standard part of policing. Happens every week at football matches, would happen today if protestors want to walk through the marathon course.
Broadly agree - irrespective of what you think is your "right" to walk the King's Highway unimpeded in all circumstances, the Police have a greater responsibility to maintain public order and if that inconveniences you, so be it. I do agree the opening comment was unacceptable but I wouldn't expect to be allowed to cross a road in the middle of a demonstration or a major event.
Rights are not absolute - they come with obligations and responsibilities. Sometimes those seeking to assert those rights forget the second bit. We need I think to re-orient the debate away from the rights of the individual to the societal obligations and responsibilities of the individual.
Surely people have an obligation not to be "provoked" into violence. If you twat someone because you think they are Jewish, an Arsenal fan, or even because they have called you a c**t, you have chosen to do so and should be held responsible for your actions.
he's an arsehole who was trying to provoke a riot, treat him the same as those anti abortion idiots who protest outside clinics
He's an arsehole for wanting to walk to his home?
Or an arsehole for being openly Jewish?
What a disgusting, racist thing for you to say.
The only thing that is arsehole behaviour is not thinking its OK for Jews to be about in London. The problem with the Met response is that they don't seem to think the attitude displayed was a problem, just the way the attitude was articulated. That they should act the same way next time, but just not verbalise what they're doing. Despicable.
He lives in Hendon not central London. All this guy is doing is trying to make a name for himself off the back of a load of dead Palestinian children.
So not only can Jews not walk through parts of London, people from Hendon aren't welcome through Central London either?
How vile.
Would you say the same to a lady in a burqa threatened with arrest for simply wearing a burqa near an EDL march?
As for planning Donkeys talking about an antiracism counter protest near a racist protest that has been causing abuse such as this, that is something to be applauded.
I think I have told the story already of a prostitute who had allegedly been raped by her "client" who was giving evidence on commission. Defence counsel suggested that during this episode the complainer had expressed enthusiasm for rough sex, hence some of her bruising. She looked utterly bewildered and then politely explained that when she was having sex with a client she was not having fun or enjoying herself, she was thinking about how much money she was making and how long it was going to take.
The episode brought home to me once again how tawdry, selfish and delusional men who use such services are. That article does much of the same. This prostitute needed money to feed her drug habit. It would have been a tragic tale all round under any circumstance, the violence with which anal sex was taken will hopefully means that the perpetrator will spend several years in prison making women marginally safer.
One sadder aspect of PB is how often it illuminates that for many people in the UK, life is miserable or even unbearable. Her life must be awful.
There's an in depth article about Angela Rayner, the bits in bold are huge red flags for me and soon she could be a heartbeat away from being PM with her finger on the Trident button.
Beyond the brash exterior is a vulnerable and anxious woman. She is an insomniac — she endures the long, sleepless hours by listening to audiobooks about serial killers — and trusts very few people beyond her tight inner circle; she has panic buttons installed in her house and was convinced during the Corbyn years that she was being spied upon.
and
Like Boris Johnson, whom in some ways she resembles, Rayner is a source of endless fascination and speculation. There is no one quite like her at Westminster. She is gossiped about, condescended, traduced but never ignored. Like Johnson, she has undoubted star quality. She is both self-glamorising and self-mythologising.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
I’d have thought all this is obvious. Of course in some cases the work is coerced and that is rightly illegal. But in many cases it isn’t
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
I’m listening to Edward Chisholm’s brilliant “A Waiter in Paris” on audiobook as I walk down the Quai d’Orsay, in Paris (does it get any more Parisian?)
It’s a brilliant book. Sample passage
“Adrien is one of those Parisian waiters that you encounter everywhere across the city, the kind that you feel instantly dislikes you, who is inconvenienced by the very fact you’ve even come into a restaurant, let alone that you are expecting to exchange money for food and, on top of that, that you expect him - a waiter! - to bring it to you.”
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.
In both Fareham and Havant the fact Independent candidates are standing makes it more likely the Conservatives will lose control. For it allows Tory leaning voters disillusioned with the party nationally or locally to make a protest vote without voting for another party while still potentially returning to the Conservatives at the next general election
There's an in depth article about Angela Rayner, the bits in bold are huge red flags for me and soon she could be a heartbeat away from being PM with her finger on the Trident button.
Beyond the brash exterior is a vulnerable and anxious woman. She is an insomniac — she endures the long, sleepless hours by listening to audiobooks about serial killers — and trusts very few people beyond her tight inner circle; she has panic buttons installed in her house and was convinced during the Corbyn years that she was being spied upon.
and
Like Boris Johnson, whom in some ways she resembles, Rayner is a source of endless fascination and speculation. There is no one quite like her at Westminster. She is gossiped about, condescended, traduced but never ignored. Like Johnson, she has undoubted star quality. She is both self-glamorising and self-mythologising.
There's an in depth article about Angela Rayner, the bits in bold are huge red flags for me and soon she could be a heartbeat away from being PM with her finger on the Trident button.
Beyond the brash exterior is a vulnerable and anxious woman. She is an insomniac — she endures the long, sleepless hours by listening to audiobooks about serial killers — and trusts very few people beyond her tight inner circle; she has panic buttons installed in her house and was convinced during the Corbyn years that she was being spied upon.
and
Like Boris Johnson, whom in some ways she resembles, Rayner is a source of endless fascination and speculation. There is no one quite like her at Westminster. She is gossiped about, condescended, traduced but never ignored. Like Johnson, she has undoubted star quality. She is both self-glamorising and self-mythologising.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
What is Freeman (and your) goal? To make prostitution illegal? If so how would this be enforced? Wouldn’t it be better to go the opposite way and regulate the industry, as in many other countries?
It's past 8.30am and Mark Rowley is still in office. No way will he still be there by the end of tomorrow.
The question is who he'll take with him. The push to ban anti-genocide demonstrations seems pretty damned serious.
Is there a market on
* next person to leave the cabinet? * Cleverly to leave the cabinet by [date]? * Sunak to leave office before the end of May?
I stopped reading the following piece from the Lebedev press when I reached the word "experts", but it seems effort is still being put into Susan Hall's campaign, even at this late stage:
I was left with the same question here - Mark Rowley who?
But I see he is the boss of the Met, which is disappointing.
I wanted him to be either the actor playing a libidinous Frenchman, or an actual libidinous Frenchman - which is at least all the recent Presidents, and probably all of them. Then I could apply some words for life, @TSE style, or following the actions of the Spectator elite in Paris, in their heads, with respect to girls with pearls.
A frog he would a-wooing go, Heigh ho! says Rowley, A frog he would a-wooing go, Whether his mother would let him or no. With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.
So off he set with his opera hat, Heigh ho! says Rowley, So off he set with his opera hat, And on the road he met with a rat, With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.... https://wordsforlife.org.uk/activities/frog-he-would-wooing-go/
Former chair of the GMP federation defends the met and the anti semitic policing compacting it to soccer rivalry.
In both cases I would expect the police to arrest those who kick off. A jew wearing a yarmulka should be able to walk through a crowd of Muslims, and a Man C supporter should be able to walk through a crowd of Man U fans
Flip it round - always a good idea.
Imagine a pro-Israel demo.
Police threaten a Muslim with arrest for being obviously Muslim, and being “provocative”.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
I’d have thought all this is obvious. Of course in some cases the work is coerced and that is rightly illegal. But in many cases it isn’t
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
Yes. Instinctively I think it’s rather like the paradox associated with recreational drugs: many of the worst elements of the industry are direct consequences of its prohibition.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
What is Freeman (and your) goal? To make prostitution illegal? If so how would this be enforced? Wouldn’t it be better to go the opposite way and regulate the industry, as in many other countries?
How would you "regulate" an industry that is, by its very nature, "hush-hush, hoosh-hoosh"?
The 'openly Jewish' comment was clearly a disgrace, although there is a suspicion that the gentleman concerned (the CEO of the Campaign Against Antisemitism) was seeking a police reaction to him crossing the road through the middle of the marchers.
Meanwhile, young men in their droves continue to be stopped and searched by the Met for being 'openly black'.
No, they are being stopped and searched for
1) wearing loud shirts in a built up area 2) being possession of an offensive wives 3) stepping on there cracks in the pavement 4) since Chief Inspector Savage (OBE) won his awards for anti-racism, ordering a black coffee.
It's past 8.30am and Mark Rowley is still in office. No way will he still be there by the end of tomorrow.
The question is who he'll take with him. The push to ban anti-genocide demonstrations seems pretty damned serious.
Is there a market on
* next person to leave the cabinet? * Cleverly to leave the cabinet by [date]? * Sunak to leave office before the end of May?
I stopped reading the following piece from the Lebedev press when I reached the word "experts", but it seems effort is still being put into Susan Hall's campaign, even at this late stage:
I was left with the same question here - Mark Rowley who?
But I see he is the boss of the Met, which is disappointing.
I wanted him to be either the actor playing a libidinous Frenchman, or an actual libidinous Frenchman - which is at least all the recent Presidents, and probably all of them. Then I could apply some words for life, @TSE style, or following the actions of the Spectator elite in Paris, in their heads, with respect to girls with pearls.
A frog he would a-wooing go, Heigh ho! says Rowley, A frog he would a-wooing go, Whether his mother would let him or no. With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.
So off he set with his opera hat, Heigh ho! says Rowley, So off he set with his opera hat, And on the road he met with a rat, With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.... https://wordsforlife.org.uk/activities/frog-he-would-wooing-go/
Former chair of the GMP federation defends the met and the anti semitic policing compacting it to soccer rivalry.
In both cases I would expect the police to arrest those who kick off. A jew wearing a yarmulka should be able to walk through a crowd of Muslims, and a Man C supporter should be able to walk through a crowd of Man U fans
There are two or three parts. The "openly Jewish" bit was disgraceful and ignorant and it needs to be clear to every officer that is unnacceptable. The threatening arrest was unnecessary.
However not allowing him to walk directly through the march is a fairly standard part of policing. Happens every week at football matches, would happen today if protestors want to walk through the marathon course.
Broadly agree - irrespective of what you think is your "right" to walk the King's Highway unimpeded in all circumstances, the Police have a greater responsibility to maintain public order and if that inconveniences you, so be it. I do agree the opening comment was unacceptable but I wouldn't expect to be allowed to cross a road in the middle of a demonstration or a major event.
Rights are not absolute - they come with obligations and responsibilities. Sometimes those seeking to assert those rights forget the second bit. We need I think to re-orient the debate away from the rights of the individual to the societal obligations and responsibilities of the individual.
Surely people have an obligation not to be "provoked" into violence. If you twat someone because you think they are Jewish, an Arsenal fan, or even because they have called you a c**t, you have chosen to do so and should be held responsible for your actions.
he's an arsehole who was trying to provoke a riot, treat him the same as those anti abortion idiots who protest outside clinics
He's an arsehole for wanting to walk to his home?
Or an arsehole for being openly Jewish?
What a disgusting, racist thing for you to say.
The only thing that is arsehole behaviour is not thinking its OK for Jews to be about in London. The problem with the Met response is that they don't seem to think the attitude displayed was a problem, just the way the attitude was articulated. That they should act the same way next time, but just not verbalise what they're doing. Despicable.
He lives in Hendon not central London. All this guy is doing is trying to make a name for himself off the back of a load of dead Palestinian children.
She needs to tell us what nomination she made when she got married about her house for tax purposes.
Easy peasy.
We don't even care what her husband said or pocketed upon sale of his house.
We just want to know what she said - or didn't say - to HMRC.
Is the issue.
I think we know what she said and we know why she won't say what she said.
She would have made the PPR declaration to HMRC. A perfectly legal bit of tax avoidance. But if she says so, she's then guilty of the greatest crime in British politics... Hypocrisy.
Since what she did was legal, and not unusual in the circumstances, it's very hard to force her to go into the detail. So we're left to see whether a sustained campaign of innuendo will cause any damage.
The campaign of innuendo does look particularly ridiculous in the circumstances of regular stories about new transgressions by Tory MPs that are on a completely different scale. But since when was it news that the newspapers were partisan?
I find it astonishing that this story is still being persevered with. When it started it was an easy slur of hypocrisy, a supposedly working class, left wing candidate who stood for a party that opposed the sale of council houses had profited from it. Well, big deal.
All these extremely tedious attempts to make it something else, something illegal, are frankly just ridiculous and a waste of precious police time. These officers should be online pretending to be 14 year old girls, or whatever police do with their time these days. They should not be faffing about with a completely normal transaction that happened a long time ago.
I mean, is this all the Tories have got?
Angela Rayner is not leftwing. She's pro-Israeli; she has vehemently denounced the campaign for Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel; she speaks at meetings from which anti-genocidalist protestors are physically dragged out; and she deputises for a monster who says Israel has the right to turn off the water supply to the civilian population of Gaza. She's one of many leading Labour figures who are funded by the Labour Friends of Israel.
Curiously, I judge whether people are left wing or not by how they propose to govern the people of this country should they attain office here. Being pro Palestinian or anti Palestinian simply isn't a rational measure of someone's position on the political spectrum. It is a weird obsession about which we can do nothing practical.
My understanding is that Rayner has been pushing the workers rights passage which seems to be one of very few policy commitments, possibly because it doesn't cost the government very much money. The additional rights she is proposing is the first real change in the Thatcher settlement of employment rights that we have seen (Blair just quietly let it be). There are arguments for and against this package but the key point is that it will affect the people of this country directly, whether they lose their jobs as a result or have a better standard of living and more stability. That, to me, makes her left wing.
She's quietly helpful on environmental and animal welfare issues too.
On Taz's point, the "funding" seems to have been subsidised trips to Israel to to politicians there, which is very much SOP for the all-party national groups (there's one for each of scores of countries) - after I was PPS for energy, I remember I had a trip to Denmark to talk to energy politicians and study wind farms. One can debate how useful/one-sided the trips are and whether MPs should accept them, but they aren't "funding" in the sense of giving politicians £££s.
I think the trips are wrong and a soft form of corruption. Why do people not ask, when being offered something, what might be looked for in exchange (see @Cyclefree for details)? I'd frankly be a lot more concerned about this sort of lack of judgment than what she did with her ex council house before she was even an MP.
I don't really agree with Rayner's politics but I am delighted that she actually has some. We seem to have moved into a world where people aspire to office for the sake of having office and prestige rather than being motivated by how society should be improved and the vulnerable assisted. This afflicts all parties and seems a consequence of the death of ideology as a basis for party membership. Pragmatism slips so, so easily into not really caring or, even worse, doing something for the sake of being seen to do something (Rwanda inevitably comes to mind).
This scandal is even worse, if possible, than the Post Office one and it is long past the time for those affected to receive compensation, even though because of the delays - which now seem to me to be deliberate on the part of the state as they happen in every such case - 3/4 of those who were infected have died.
Good to see the ST campaigning on this. I wonder if this a side effect of the PO matter.
It might be a side-effect of the Rayner story that is led by the Mail with unenthusiastic participation by the Telegraph. The ST needed a rival story and so revived the contaminated blood scandal.
Delays are not deliberate in the sense there is a Machiavellian moustache-twirler in the Treasury but follow from the inquiry model we use. We need a new approach; whether we go to air industry no-blame inquiries or not, we need to separate the two strands of what went wrong from who got hurt. There is no reason we cannot pay no-fault compensation to the victims even before the terms of inquiry have been drafted. The inquiry can follow on afterwards in its own sweet time.
A separate question is whether lawyers should be allowed anywhere near these inquiries, let alone run them, because they seem more interested in process and gossip than in quickly establishing what went wrong and what should be done to prevent a recurrence.
I agree with a lot of that.
Compensation should be separate to an inquiry and paid much sooner.
Inquiries should be for the purpose of establishing what happened and why so that measures can be put in place to prevent a recurrence. So I am in favour of air accident-style inquiries.
They go wrong when the ToR are poorly defined and they are done for a multitude of incoherent, often conflicting, purposes. The PO one seems to me to be doing it well because there is a huge amount coming out from which there is much to learn. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was another good one.
The one on Covid seems to me to be an utter mess. Not impressed with either the ToR or the lead counsel. I wasn't very impressed with the Leveson one either.
Investigations - which is what inquiries really are - are a mixture of an art and science. You need to have a really clear focus and tight control of what is going on in order to avoid them turning into a mess of process and gossip. Lawyers can be good at running them but they need to be the right sort of lawyers. Not all lawyers are. My team, for instance, was multi-disciplinary and, if anything, I have a slight bias against lawyers because being a good lawyer or, even, a good litigator, does not necessarily make you a good investigator. And too many lawyers do not necessarily get that.
The PO inquiry report should be terminal for the PO. But it is also putting much of the legal profession on trial and what is coming out is not pretty at all. Very much worse than that, IMO.
I am going to write about this separately. But my very strong impression from having watched some of the recent evidence is that what we are seeing about the culture within quite a lot of law firms and legal teams is a culture as bad as that which obtained in City firms in the lead up to the financial crisis - and for many of the same reasons.
Lawyers - all of us - are going to have to take a good hard look at ourselves, our culture, our working practices and our ethics. It won't be good enough to blame this just on the PO and their lawyers. Pretty much the entire legal system was suborned by one determined organisation over 2 decades. That does not show a healthy legal system - however much we can praise those lawyers who helped the subpostmasters finally start to get justice.
I struggle to get the deification of Rayner. I don’t think Fishing’s characterisation is fair but she strikes me as quite ordinary as a politician. Labour has some quality on its front bench. She’s not up there. I’d love to know just why people rate her so highly and what she has done in terms of policy to achieve this level of devotion.
As she’s working class she seems to attract admiration, in parts, from middle class commentators, mostly male, and seemingly as a way of burnishing their pro working class credentials and all of this while labour increasingly selects fewer and fewer working class candidates and more and more white collar former SPAD/London Councillor/charity/Quangocrats/Lawyer types. The party is being purged of the working class.
It’s all a bit ‘how can I hate women, my mother was one’, ‘I’ve got black friends, I’m not racist’ from the commentariat who seem to think challenging her is picking in her.
It is fair to ask questions of her, her shiftiness and evasiveness over it the whole issue has dragged it out. Sure the Tories are bad but let’s not give the other parties a free pass.
The language used, for example "shiftiness" demonstrates Colville's agenda. If he didn't want to impress upon the reader that Rayner is a "wrong 'un" he would have used, maybe, obfuscation instead?
Shiftiness is my word and I have said it about her response to this more than once. Her response to scrutiny is she doesn’t like it. Yet she is happy to dish it out. She’s getting back some of what she’s dished out. She could close this down very quickly by publishing the advice she was given. So why not. Instead she makes stupid demands for the PM and Chancellor to publish 15 years of tax records
Colville is saying honesty matters and he’s right. He’s not saying she’s a wrong un or a right un.
Why is it a stupid demand? The Conservatives are making a huge fuss based on not much about what would, if true, be a small amount of tax unpaid. There have been questions raised about senior Conservatives’ taxes and they didn’t publish details. It seems hypocritical and Rayner is calling out the hypocrisy.
Of course she isn’t. It’s a stupid demand for two reasons. Firstly neither of them are under suspicion of anything and secondly it is totally disproportionate.
Actually there’s a third reason, it fails to draw a line under the matter it just helps perpetuate it.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
What is Freeman (and your) goal? To make prostitution illegal? If so how would this be enforced? Wouldn’t it be better to go the opposite way and regulate the industry, as in many other countries?
How would you "regulate" an industry that is, by its very nature, "hush-hush, hoosh-hoosh"?
Er, there are countless international examples. It is legal in Germany, for example, and regulated and taxed properly like any other sector of the economy.
This scandal is even worse, if possible, than the Post Office one and it is long past the time for those affected to receive compensation, even though because of the delays - which now seem to me to be deliberate on the part of the state as they happen in every such case - 3/4 of those who were infected have died.
Good to see the ST campaigning on this. I wonder if this a side effect of the PO matter.
When I listed the legal and governmental scandals of the last 20 years or so in relation to one of your excellent pieces on the Post Office I had this as number one. The consequences have been so devastating, the rights and wrongs are so self evident and yet it drags on and on and on. It brings shame on all of us.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
I’d have thought all this is obvious. Of course in some cases the work is coerced and that is rightly illegal. But in many cases it isn’t
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
Yes. Instinctively I think it’s rather like the paradox associated with recreational drugs: many of the worst elements of the industry are direct consequences of its prohibition.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
I’d have thought all this is obvious. Of course in some cases the work is coerced and that is rightly illegal. But in many cases it isn’t
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
Yes. Instinctively I think it’s rather like the paradox associated with recreational drugs: many of the worst elements of the industry are direct consequences of its prohibition.
Prostitution isn't illegal in Britain.
Brothel-keeping, pimping and solicitation are illegal.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
I’d have thought all this is obvious. Of course in some cases the work is coerced and that is rightly illegal. But in many cases it isn’t
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
Yes. Instinctively I think it’s rather like the paradox associated with recreational drugs: many of the worst elements of the industry are direct consequences of its prohibition.
Prostitution is not prohibited.
The act isn’t but soliciting itself is illegal so the industry acts underground as a largely unregulated sector. What is your goal? To make it illegal or to regulate it?
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
I’d have thought all this is obvious. Of course in some cases the work is coerced and that is rightly illegal. But in many cases it isn’t
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
Yes. Instinctively I think it’s rather like the paradox associated with recreational drugs: many of the worst elements of the industry are direct consequences of its prohibition.
Prostitution isn't illegal in Britain.
Brothel-keeping, pimping and solicitation are illegal.
I struggle to get the deification of Rayner. I don’t think Fishing’s characterisation is fair but she strikes me as quite ordinary as a politician. Labour has some quality on its front bench. She’s not up there. I’d love to know just why people rate her so highly and what she has done in terms of policy to achieve this level of devotion.
As she’s working class she seems to attract admiration, in parts, from middle class commentators, mostly male, and seemingly as a way of burnishing their pro working class credentials and all of this while labour increasingly selects fewer and fewer working class candidates and more and more white collar former SPAD/London Councillor/charity/Quangocrats/Lawyer types. The party is being purged of the working class.
It’s all a bit ‘how can I hate women, my mother was one’, ‘I’ve got black friends, I’m not racist’ from the commentariat who seem to think challenging her is picking in her.
It is fair to ask questions of her, her shiftiness and evasiveness over it the whole issue has dragged it out. Sure the Tories are bad but let’s not give the other parties a free pass.
The language used, for example "shiftiness" demonstrates Colville's agenda. If he didn't want to impress upon the reader that Rayner is a "wrong 'un" he would have used, maybe, obfuscation instead?
Shiftiness is my word and I have said it about her response to this more than once. Her response to scrutiny is she doesn’t like it. Yet she is happy to dish it out. She’s getting back some of what she’s dished out. She could close this down very quickly by publishing the advice she was given. So why not. Instead she makes stupid demands for the PM and Chancellor to publish 15 years of tax records
Colville is saying honesty matters and he’s right. He’s not saying she’s a wrong un or a right un.
Why is it a stupid demand? The Conservatives are making a huge fuss based on not much about what would, if true, be a small amount of tax unpaid. There have been questions raised about senior Conservatives’ taxes and they didn’t publish details. It seems hypocritical and Rayner is calling out the hypocrisy.
Of course she isn’t. It’s a stupid demand for two reasons. Firstly neither of them are under suspicion of anything and secondly it is totally disproportionate.
Actually there’s a third reason, it fails to draw a line under the matter it just helps perpetuate it.
It's past 8.30am and Mark Rowley is still in office. No way will he still be there by the end of tomorrow.
The question is who he'll take with him. The push to ban anti-genocide demonstrations seems pretty damned serious.
Is there a market on
* next person to leave the cabinet? * Cleverly to leave the cabinet by [date]? * Sunak to leave office before the end of May?
I stopped reading the following piece from the Lebedev press when I reached the word "experts", but it seems effort is still being put into Susan Hall's campaign, even at this late stage:
I was left with the same question here - Mark Rowley who?
But I see he is the boss of the Met, which is disappointing.
I wanted him to be either the actor playing a libidinous Frenchman, or an actual libidinous Frenchman - which is at least all the recent Presidents, and probably all of them. Then I could apply some words for life, @TSE style, or following the actions of the Spectator elite in Paris, in their heads, with respect to girls with pearls.
A frog he would a-wooing go, Heigh ho! says Rowley, A frog he would a-wooing go, Whether his mother would let him or no. With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.
So off he set with his opera hat, Heigh ho! says Rowley, So off he set with his opera hat, And on the road he met with a rat, With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.... https://wordsforlife.org.uk/activities/frog-he-would-wooing-go/
Former chair of the GMP federation defends the met and the anti semitic policing compacting it to soccer rivalry.
In both cases I would expect the police to arrest those who kick off. A jew wearing a yarmulka should be able to walk through a crowd of Muslims, and a Man C supporter should be able to walk through a crowd of Man U fans
There are two or three parts. The "openly Jewish" bit was disgraceful and ignorant and it needs to be clear to every officer that is unnacceptable. The threatening arrest was unnecessary.
However not allowing him to walk directly through the march is a fairly standard part of policing. Happens every week at football matches, would happen today if protestors want to walk through the marathon course.
Broadly agree - irrespective of what you think is your "right" to walk the King's Highway unimpeded in all circumstances, the Police have a greater responsibility to maintain public order and if that inconveniences you, so be it. I do agree the opening comment was unacceptable but I wouldn't expect to be allowed to cross a road in the middle of a demonstration or a major event.
Rights are not absolute - they come with obligations and responsibilities. Sometimes those seeking to assert those rights forget the second bit. We need I think to re-orient the debate away from the rights of the individual to the societal obligations and responsibilities of the individual.
Surely people have an obligation not to be "provoked" into violence. If you twat someone because you think they are Jewish, an Arsenal fan, or even because they have called you a c**t, you have chosen to do so and should be held responsible for your actions.
he's an arsehole who was trying to provoke a riot, treat him the same as those anti abortion idiots who protest outside clinics
He's an arsehole for wanting to walk to his home?
Or an arsehole for being openly Jewish?
What a disgusting, racist thing for you to say.
The only thing that is arsehole behaviour is not thinking its OK for Jews to be about in London. The problem with the Met response is that they don't seem to think the attitude displayed was a problem, just the way the attitude was articulated. That they should act the same way next time, but just not verbalise what they're doing. Despicable.
He lives in Hendon not central London. All this guy is doing is trying to make a name for himself off the back of a load of dead Palestinian children.
So not only can Jews not walk through parts of London, people from Hendon aren't welcome through Central London either?
How vile.
Would you say the same to a lady in a burqa threatened with arrest for simply wearing a burqa near an EDL march?
As for planning Donkeys talking about an antiracism counter protest near a racist protest that has been causing abuse such as this, that is something to be applauded.
Puh-lease go and clutch your pearls elsewhere. He was following the noble tradition of being an arsehole and wasting police time to make a point. Simple as that.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
I’d have thought all this is obvious. Of course in some cases the work is coerced and that is rightly illegal. But in many cases it isn’t
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
Yes. Instinctively I think it’s rather like the paradox associated with recreational drugs: many of the worst elements of the industry are direct consequences of its prohibition.
Prostitution isn't illegal in Britain.
Brothel-keeping, pimping and solicitation are illegal.
And kerb crawling. Prostitution remains legal but quite how sex workers are supposed to meet their clients is beyond me. And maybe that is the point.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
I’d have thought all this is obvious. Of course in some cases the work is coerced and that is rightly illegal. But in many cases it isn’t
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
Yes. Instinctively I think it’s rather like the paradox associated with recreational drugs: many of the worst elements of the industry are direct consequences of its prohibition.
Prostitution isn't illegal in Britain.
Brothel-keeping, pimping and solicitation are illegal.
And kerb crawling. Prostitution remains legal but quite how sex workers are supposed to meet their clients is beyond me. And maybe that is the point.
Well, quite. It is similar to saying being high on recreational drugs isn’t illegal: only their possession. The illegality of soliciting creates an unregulated industry in the black economy.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
I’d have thought all this is obvious. Of course in some cases the work is coerced and that is rightly illegal. But in many cases it isn’t
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
Yes. Instinctively I think it’s rather like the paradox associated with recreational drugs: many of the worst elements of the industry are direct consequences of its prohibition.
Prostitution isn't illegal in Britain.
Brothel-keeping, pimping and solicitation are illegal.
Yes, I know. See my posts above.
I don't know what the best thing to do is in relation to prostitution, but I saw an opportunity for pedantry and I took it.
I've read articles by the late Laura Lee, and find myself convinced that there's a place for prostitution that isn't sordid and abusive. But reading articles by others, and the reality of the vast majority of prostitution, including in countries where it is more in the open, is that it is abusive, and I find myself convinced that this is an inherent part of the thing itself.
And then, just as with illegal drugs, I am also persuaded that prohibition is futile and regulation and other approaches might be a better way to reduce demand, supply and the harm created by the residual.
What I do think is that most of the British population is quite happy with the current legal status of prostitution. It's not illegal, but all the elements that would make people notice it too much are, so most of the time most people can pretend it isn't happening, while those who buy or sell are free to do as they please.
I’m listening to Edward Chisholm’s brilliant “A Waiter in Paris” on audiobook as I walk down the Quai d’Orsay, in Paris (does it get any more Parisian?)
It’s a brilliant book. Sample passage
“Adrien is one of those Parisian waiters that you encounter everywhere across the city, the kind that you feel instantly dislikes you, who is inconvenienced by the very fact you’ve even come into a restaurant, let alone that you are expecting to exchange money for food and, on top of that, that you expect him - a waiter! - to bring it to you.”
Sounds like a bit of a standard cilchéd view of Parisian waiters. Could have been written by AI in fact.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
I’d have thought all this is obvious. Of course in some cases the work is coerced and that is rightly illegal. But in many cases it isn’t
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
Yes. Instinctively I think it’s rather like the paradox associated with recreational drugs: many of the worst elements of the industry are direct consequences of its prohibition.
Prostitution isn't illegal in Britain.
Brothel-keeping, pimping and solicitation are illegal.
And kerb crawling. Prostitution remains legal but quite how sex workers are supposed to meet their clients is beyond me. And maybe that is the point.
Most of these laws are not exactly strictly enforced. The Spectator correspondent didn't have much trouble finding a brothel while in an unfamiliar small city. The internet makes solicitation a lot easier than before.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
Quite. Also this is a matter of personal liberty. If you want to sell your body for sex that should be your choice, just as you might want to sell it to be a dancer, footballer, factory worker, bin man, fighting in the army, dropping bombs by drone, or coal miner. Equally you should be allowed to sell your mind for whatever you like: banking, writing, lawyering, campaigning for nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn, creating ad copy that persuades people to buy rubbish. We may disapprove of some choices, but that’s the point of freedom. People will do stuff you don’t like. Cope
Besides, with the advent of AI, whoring might be the only job left. Lawyering is bound to go. @Cyclefree should not rule out career choices so casually
A choice - yeah, right.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
I’d have thought all this is obvious. Of course in some cases the work is coerced and that is rightly illegal. But in many cases it isn’t
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
Yes. Instinctively I think it’s rather like the paradox associated with recreational drugs: many of the worst elements of the industry are direct consequences of its prohibition.
Prostitution isn't illegal in Britain.
Brothel-keeping, pimping and solicitation are illegal.
You are allowed to do it, but not allowed to do the ancilliary activities relating to it. The results of that setup is predictable: a class structure with evah-so-sophisticated courtesans at one end that are never interrogated, and strung-out drug addicts at the other that are never cared for. This happened with prostitution and drugs and did happen with male homosexuality before AIDS forced a different settlement. It's a very distinctively British structure.
We are having a nice conversation about the skulduggery surrounding Raynergate, Malcolm's Conservatism and a potential Tory collapse in Hampshire.
I think you may have posted in the wrong blog- again!
The Ravens haven't abandoned the Tower - there are still Englishmen who like to discuss the weather.
I can confirm the French are also keen to talk about it. The Parisians are staring at the sky with incomprehension, as they wrap themselves with scarves and coats. Honestly it’s like a partly sunny but bracing day in late February. The sun looks ok but the wind blasts down the boulevard, so 6C feels colder if you’re not in the sun
I can’t help but notice that it was right after the Southern Baptist Conference called on Congress to pass the Ukraine aid bill that Johnson finally agreed to bring it to the floor. https://twitter.com/DanaHoule/status/1781900532623212736
Very probably. His favourite story about Trump, apparently, was when he was called up by the then President and asked to vote for some measure that he did not feel he could support. He was reading the book of Daniel at the time, the passage where Daniel is interpreting the dreams (as you do). He mentioned this and told Trump that he would pray for him as President once the conversation was finished. There was a long silence and then the Donald replied, "Well, tell God I say hi."
AHRefs summary: He argues that the fundamental problem in the British and global economy is not a lack of productivity or economic growth, but rather a growing inequality in wealth distribution. He disagrees with the common narrative that low productivity is the root cause of falling living standards and points out that living standards are declining worldwide, not just in the UK. He highlights the disconnect between the rapid increase in wealth among the richest individuals and the stagnation or decline in living standards for ordinary people. He then goes on to criticize economists and politicians, who often come from wealthy backgrounds, for attributing economic woes to productivity issues without addressing the underlying problem of inequality. He finishes by emphasizing the need to address the growing wealth gap and calls for a shift in focus from economic growth to tackling inequality as a solution to improving living standards for all.
They are part and parcel of the same thing. A rapidly growing economy is a socially mobile economy. It will become more equal, as we saw in Victorian Britain. Stopping the engine so we can ponder why billionaires have so many billions and how we might take a bit off them (clue: we can't) will exacerbate the situation. As I have said before, I watched an interview with an investment fund manager who demanded that the management of BP did less exploration. They liked the high profits that came from energy being scarse people paying through the nose.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.
It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.
I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.
There's an in depth article about Angela Rayner, the bits in bold are huge red flags for me and soon she could be a heartbeat away from being PM with her finger on the Trident button.
Beyond the brash exterior is a vulnerable and anxious woman. She is an insomniac — she endures the long, sleepless hours by listening to audiobooks about serial killers — and trusts very few people beyond her tight inner circle; she has panic buttons installed in her house and was convinced during the Corbyn years that she was being spied upon.
and
Like Boris Johnson, whom in some ways she resembles, Rayner is a source of endless fascination and speculation. There is no one quite like her at Westminster. She is gossiped about, condescended, traduced but never ignored. Like Johnson, she has undoubted star quality. She is both self-glamorising and self-mythologising.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.
It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.
I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.
I’m listening to Edward Chisholm’s brilliant “A Waiter in Paris” on audiobook as I walk down the Quai d’Orsay, in Paris (does it get any more Parisian?)
It’s a brilliant book. Sample passage
“Adrien is one of those Parisian waiters that you encounter everywhere across the city, the kind that you feel instantly dislikes you, who is inconvenienced by the very fact you’ve even come into a restaurant, let alone that you are expecting to exchange money for food and, on top of that, that you expect him - a waiter! - to bring it to you.”
Sounds like a bit of a standard cilchéd view of Parisian waiters. Could have been written by AI in fact.
It’s the rising rhythm of absurdity which marks it out as excellent - and human. I reckon A.I. is about 6-18 months from being able to do all this
AHRefs summary: He argues that the fundamental problem in the British and global economy is not a lack of productivity or economic growth, but rather a growing inequality in wealth distribution. He disagrees with the common narrative that low productivity is the root cause of falling living standards and points out that living standards are declining worldwide, not just in the UK. He highlights the disconnect between the rapid increase in wealth among the richest individuals and the stagnation or decline in living standards for ordinary people. He then goes on to criticize economists and politicians, who often come from wealthy backgrounds, for attributing economic woes to productivity issues without addressing the underlying problem of inequality. He finishes by emphasizing the need to address the growing wealth gap and calls for a shift in focus from economic growth to tackling inequality as a solution to improving living standards for all.
They are part and parcel of the same thing. A rapidly growing economy is a socially mobile economy. It will become more equal, as we saw in Victorian Britain. Stopping the engine so we can ponder why billionaires have so many billions and how we might take a bit off them (clue: we can't) will exacerbate the situation. As I have said before, I watched an interview with an investment fund manager who demanded that the management of BP did less exploration. They liked the high profits that came from energy being scarse people paying through the nose.
That's a good and persuasive answer, but I'm not sure it reflects reality. In order to have a Government we have to tax *something* and the "don't tax the rich" approach of the last X decades hasn't worked: we're up to our knees in debt, we have a continually expanding government that doesn't achieve its goals and our lives get worse. Your example of a rapidly growing economy may have worked in the past (for a given definition of "worked"), but I'm not sure it's happening now. People are imported to force working-class wages down, and the profits are exported outside the UK. Growth won't fix that, it'll make it worse.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.
It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.
I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.
I’m listening to Edward Chisholm’s brilliant “A Waiter in Paris” on audiobook as I walk down the Quai d’Orsay, in Paris (does it get any more Parisian?)
It’s a brilliant book. Sample passage
“Adrien is one of those Parisian waiters that you encounter everywhere across the city, the kind that you feel instantly dislikes you, who is inconvenienced by the very fact you’ve even come into a restaurant, let alone that you are expecting to exchange money for food and, on top of that, that you expect him - a waiter! - to bring it to you.”
Sounds like a bit of a standard cilchéd view of Parisian waiters. Could have been written by AI in fact.
It’s the rising rhythm of absurdity which marks it out as excellent - and human. I reckon A.I. is about 6-18 months from being able to do all this
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.
It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.
I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.
It's past 8.30am and Mark Rowley is still in office. No way will he still be there by the end of tomorrow.
The question is who he'll take with him. The push to ban anti-genocide demonstrations seems pretty damned serious.
Is there a market on
* next person to leave the cabinet? * Cleverly to leave the cabinet by [date]? * Sunak to leave office before the end of May?
I stopped reading the following piece from the Lebedev press when I reached the word "experts", but it seems effort is still being put into Susan Hall's campaign, even at this late stage:
I was left with the same question here - Mark Rowley who?
But I see he is the boss of the Met, which is disappointing.
I wanted him to be either the actor playing a libidinous Frenchman, or an actual libidinous Frenchman - which is at least all the recent Presidents, and probably all of them. Then I could apply some words for life, @TSE style, or following the actions of the Spectator elite in Paris, in their heads, with respect to girls with pearls.
A frog he would a-wooing go, Heigh ho! says Rowley, A frog he would a-wooing go, Whether his mother would let him or no. With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.
So off he set with his opera hat, Heigh ho! says Rowley, So off he set with his opera hat, And on the road he met with a rat, With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.... https://wordsforlife.org.uk/activities/frog-he-would-wooing-go/
Former chair of the GMP federation defends the met and the anti semitic policing compacting it to soccer rivalry.
In both cases I would expect the police to arrest those who kick off. A jew wearing a yarmulka should be able to walk through a crowd of Muslims, and a Man C supporter should be able to walk through a crowd of Man U fans
There are two or three parts. The "openly Jewish" bit was disgraceful and ignorant and it needs to be clear to every officer that is unnacceptable. The threatening arrest was unnecessary.
However not allowing him to walk directly through the march is a fairly standard part of policing. Happens every week at football matches, would happen today if protestors want to walk through the marathon course.
Broadly agree - irrespective of what you think is your "right" to walk the King's Highway unimpeded in all circumstances, the Police have a greater responsibility to maintain public order and if that inconveniences you, so be it. I do agree the opening comment was unacceptable but I wouldn't expect to be allowed to cross a road in the middle of a demonstration or a major event.
Rights are not absolute - they come with obligations and responsibilities. Sometimes those seeking to assert those rights forget the second bit. We need I think to re-orient the debate away from the rights of the individual to the societal obligations and responsibilities of the individual.
Surely people have an obligation not to be "provoked" into violence. If you twat someone because you think they are Jewish, an Arsenal fan, or even because they have called you a c**t, you have chosen to do so and should be held responsible for your actions.
he's an arsehole who was trying to provoke a riot, treat him the same as those anti abortion idiots who protest outside clinics
He's an arsehole for wanting to walk to his home?
Or an arsehole for being openly Jewish?
What a disgusting, racist thing for you to say.
The only thing that is arsehole behaviour is not thinking its OK for Jews to be about in London. The problem with the Met response is that they don't seem to think the attitude displayed was a problem, just the way the attitude was articulated. That they should act the same way next time, but just not verbalise what they're doing. Despicable.
He lives in Hendon not central London. All this guy is doing is trying to make a name for himself off the back of a load of dead Palestinian children.
So not only can Jews not walk through parts of London, people from Hendon aren't welcome through Central London either?
How vile.
Would you say the same to a lady in a burqa threatened with arrest for simply wearing a burqa near an EDL march?
As for planning Donkeys talking about an antiracism counter protest near a racist protest that has been causing abuse such as this, that is something to be applauded.
Puh-lease go and clutch your pearls elsewhere. He was following the noble tradition of being an arsehole and wasting police time to make a point. Simple as that.
It's past 8.30am and Mark Rowley is still in office. No way will he still be there by the end of tomorrow.
The question is who he'll take with him. The push to ban anti-genocide demonstrations seems pretty damned serious.
Is there a market on
* next person to leave the cabinet? * Cleverly to leave the cabinet by [date]? * Sunak to leave office before the end of May?
I stopped reading the following piece from the Lebedev press when I reached the word "experts", but it seems effort is still being put into Susan Hall's campaign, even at this late stage:
I was left with the same question here - Mark Rowley who?
But I see he is the boss of the Met, which is disappointing.
I wanted him to be either the actor playing a libidinous Frenchman, or an actual libidinous Frenchman - which is at least all the recent Presidents, and probably all of them. Then I could apply some words for life, @TSE style, or following the actions of the Spectator elite in Paris, in their heads, with respect to girls with pearls.
A frog he would a-wooing go, Heigh ho! says Rowley, A frog he would a-wooing go, Whether his mother would let him or no. With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.
So off he set with his opera hat, Heigh ho! says Rowley, So off he set with his opera hat, And on the road he met with a rat, With a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach, Heigh ho! says Anthony Rowley.... https://wordsforlife.org.uk/activities/frog-he-would-wooing-go/
Former chair of the GMP federation defends the met and the anti semitic policing compacting it to soccer rivalry.
In both cases I would expect the police to arrest those who kick off. A jew wearing a yarmulka should be able to walk through a crowd of Muslims, and a Man C supporter should be able to walk through a crowd of Man U fans
There are two or three parts. The "openly Jewish" bit was disgraceful and ignorant and it needs to be clear to every officer that is unnacceptable. The threatening arrest was unnecessary.
However not allowing him to walk directly through the march is a fairly standard part of policing. Happens every week at football matches, would happen today if protestors want to walk through the marathon course.
Broadly agree - irrespective of what you think is your "right" to walk the King's Highway unimpeded in all circumstances, the Police have a greater responsibility to maintain public order and if that inconveniences you, so be it. I do agree the opening comment was unacceptable but I wouldn't expect to be allowed to cross a road in the middle of a demonstration or a major event.
Rights are not absolute - they come with obligations and responsibilities. Sometimes those seeking to assert those rights forget the second bit. We need I think to re-orient the debate away from the rights of the individual to the societal obligations and responsibilities of the individual.
Surely people have an obligation not to be "provoked" into violence. If you twat someone because you think they are Jewish, an Arsenal fan, or even because they have called you a c**t, you have chosen to do so and should be held responsible for your actions.
he's an arsehole who was trying to provoke a riot, treat him the same as those anti abortion idiots who protest outside clinics
He's an arsehole for wanting to walk to his home?
Or an arsehole for being openly Jewish?
What a disgusting, racist thing for you to say.
The only thing that is arsehole behaviour is not thinking its OK for Jews to be about in London. The problem with the Met response is that they don't seem to think the attitude displayed was a problem, just the way the attitude was articulated. That they should act the same way next time, but just not verbalise what they're doing. Despicable.
He lives in Hendon not central London. All this guy is doing is trying to make a name for himself off the back of a load of dead Palestinian children.
So not only can Jews not walk through parts of London, people from Hendon aren't welcome through Central London either?
How vile.
Would you say the same to a lady in a burqa threatened with arrest for simply wearing a burqa near an EDL march?
As for planning Donkeys talking about an antiracism counter protest near a racist protest that has been causing abuse such as this, that is something to be applauded.
Puh-lease go and clutch your pearls elsewhere. He was following the noble tradition of being an arsehole and wasting police time to make a point. Simple as that.
Have there been cases of Jews being assaulted when adjacent to pro Palestine marches (most of which seem to include Jews afaics)? Don’t remember any being highlighted, presume Rachel Reilly and Suella would have gone mental on Twitter if they had.
Perhaps Scotland can offer a perspective. It used to be the case than anyone trying to cross one of the hundreds of Orange marches a year would get the shit kicked out of them with a blind eye turned by the cops, now those assaulters will be prosecuted which is of course progress. I assume however that anyone wearing a Celtic top would be restrained from mingling with the marchers, though hopefully the restraining copper wouldn’t tell them that they looked obviously Taig.
Spotted a potential star. Some dude called “Edgar Degas”. Very good at dancers and the working poor, just a few pencil marks or adroit brushstrokes and he captures the subject
Of course you should be able to walk wherever you like. But you should also use common sense.
The police should have dealt with the matter more sensitively but the individual involved should also bear in mind that the police priority is to maintain order .
Alexander Armstrong cracking a joke on HIGNFY about the ludicrous hijacking of the NHS by gender propaganda. Seems to have been getting a lot of attention
Spotted a potential star. Some dude called “Edgar Degas”. Very good at dancers and the working poor, just a few pencil marks or adroit brushstrokes and he captures the subject
One to watch. Remember who told you
I’ve heard on the grapevine that he does a nifty sideline in sculpture too. Could be the new Damian Hurst with a bit of good fortune.
Of course you should be able to walk wherever you like. But you should also use common sense.
The police should have dealt with the matter more sensitively but the individual involved should also bear in mind that the police priority is to maintain order .
No, we don't live in a Police State whereby order trumps liberty.
The Police priority is to enforce the law.
The individual broke no law and should be free to go about his business, within the law, as he pleases.
Only those who break the law should be arrested or threatened with arrest. Not those who wear short skirts or yamukahs or anything else that might provoke criminals into raping them, beating them up or whatever.
J K Rowling tweeting that Dr Hilary Cass feels she can no longer safely travel on public transport. Jeez.
Just incredible how this irrational trans ideology has taken hold. A deadly mixture of woke and identity politics.
Had a long discussion last night with my 21yo youngest daughter. She is at Edinburgh Uni and told me that a lot of her friends think emotions and feelings are more important than facts when making decisions - lived experience is more valid than measurable outcomes or the law. What on earth have we done in educating that generation? Social media has done so much damage.
The new CEO of NPR in the US has explicitly said that seeking the truth is a problem:
“Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction getting in the way of finding common ground & getting things done.”
I can top that. The then US President got much of the country to believe he hadn’t lost an election that, in truth, he had lost.
Hillary Clinton got much of the country to believe that she was legitimate winner in 2016 too.
She and Liz Truss would get on.
To be fair she got almost 3m more votes than the Orange One. She just didn’t win enough States.
Shoulda woulda coulda.
She lost. And she's learnt nothing from it, even today.
She lost because of the system. As Attlee did in 1951. And as he did, accepted it. Doesn’t mean it’s a fair system, or a good one.
She lost because she was a shit candidate.
There's no dressing that up.
Can I suggest a compromise?
She lost because it was an unfair system *and* she was a shit candidate?
Well, it's a system designed for electing a President of the United States of America, which is a federation of those same States- hence the electoral college electing the President via weighted delegates from each State.
It's not a unitary state so winning the popular vote means nothing unless you win the electoral college too.
Smaller states have disproportionally more electors per capita than the larger states.
That's a deliberate decision to prevent the small states being overly dominated by the large ones. It's a feature of the design. Everyone knows that is part of the rules.
The popular vote is good for bragging rights and in terms of measuring the size of a victory, but the system is decided on electoral college votes.
There's a practical benefit to the electoral college in the current environment which is that no state can rig the election by more than the electoral votes held by that state.
Swing state by definition have a lot of voters from either side. As a result their statehouses are either split between the parties or have a lot of members who represent people who vote for the other party. Likewise their supreme courts aren't usually under strong partisan control of one side. The result is that it's quite hard to make a swing state rig their elections, although you can tinker at the margins.
This isn't true of a one-party state. If one side has full, permanent control of every lever of power there's nothing to force them to honestly count the votes cast for the other side. That doesn't matter with the electoral college because they were going to cast all their electoral votes for their favoured party anyhow, but once you're counting the national popular vote it matters whether you have honest elections in every state, and there isn't really a system in place to ensure this.
That's an interesting point.
The popular vote winning margin in 2016 was about 3 million votes, and Clinton received more than 6 million votes in the States which had a winning margin for Trump at least as big as Indiana: Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Idaho, Kentucky, South Dakota, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Louisiana, Indiana.
Indiana has Republican supermajorities in its Senate (70-30) and House of Representatives (39-10).
OK, but I find the opposite argument much more convincing, in terms of making it more difficult to rig the election. Take 2016 - Clinton won by 3 million votes, it's quite hard to find an extra 3 million votes (Republicans didn't find the 12,000 votes they needed in Georgia in 2020 despite holding a trifecta in that state, and not being averse to a bit of voter suppression there as we know). You'd only have needed to find 80,000 votes to flip the electoral college from Trump to Clinton in 2016.
Of course you should be able to walk wherever you like. But you should also use common sense.
The police should have dealt with the matter more sensitively but the individual involved should also bear in mind that the police priority is to maintain order .
Just as a point of order - Would we use the “use common sense” argument if we were talking about the way a woman “should” dress to avoid attracting unwelcome attention? That is an argument that has been widely accepted to be misogynistic - on the grounds that it’s blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator. What is the difference here?
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.
It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.
I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.
Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.
Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?
And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.
If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.
Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.
Of course you should be able to walk wherever you like. But you should also use common sense.
The police should have dealt with the matter more sensitively but the individual involved should also bear in mind that the police priority is to maintain order .
Just as a point of order - Would we use the “use common sense” argument if we were talking about the way a woman “should” dress to avoid attracting unwelcome attention? That is an argument that has been widely accepted to be misogynistic - on the grounds that it’s blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator. What is the difference here?
Of course you should be able to walk wherever you like. But you should also use common sense.
The police should have dealt with the matter more sensitively but the individual involved should also bear in mind that the police priority is to maintain order .
No, we don't live in a Police State whereby order trumps liberty.
The Police priority is to enforce the law.
The individual broke no law and should be free to go about his business, within the law, as he pleases.
Only those who break the law should be arrested or threatened with arrest. Not those who wear short skirts or yamukahs or anything else that might provoke criminals into raping them, beating them up or whatever.
Indeed. Even taking the police at their own justification for sake of argument, you'd need a situation where someone is being genuinely provocative. Simply being alive whilst openly jewish is not that - although apparently a lot of people think it is - and the policeman in this case was very worried by that specific fact. In essence, an admission he thought the protest would become a mob due to someone's race. That seems to me to be an even bigger concern than the policeman's words. But to provoke surely requires more than just going near some others, it would have to require some kind of intent to inflame by more than one's mere presence.
And even then the 'provocateur' would not be responsible for the criminal acts of others, so the argument falls down anyway.
It's a classic 'X was wrong, but Y should bear some responsibility for being sensible' false equivalence (it's not claimed as equivalence, but that is its efffect).
People are not required to be sensible at all times, they shouldn't be in fear of assault or harrassment by others for not being sensible, nor should they face possible arrest for not being sensible.
I struggle to get the deification of Rayner. I don’t think Fishing’s characterisation is fair but she strikes me as quite ordinary as a politician. Labour has some quality on its front bench. She’s not up there. I’d love to know just why people rate her so highly and what she has done in terms of policy to achieve this level of devotion.
As she’s working class she seems to attract admiration, in parts, from middle class commentators, mostly male, and seemingly as a way of burnishing their pro working class credentials and all of this while labour increasingly selects fewer and fewer working class candidates and more and more white collar former SPAD/London Councillor/charity/Quangocrats/Lawyer types. The party is being purged of the working class.
It’s all a bit ‘how can I hate women, my mother was one’, ‘I’ve got black friends, I’m not racist’ from the commentariat who seem to think challenging her is picking in her.
It is fair to ask questions of her, her shiftiness and evasiveness over it the whole issue has dragged it out. Sure the Tories are bad but let’s not give the other parties a free pass.
The language used, for example "shiftiness" demonstrates Colville's agenda. If he didn't want to impress upon the reader that Rayner is a "wrong 'un" he would have used, maybe, obfuscation instead?
Shiftiness is my word and I have said it about her response to this more than once. Her response to scrutiny is she doesn’t like it. Yet she is happy to dish it out. She’s getting back some of what she’s dished out. She could close this down very quickly by publishing the advice she was given. So why not. Instead she makes stupid demands for the PM and Chancellor to publish 15 years of tax records
Colville is saying honesty matters and he’s right. He’s not saying she’s a wrong un or a right un.
At the level in question, any advice could well have been verbal. More than a decade ago. And HMRC regulations have clear rules on how long one need keep personal tax. Which is not that long.
You sound like those Home Office bureaucrats demanding to see a full run of bank accounts back to the 1980s before they will believe someone actually lived in the UK.
There will be her conveyancers records though
But that doesn't record anything other than the completed sale. Not the tax. That is for the vendor to do personally.
Spotted a potential star. Some dude called “Edgar Degas”. Very good at dancers and the working poor, just a few pencil marks or adroit brushstrokes and he captures the subject
One to watch. Remember who told you
I’ve heard on the grapevine that he does a nifty sideline in sculpture too. Could be the new Damian Hurst with a bit of good fortune.
Of course you should be able to walk wherever you like. But you should also use common sense.
The police should have dealt with the matter more sensitively but the individual involved should also bear in mind that the police priority is to maintain order .
Just as a point of order - Would we use the “use common sense” argument if we were talking about the way a woman “should” dress to avoid attracting unwelcome attention? That is an argument that has been widely accepted to be misogynistic - on the grounds that it’s blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator. What is the difference here?
The difference is we’re dealing with a march in a very polarized environment.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.
It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.
I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.
Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.
Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?
And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.
If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.
Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.
It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.
I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.
Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.
Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?
And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.
If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.
Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.
She needs to tell us what nomination she made when she got married about her house for tax purposes.
Easy peasy.
We don't even care what her husband said or pocketed upon sale of his house.
We just want to know what she said - or didn't say - to HMRC.
Is the issue.
If the police and HMRC request that information fair enough, but she has no requirement to furnish you, Laura Kuenssberg or the Daily Mail with that kind of detail.
No requirement but I think a duty.
She’s in public life. There has been a legitimate question asked. She has the proof one way or another - and is refusing to provide it
A legitimate question was asked about what did the Conservative Party know about the Menzies affair when. They have the proof one way or another - and are refusing to provide it.
A legitimate question was asked about Rishi Sunak's green card status while Chancellor. Sunak has the proof one way or another - and is refusing to provide it.
A legitimate question was asked about how Liz Truss included an anti-semitic comment in her book. She has the proof one way or another - and is refusing to provide it.
Etc. etc.
No - you are interpreting “legitimate question” in an entirely partisan way.
Rayner - *may* have defrauded the taxpayer. We are the victims
Menzies - may have misused party funds. That’s up to the party what they want to do.
Green card - not legitimate at all. If the US authorities want to create an issue it’s up to them. But nothing to do with anyone here
Truss - I think she (or someone on her behalf) gave some kind of explanation. But lifting a dodgy quote is sloppy writing / editing anyway, not defrauding the taxpayer
So the three counter examples you have cited are all political attacks. Not a claim of potentially defrauding the tax payer
Spotted a potential star. Some dude called “Edgar Degas”. Very good at dancers and the working poor, just a few pencil marks or adroit brushstrokes and he captures the subject
One to watch. Remember who told you
I’ve heard on the grapevine that he does a nifty sideline in sculpture too. Could be the new Damian Hurst with a bit of good fortune.
He’s really good. Seriously. I’ve got the same feeling I had when I first heard about what3words. Keep your eye out
Also “Auguste Renoir”. Does pretty ladies in Montmartre. Kind of a cliche - oui oui, accordions and crepes - yet he carries it off vividly and cleverly. A significant talent, I think I’m the first to notice it
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.
It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.
I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.
Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.
Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?
And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.
If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.
Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.
Prohibition does not work.
Do you think Hamas should be prohibited?
Interesting question, I see what you did there.
Hamas are a terrorism group. Terrorism is illegal. Therefore it makes sense for them to be prohibited.
Of course the prohibition of terrorism doesn't eliminate all terrorism but I'm not so liberal that I advocate the legalisation of murder.
I do believe that currently illicit drugs, non-illicit but harmful drugs like tobacco, sex trade etc while all a bad idea should be legal but discouraged.
She needs to tell us what nomination she made when she got married about her house for tax purposes.
Easy peasy.
We don't even care what her husband said or pocketed upon sale of his house.
We just want to know what she said - or didn't say - to HMRC.
Is the issue.
If the police and HMRC request that information fair enough, but she has no requirement to furnish you, Laura Kuenssberg or the Daily Mail with that kind of detail.
No requirement but I think a duty.
She’s in public life. There has been a legitimate question asked. She has the proof one way or another - and is refusing to provide it
In that case I demand to see details of Mr Sunak and Mr Hunt's tax affairs. And while we are at it, let's have a look at Johnson's and Zahawi's tax returns.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.
It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.
I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.
Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.
Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?
And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.
If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.
Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.
Prohibition does not work.
Agreed. I’m still unclear whether that is the goal of @cyclefree or complete illegality (or something else).
Spotted a potential star. Some dude called “Edgar Degas”. Very good at dancers and the working poor, just a few pencil marks or adroit brushstrokes and he captures the subject
Spotted a potential star. Some dude called “Edgar Degas”. Very good at dancers and the working poor, just a few pencil marks or adroit brushstrokes and he captures the subject
One to watch. Remember who told you
Just an AI programme, I understand.
Artificial insemination? Didn't know those artists needed it.
Of course you should be able to walk wherever you like. But you should also use common sense.
The police should have dealt with the matter more sensitively but the individual involved should also bear in mind that the police priority is to maintain order .
Just as a point of order - Would we use the “use common sense” argument if we were talking about the way a woman “should” dress to avoid attracting unwelcome attention? That is an argument that has been widely accepted to be misogynistic - on the grounds that it’s blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator. What is the difference here?
The difference is we’re dealing with a march in a very polarized environment.
And there's nothing illegal with marching. The marchers are free to go about their business.
There's nothing illegal with being Jewish. Jews are free to go about their business.
If you suspect some of the marchers are so racist they'll beat up someone for being openly Jewish, and I suspect you may be right to be so suspicious, then those criminals should be arrested if they do that and face the consequences of their actions.
We don't arrest women for wearing short skirts just because men might rape them. We don't arrest those in burqas for wearing burqas just because racists might beat them up. We don't arrest those wearing yamukahs for wearing yamukahs just because racists might beat them up.
I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.
She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.
Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.
As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"
Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.
It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.
I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.
Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.
Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?
And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.
If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.
Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.
Prohibition does not work.
Do you think Hamas should be prohibited?
Interesting question, I see what you did there.
Hamas are a terrorism group. Terrorism is illegal. Therefore it makes sense for them to be prohibited.
Of course the prohibition of terrorism doesn't eliminate all terrorism but I'm not so liberal that I advocate the legalisation of murder.
I do believe that currently illicit drugs, non-illicit but harmful drugs like tobacco, sex trade etc while all a bad idea should be legal but discouraged.
Murder should remain illegal, yes.
"Hamas are a terrorism group. Terrorism is illegal. Therefore it makes sense for them to be prohibited."
You really degrade yourself, coming out with such "logic". It's so obviously shit that it's not worth explaining why.
Israel is the terrorist entity.
Yet there are British citizens who go and do some murdering in its armed forces every year. Then they come back to Britain, maybe after some R&R somewhere else. Do they get stripped of citizenship? Do they get jailed for terrorism? Do the police even show an interest in them?
Comments
The suggestion below, though, is one that the UK ought seriously to embrace, as our capacity to fund arms production exceeds our capacity to actually produce some if the urgently needed kit for Ukraine.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/brave-new-ukraine
...Nevertheless, the government is making some changes. Oleksandr Kamyshin, Ukraine’s strategic industries minister, has observed that Ukrainian industry could learn to produce various types of shells and drones and currently has $20 billion worth of production capacity. At the moment, however, the state budget can come up with no more than $6 billion for procurement. According to Kamyshin, the problem is no longer lack of capabilities but lack of funds.
But there may be ways around this problem as well. Today, many of Ukraine’s partners prefer to rely on weapons produced by their domestic markets. This is the case with the United States and Canada, just as European countries often rely on European producers. Over the last few years, some private Ukrainian companies have switched to weapons production and also managed to produce cheaper models than their Western counterparts. For instance, a Canadian Sky Ranger R70 drone costs $90,000, whereas a similar Ukrainian model costs from $10,000 to $25,000.
Now, Kamyshin has proposed to Western allies that they should purchase Ukrainian-produced weapons for Ukrainian forces, which, in addition to serving urgent frontline needs, would bring an infusion of cash to develop Ukraine’s defense sector. In fact, on April 18, Denmark became the first Western country to do so, reaching a deal with Kyiv to buy $28.5 million worth of Ukrainian-produced weapons and military equipment for Ukrainian forces...
Delays are not deliberate in the sense there is a Machiavellian moustache-twirler in the Treasury but follow from the inquiry model we use. We need a new approach; whether we go to air industry no-blame inquiries or not, we need to separate the two strands of what went wrong from who got hurt. There is no reason we cannot pay no-fault compensation to the victims even before the terms of inquiry have been drafted. The inquiry can follow on afterwards in its own sweet time.
A separate question is whether lawyers should be allowed anywhere near these inquiries, let alone run them, because they seem more interested in process and gossip than in quickly establishing what went wrong and what should be done to prevent a recurrence.
For someone who claims to be a man of the world you are remarkably ignorant about how it actually works. Or delusional - because it suits you.
I have had to do investigations into the world of prostitution - City money does not just get spent on Porsches - and the reality is about as far away from the Pretty Woman fairy story you're describing as it's possible to be. It is brutal and the men involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves - whatever delusions they may like to console themselves with.
Pop off to the Ministry and take a photo - preferably sans beggar - and send it to me, there's a good chap. You owe me for the hand mirror.
And if the Gazette publishes it I may even spend some of the vast riches I will earn on a drink for you should we ever meet.
How vile.
Would you say the same to a lady in a burqa threatened with arrest for simply wearing a burqa near an EDL march?
As for planning Donkeys talking about an antiracism counter protest near a racist protest that has been causing abuse such as this, that is something to be applauded.
My vote is to keep His Excellency The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton as Foreign Secretary.
As I live in a Lab/LD marginal my vote isn’t worth much.
You should meet REDACTED my acquaintance who does sex work with handicapped people. She honestly believes she is doing good. She is also very well paid
It’s a brilliant book. Sample passage
“Adrien is one of those Parisian waiters that you encounter everywhere across the city, the kind that you feel instantly dislikes you, who is inconvenienced by the very fact you’ve even come into a restaurant, let alone that you are expecting to exchange money for food and, on top of that, that you expect him - a waiter! - to bring it to you.”
Imagine a pro-Israel demo.
Police threaten a Muslim with arrest for being obviously Muslim, and being “provocative”.
Who thinks that sounds right?
It’s their 150th anniversaire
Let’s see if they were any good
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
1) wearing loud shirts in a built up area
2) being possession of an offensive wives
3) stepping on there cracks in the pavement
4) since Chief Inspector Savage (OBE) won his awards for anti-racism, ordering a black coffee.
I don't really agree with Rayner's politics but I am delighted that she actually has some. We seem to have moved into a world where people aspire to office for the sake of having office and prestige rather than being motivated by how society should be improved and the vulnerable assisted. This afflicts all parties and seems a consequence of the death of ideology as a basis for party membership. Pragmatism slips so, so easily into not really caring or, even worse, doing something for the sake of being seen to do something (Rwanda inevitably comes to mind).
Compensation should be separate to an inquiry and paid much sooner.
Inquiries should be for the purpose of establishing what happened and why so that measures can be put in place to prevent a recurrence. So I am in favour of air accident-style inquiries.
They go wrong when the ToR are poorly defined and they are done for a multitude of incoherent, often conflicting, purposes. The PO one seems to me to be doing it well because there is a huge amount coming out from which there is much to learn. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was another good one.
The one on Covid seems to me to be an utter mess. Not impressed with either the ToR or the lead counsel. I wasn't very impressed with the Leveson one either.
Investigations - which is what inquiries really are - are a mixture of an art and science. You need to have a really clear focus and tight control of what is going on in order to avoid them turning into a mess of process and gossip. Lawyers can be good at running them but they need to be the right sort of lawyers. Not all lawyers are. My team, for instance, was multi-disciplinary and, if anything, I have a slight bias against lawyers because being a good lawyer or, even, a good litigator, does not necessarily make you a good investigator. And too many lawyers do not necessarily get that.
The PO inquiry report should be terminal for the PO. But it is also putting much of the legal profession on trial and what is coming out is not pretty at all. Very much worse than that, IMO.
I am going to write about this separately. But my very strong impression from having watched some of the recent evidence is that what we are seeing about the culture within quite a lot of law firms and legal teams is a culture as bad as that which obtained in City firms in the lead up to the financial crisis - and for many of the same reasons.
Lawyers - all of us - are going to have to take a good hard look at ourselves, our culture, our working practices and our ethics. It won't be good enough to blame this just on the PO and their lawyers. Pretty much the entire legal system was suborned by one determined organisation over 2 decades. That does not show a healthy legal system - however much we can praise those lawyers who helped the subpostmasters finally start to get justice.
Rayner may - or may not - have made a false declaration to HMRC
Brothel-keeping, pimping and solicitation are illegal.
I've read articles by the late Laura Lee, and find myself convinced that there's a place for prostitution that isn't sordid and abusive. But reading articles by others, and the reality of the vast majority of prostitution, including in countries where it is more in the open, is that it is abusive, and I find myself convinced that this is an inherent part of the thing itself.
And then, just as with illegal drugs, I am also persuaded that prohibition is futile and regulation and other approaches might be a better way to reduce demand, supply and the harm created by the residual.
What I do think is that most of the British population is quite happy with the current legal status of prostitution. It's not illegal, but all the elements that would make people notice it too much are, so most of the time most people can pretend it isn't happening, while those who buy or sell are free to do as they please.
Could have been written by AI in fact.
That's a British sailing boat out there; must be a great way to see the Med
(water bottle for scale, Mr Dog being sotto il tavolo)
I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.
On the Yorkshire Ripper's victims - see here -
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/14/one-womans-perspective/, for instance.
Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.
Being paid to have sex while someone is videoing. Porn star. How glamorous.
Confusing.
They're a marginalised group forced into the sex industry precisely by the kind of bigotry regularly on display by certain posters here.
*sips tea* ...but that's none of my business.
A neural net processa. A lurning computa.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/legal-opinion-says-promotion-policy-discriminates-on-basis-of-gender-critical-beliefs/
Simple as that.
Perhaps Scotland can offer a perspective. It used to be the case than anyone trying to cross one of the hundreds of Orange marches a year would get the shit kicked out of them with a blind eye turned by the cops, now those assaulters will be prosecuted which is of course progress. I assume however that anyone wearing a Celtic top would be restrained from mingling with the marchers, though hopefully the restraining copper wouldn’t tell them that they looked obviously Taig.
One to watch. Remember who told you
The police should have dealt with the matter more sensitively but the individual involved should also bear in mind that the police priority is to maintain order .
https://x.com/leokearse/status/1781627926019981817?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The Police priority is to enforce the law.
The individual broke no law and should be free to go about his business, within the law, as he pleases.
Only those who break the law should be arrested or threatened with arrest. Not those who wear short skirts or yamukahs or anything else that might provoke criminals into raping them, beating them up or whatever.
And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.
If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.
Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.
Prohibition does not work.
And even then the 'provocateur' would not be responsible for the criminal acts of others, so the argument falls down anyway.
It's a classic 'X was wrong, but Y should bear some responsibility for being sensible' false equivalence (it's not claimed as equivalence, but that is its efffect).
People are not required to be sensible at all times, they shouldn't be in fear of assault or harrassment by others for not being sensible, nor should they face possible arrest for not being sensible.
@M_S_Billingslea
·
13h
A very important requirement, buried in the Ukraine aid bill, is Section 505.
It forces Biden to do what he has so far refused to do: provide long-range ATACMS to Ukraine.
But it also gives him a waiver.
In the coming days we need to watch closely how the Admin responds.
https://twitter.com/M_S_Billingslea/status/1781811512073482739
**Hirst
Ol' Dames isn't fit to lick Edgar's boots.
Rayner - *may* have defrauded the taxpayer. We are the victims
Menzies - may have misused party funds. That’s up to the party what they want to do.
Green card - not legitimate at all. If the US authorities want to create an issue it’s up to them. But nothing to do with anyone here
Truss - I think she (or someone on her behalf) gave some kind of explanation. But lifting a dodgy quote is sloppy writing / editing anyway, not defrauding the taxpayer
So the three counter examples you have cited are all political attacks. Not a claim of potentially defrauding the tax payer
Also “Auguste Renoir”. Does pretty ladies in Montmartre. Kind of a cliche - oui oui, accordions and crepes - yet he carries it off vividly and cleverly. A significant talent, I think I’m the first to notice it
Hamas are a terrorism group. Terrorism is illegal. Therefore it makes sense for them to be prohibited.
Of course the prohibition of terrorism doesn't eliminate all terrorism but I'm not so liberal that I advocate the legalisation of murder.
I do believe that currently illicit drugs, non-illicit but harmful drugs like tobacco, sex trade etc while all a bad idea should be legal but discouraged.
Murder should remain illegal, yes.
There's nothing illegal with being Jewish. Jews are free to go about their business.
If you suspect some of the marchers are so racist they'll beat up someone for being openly Jewish, and I suspect you may be right to be so suspicious, then those criminals should be arrested if they do that and face the consequences of their actions.
We don't arrest women for wearing short skirts just because men might rape them.
We don't arrest those in burqas for wearing burqas just because racists might beat them up.
We don't arrest those wearing yamukahs for wearing yamukahs just because racists might beat them up.
You really degrade yourself, coming out with such "logic".
It's so obviously shit that it's not worth explaining why.
Israel is the terrorist entity.
Yet there are British citizens who go and do some murdering in its armed forces every year. Then they come back to Britain, maybe after some R&R somewhere else. Do they get stripped of citizenship? Do they get jailed for terrorism? Do the police even show an interest in them?